What Does the Church Say to This Argument for Women's Ordination?

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

I don't see how I have yet to show that the judgment for men will be more severe, since its clearly shown above that Adam held the greater  responsibility to both God and mankind to not commit sin. God created men to be responsible for all of mankind (Patriarchs). He did not give women this role, and thus women will not be judged to the degree men will be. If God does judge women to the same degree as men, then He is not just.  However, we are taught that God is fair and thus He will not judge subjects to the same degree as Kings, students to teachers, bishops to priests, nor women to men. 

So if a man commits adultery he gets 100 years in ADX Florence but if a woman commits adultery she gets 6 months in Club Fed?

And this is because original sin entered the world through Adam and not Eve?

I don't see how A logically compels B.

Yes, the male is supposed to be the head of the household. But that does not mean that the male's responsibilities are greater in every respect. It does not mean that a man has a greater responsibility not to commit adultery (or any other sin) than his wife does. I do not think you have provided any evidence that men have a greater obligation not to sin than women do.

And your conclusion that because Adam has a greater responsibility than Eve, that therefore all men have a greater responsibility than all women, seems rather unfounded. There are many women throughout history that God has placed in positions of spiritual leadership that are much higher than yours or mine.

So your logic does not seem particularly sound to me, notwithstanding the fact that you have not pointed to any Church authority that supports your ultimate conclusion.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Peace

[Credo in Deum]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

So if a man commits adultery he gets 100 years in ADX Florence but if a woman commits adultery she gets 6 months in Club Fed?

"And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."

It was given to man to be head of the family. Much has been given to man, and much will be required of man. 

 

Quote

And this is because original sin entered the world through Adam and not Eve?

 

It's because God created man first in the order of creation. By doing so He made Man the father and head of the family and thus head of society since the family was the first natural society. As head of the family (society) man has a greater responsibility to avoid sin. 

[QUOTE ]I don't see how A logically compels B.

Yes, the male is supposed to be the head of the household. But that does not mean that the male's responsibilities are greater in every respect.

So the male is the head but this headship does not make him have grater responsibilities? That seems contradictory.  Please give an example of when headship does not involve greater responsibility and thus greater scrutiny in all things.  If the President was caught steeling the same item as yourself, who do you think would fall under greater scrutiny for the theft? Who do you think would be held to a higher standard than the other? 

 

Quote

And your conclusion that because Adam has a greater responsibility than Eve, that therefore all men have a greater responsibility than all women, seems rather unfounded.

 

I have not seen anything from you which refutes why it's unfounded. The Bible clearly shows the man is continually called by God to lead mankind in both the family and the ecclesiastical community. We see Christ pick basic men to be the first leaders of His Church and not His own Mother. Seems the Christ who is God has noto Changed His tune since He created Adam. This would make sense though since God is unchanging and all.

I mean if Christ didnt choose men over his own sinless mother to be heads of the Church because man has the greater responsibility, then I'm all ears as to hear your explination as to why He did chose men over His own sinless mother.

 

 

Quote

There are many women throughout history that God has placed in positions of spiritual leadership that are much higher than yours or mine.

 

What God permits and what God ordains are two different things. Because man is the head of the family (society) it is preferred that man assume the leadership roles within society. This is the case in both ecclesiastical society and secular society. Hence the male only priesthood within the ecclesiastical society.  

 

Quote

So your logic does not seem particularly sound to me, notwithstanding the fact that you have not pointed to any Church authority that supports your ultimate conclusion.

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas isnt a Church authority?  You better tell seminaries this because they're teaching his malarkey summa to seminarians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

More Aquinas malarkey 

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm

 

I answer that, It was right for thewoman to be made from a rib of man.

First, to signify the social union of man and woman, for thewoman should neither "use authority over man," and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man's contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet

[Peace]

So the male is the head but this headship does not make him have grater responsibilities? That seems contradictory.  Please give an example of when headship does not involve greater responsibility and thus greater scrutiny in all things.  If the President was caught steeling the same item as yourself, who do you think would fall under greater scrutiny for the theft? Who do you think would be held to a higher standard than the other?

I don't know how the law works where you live, but where I live the penalty for stealing is the same for the president as it is for every other person.

Let's take the president. He is the head of the USA. Does that mean that he has greater responsibility and is hit with greater scrutiny than every other American with respect to all things? I highly doubt it. If someone walks into the White House and there is a smudge on the stairs, people are not going to say "President Obama did not see to it that the cleaning staff was not properly trained." If someone hops the white house fence and walks into the white house without permission, people are not going to say "President Obama did not see to it that the white house was properly secured." No. The cleaning staff is responsible for keeping the WH clean, and the secret service is responsible for WH security. People are going to criticise the cleaning staff and the secret service when those things happen. I think you can come up with plenty of other examples.

The point here is that the President has a defined set of responsibilites that come along with being the president, such as setting foreign policy, being commander of the military, and so forth. If there are problems in these areas then he is held responsible for them. If he parks illegally he gets the same $35 dollar fine that every other person in the USA gets. Outside of his realm of responsibilities, his duty is the same as any other American.  The same is true for a husband. The husband may have a duty to see to the education of his children. He may have a duty to see that food is put on the table. Does that mean that he has supreme responsibility over his wife and his children with respect to every aspect of life? No. Of course not.

So then, I think you need to specifically establish that men have a greater duty to avoid sin than women do. I don't see how you get to that conclusion. Jesus does not say "Men be perfect, just as your heavenly father is perfect, but women, you can be a little less than perfect." Jesus does not say "John go and sin no more. Jane, go and try not to sin when you can."  Paul does not say "Neither fornicators nor adulters shall enter the kindom of heaven, but if you are a woman you have a better chance than a man."

Put simply there is no indication that the responsibility not to sin is greater for men than it is for women. I do not think that you see any distinctions made between men and women when it comes to our duty not to sin.

I mean if Christ didnt choose men over his own sinless mother to be heads of the Church because man has the greater responsibility, then I'm all ears as to hear your explination as to why He did chose men over His own sinless mother.

There is only one head of the Church.

As for why there is a male only priesthood, again - the duty not to sin is absolute. It is not a duty that some have in greater degree than others. You commit a mortal sin, you go to hell. You don't get a free pass because the male is the head of the household. The fact that certain people have a special role (celebrating Mass, for example) does not necessarily mean that they have a greater resonsibility not to sin than the laity does.

Perhaps the best argument you might have is that when a priest sins, it causes a greater scandal than when a member of the laity sins. But I don't think that applies between husbands and wives. A woman who commits adultery seems to create just as much scandal as a man who commits adultery.

What God permits and what God ordains are two different things. Because man is the head of the family (society) it is preferred that man assume the leadership roles within society. This is the case in both ecclesiastical society and secular society. Hence the male only priesthood within the ecclesiastical society.  

Again, you seem to think that because priests have special responsibilities with respect to some matters (such as the sacraments), then this must extend to a general leadership concerning everything. But I do not think that is the case. Some worthy tasks are more suited to laity than they are to priests. If you read a book called "Life and Holiness" by Merton he discusses this idea at some length. For example, he says "Whatever is the concern of the Church is also the concern of every member of the Church, not only of the hierarchy and clergy. Indeed, the economic questions discussed in Mater et magistra come under the special competency of the Christian layman, the citizen, the manufacturer, the farmer, the politician, and the man of business."

Saint Thomas Aquinas isnt a Church authority?  You better tell seminaries this because they're teaching his malarkey summa to seminarians.

I do not recall having said tht St. Aquinas is not a Church authority. I said that you have not quoted any Church authority to support the conclusion that you draw. You cite Aquinas for the principle that the original sin was contracted through Adam. Noone here disputes you on that point. What we dispute is the various conclusions that you draw from that point. You have not cited any authorities that make the same inferences and conclusions that you have made. Those inferences and conclusions appear to be simply your own speculation.

[Era Might]

An interesting piece I happened to come across:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/inebriateme/2014/09/theologyofwomen-the-prophetic-vocation/

As Joseph Ratzinger noted, in the Old Testament, you have women rulers (queens, but also Deborah, the Judge), you have women prophets, but you never have women priests.

Contrast this with the prophetic vocation. I think the New Testament bespeaks over and over again of women taking on a prophetic vocation. One thing I love to point out about women in the New Testament is that each and every single time a man dismisses a woman’s perspective, the narrative goes on to vindicate the woman–even, most strikingly at Cana, when that man is Jesus himself. I wrote glowingly of an article N.T. Wright wrote on women in the New Testament, but I do have a reservation: he writes of the woman who anoints Jesus with the expensive oil that she is fulfilling a priestly role. I disagree. I think she is performing a prophetic role: she is Samuel anointing David. I persist in thinking that Luke’s comment of Mary that she “pondered these things in her heart” is an indication that Mary is the source of the infancy narratives (who else would know what Mary pondered?).

And, most strikingly, Jesus’ Incarnation itself is bracketed by female prophecy. The Visitation, with Mary and Elizabeth and the Magnificat, at the start. And of course, the women at the tomb, and their role as “apostles to the apostles.”

[Basilisa Marie]

On 3/24/2016, 8:39:47, Era Might said:

An interesting piece I happened to come across:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/inebriateme/2014/09/theologyofwomen-the-prophetic-vocation/

As Joseph Ratzinger noted, in the Old Testament, you have women rulers (queens, but also Deborah, the Judge), you have women prophets, but you never have women priests.

Contrast this with the prophetic vocation. I think the New Testament bespeaks over and over again of women taking on a prophetic vocation. One thing I love to point out about women in the New Testament is that each and every single time a man dismisses a woman’s perspective, the narrative goes on to vindicate the woman–even, most strikingly at Cana, when that man is Jesus himself. I wrote glowingly of an article N.T. Wright wrote on women in the New Testament, but I do have a reservation: he writes of the woman who anoints Jesus with the expensive oil that she is fulfilling a priestly role. I disagree. I think she is performing a prophetic role: she is Samuel anointing David. I persist in thinking that Luke’s comment of Mary that she “pondered these things in her heart” is an indication that Mary is the source of the infancy narratives (who else would know what Mary pondered?).

And, most strikingly, Jesus’ Incarnation itself is bracketed by female prophecy. The Visitation, with Mary and Elizabeth and the Magnificat, at the start. And of course, the women at the tomb, and their role as “apostles to the apostles.”

I think this might be hugely important.

[beatitude]

On ‎11‎/‎03‎/‎2016‎ ‎19‎:‎14‎:‎22, Basilisa Marie said:

Basically the Church's argument boils down to either "We've always done it this way" or "Jesus chose men to be the 12 apostles." Or people avoid the question entirely and try to change the subject to how the Church isn't sexist. It doesn't really engage with any of the arguments, though some theologians do. Women's ordination is a really modern question in the scope of the Church, and we've really only developed our theology in areas that have been challenged or in areas where people are basically writing about themselves. It doesn't really engage with the argument posed in the article because we don't really have that great of a theology of masculinity and femininity (and yes friends I know about JPII and referring to motherhood and the vague "feminine genius" just doesn't cut it, plus we have next to nothing on masculinity). The question raised by the women's ordination is more about the tension between our idea that men and women are different and yet we don't say we have different baptisms. No one has really articulated, in an official capacity, what exactly about masculinity is essential to the priesthood and what about femininity excludes it, while also maintaining the common baptism. It's an area for growth for us.

Seeing someone state this plainly was refreshing for me. I have never been convinced by any of the theological arguments against women's ordination (or, for that matter, by any of the theological arguments for it - the quality of debate on this issue has always seemed flimsy to me). I accept an all-male priesthood because this is in keeping with the mind of the Church, but I do so out of obedience, not because any particular argument has convinced me.

[anchoress]

Interesting. Over the last few months here in Ireland this idea has been aired many times. The great " quest" for "equality" that seems to result in homogenisation rather than true equality, ie if a man can do it then a woman must be allowed to do it. And that extends to the priesthood. In vain have I argued that we have equally vital but different roles, equally valued, but no!  I was not fast enough to say OK when  a man can give birth I will accept that. As a former Anglican, I see woman in leading roles and wonder why they insist on dressing and looking like male priests... I am not a theologian; just all seems instinctively "wrong" and alien. I knew very caring  women pastors; but just not the same. I have no problem with fulfilling different roles in the Church. It is to serve. Simply that. As we are, as we are born. as we are  needed and can serve

[beatitude]

2 hours ago, anchoress said:

Interesting. Over the last few months here in Ireland this idea has been aired many times. The great " quest" for "equality" that seems to result in homogenisation rather than true equality, ie if a man can do it then a woman must be allowed to do it. And that extends to the priesthood. In vain have I argued that we have equally vital but different roles, equally valued, but no!  I was not fast enough to say OK when  a man can give birth I will accept that. As a former Anglican, I see woman in leading roles and wonder why they insist on dressing and looking like male priests... I am not a theologian; just all seems instinctively "wrong" and alien. I knew very caring  women pastors; but just not the same. I have no problem with fulfilling different roles in the Church. It is to serve. Simply that. As we are, as we are born. as we are  needed and can serve

I am not convinced by advocates of women's ordination who try to use the same arguments they would use about women's right to equal participation in secular careers (law, medicine, etc.) because a vocation isn't like a career and in trying to reduce it to one they end up shoring up clericalist attitudes rather than reducing them - the idea that to make a worthwhile contribution you have to be a priest, and everybody else is second best, for example.

However, using arguments from biology against women's ordination doesn't make sense either. We don't have an all-male priesthood because women are biologically incapable of being priests in the way men are biologically incapable of giving birth. There's nothing about the male reproductive system in and of itself that's essential to priesthood. (As an aside, this reminds me of something an Anglican friend innocently said to me about her father's views on women vicars: "He thinks there is something in a woman's makeup that makes them unsuitable to be a priest, which is complete balls." I think it took me about five minutes to stop laughing.)

[NadaTeTurbe]

Like Beatitude, I've never been convinced by the arguments against women's ordination, I accept them because the Church said it, and Saint John Paul II said it and don't doubt him. Plus, the Church have been teaching it since 2,000 years, so it's what Jesus want. But I've never been convinced by arguments in favort of women's ordination. It's something that would hurt a lot of people, maybe give birth to a schism. And concretely, how do you do seminary with women and men living together ? I know communities where brothers and sisters live together, and there's A LOT of stories like "brother X left to live with sister Y". Do we want that in seminaries ? In parish life ? For me, women's ordination is wrong, not only because it goes against st John Paul II teaching, but because it's a lot of unnecessaries problems and difficulties in church life. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by NadaTeTurbe

[Nihil Obstat]

11 minutes ago, NadaTeTurbe said:

For me, women's ordination is wrong, not only because it goes against st John Paul II teaching, but because it's a lot of unnecessaries problems and difficulties in church life. 

Be careful though. Those issues you mention are consequences which obtain because ordination of women is an impossibility. They are not reasons against women's ordination. John Paul taught clearly against it because it is wrong; it is not wrong because he taught against it.

[Basilisa Marie]

I'm just personally musing here, so don't take any of this as gospel, but I'm intrigued by the idea of priesthood and prophesy.  

If masculinity is more closely tied to priesthood and femininity to prophesy,  that begins to address the problem of different sexes and a male priesthood but a common baptism.  It also helps us play with the idea that it is more fitting for Christ to be male, as the great high priest.  Priesthood seems to be intrinsically tied with sacrifice, and we're called to live it particularly through self sacrifice.  Prophesy seems to be tied more with the Holy Spirit, which some believe to be the more feminine of any of the persons of the trinity. Granted the wisdom of God,  Sophia, is what is called feminine and isn't exactly the Holy Spirit.  And you'd have to be careful not to jump into Trinitarian heresy by assigning too much kingship to the Father.  But if you look at the way a lot of women act in Scripture,  female saints,  AND the way a lot of women theologians act today,  prophesy seems to fit well with what they are doing. A lot of them speak out for the marginalized, for the truth, and for what may be unpopular or against the status quo.  I'm not talking heresy,  I'm talking regular theology.  Though an objection would be that there are plenty of male prophets, and prophet isn't really a title or office or anything in the church.  

Anywho,  I just think it's fascinating.  Like I said before we need a better theology and I think we'll get it in the next hundred years.  Stuff takes a while.  

Edited March 27, 2016 by Basilisa Marie

[franciscanheart]

where are people like @phatcatholic and whats-his-name when you need them?

[Era Might]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2016‎ ‎3‎:‎14‎:‎29‎, Basilisa Marie said:

I'm just personally musing here, so don't take any of this as gospel, but I'm intrigued by the idea of priesthood and prophesy.  

If masculinity is more closely tied to priesthood and femininity to prophesy,  that begins to address the problem of different sexes and a male priesthood but a common baptism.  It also helps us play with the idea that it is more fitting for Christ to be male, as the great high priest.  Priesthood seems to be intrinsically tied with sacrifice, and we're called to live it particularly through self sacrifice.  Prophesy seems to be tied more with the Holy Spirit, which some believe to be the more feminine of any of the persons of the trinity. Granted the wisdom of God,  Sophia, is what is called feminine and isn't exactly the Holy Spirit.  And you'd have to be careful not to jump into Trinitarian heresy by assigning too much kingship to the Father.  But if you look at the way a lot of women act in Scripture,  female saints,  AND the way a lot of women theologians act today,  prophesy seems to fit well with what they are doing. A lot of them speak out for the marginalized, for the truth, and for what may be unpopular or against the status quo.  I'm not talking heresy,  I'm talking regular theology.  Though an objection would be that there are plenty of male prophets, and prophet isn't really a title or office or anything in the church.  

Anywho,  I just think it's fascinating.  Like I said before we need a better theology and I think we'll get it in the next hundred years.  Stuff takes a while.  

I think Crist's words about John the Baptist are important to the questions you're asking:

And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak to the multitudes concerning John. What went ye out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind? But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are in costly apparel and live delicately, are in the houses of kings. But what went you out to see? a prophet? Yea, I say to you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee. For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.

--Luke 7:24-28

John the Baptist filled the office of prophet as perfectly as one could fill it. He lived a life of complete sacrifice and witness. But what Jesus says is, the kingdom does not begin with the ascetics or the office-holders. It begins with those who are called, not because they do great deeds, but because they are called, period. If you want careerism and honor, go to the palaces of kings. Priests and prophets are not God's marines, they aren't "the best and the brightest." They are at the back of the line, holding the door open for the cripples and the prostitutes. That's part of the problem with the insistence on women priests, it's based on a vision of egalitarian equality that makes some sense in society, but the Gospel has always been a witness to a different order. But, at the same time as one rejects the demands for women priests, there is also a flip side where one must criticize the church and the priesthood as institutions, because they, too, have become careers, and so one can hardly fault people for thinking of them in the same terms as other social institutions. I think this is what Pope Francis was getting at a few years ago in an interview he did:

"Religious men and women are prophets,” says the pope. “They are those who have chosen a following of Jesus that imitates his life in obedience to the Father, poverty, community life and chastity. In this sense, the vows cannot end up being caricatures; otherwise, for example, community life becomes hell, and chastity becomes a way of life for unfruitful bachelors. The vow of chastity must be a vow of fruitfulness. In the church, the religious are called to be prophets in particular by demonstrating how Jesus lived on this earth, and to proclaim how the kingdom of God will be in its perfection. A religious must never give up prophecy. This does not mean opposing the hierarchical part of the church, although the prophetic function and the hierarchical structure do not coincide. I am talking about a proposal that is always positive, but it should not cause timidity. Let us think about what so many great saints, monks and religious men and women have done, from St. Anthony the Abbot onward. Being prophets may sometimes imply making waves. I do not know how to put it.... Prophecy makes noise, uproar, some say ‘a mess.’ But in reality, the charism of religious people is like yeast: prophecy announces the spirit of the Gospel.”

...

“I see the holiness,” the pope continues, “in the patience of the people of God: a woman who is raising children, a man who works to bring home the bread, the sick, the elderly priests who have so many wounds but have a smile on their faces because they served the Lord, the sisters who work hard and live a hidden sanctity. This is for me the common sanctity. I often associate sanctity with patience: not only patience as hypomoné [the New Testament Greek word], taking charge of the events and circumstances of life, but also as a constancy in going forward, day by day. This is the sanctity of the militant church also mentioned by St. Ignatius. This was the sanctity of my parents: my dad, my mom, my grandmother Rosa who loved me so much. In my breviary I have the last will of my grandmother Rosa, and I read it often. For me it is like a prayer. She is a saint who has suffered so much, also spiritually, and yet always went forward with courage.

“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity. And the church is Mother; the church is fruitful. It must be. You see, when I perceive negative behavior in ministers of the church or in consecrated men or women, the first thing that comes to mind is: ‘Here’s an unfruitful bachelor’ or ‘Here’s a spinster.’ They are neither fathers nor mothers, in the sense that they have not been able to give spiritual life. Instead, for example, when I read the life of the Salesian missionaries who went to Patagonia, I read a story of the fullness of life, of fruitfulness.

http://americamagazine.org/pope-interview

I see the demand for women priests and the demand for gay marriage as being based on the same premise: one group of narcissists wants to be included in the rituals and offices of another group of narcissists. I'm reading "The Brothers Karamazov" at the moment and there's a famous parable in it called The Grand Inquisitor, about Christ coming back as a poor man, and being interrogated by a Grand Inquisitor who basically tells Christ, go away, you're messing up everything for us, this is our system. I think the only way one can formulate an honest response to the demand for women priests, is to be willing to undergo an honest critique of the priesthood as an institution. If the institution is just going to remain what it's been, then this will just be another wasted culture war, rather than an opportunity to tear down the whole structure and get back to the foundation of it (rather than building a new barracks for women).

[Peace]

On March 27, 2016 at 1:03:03 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

Be careful though. Those issues you mention are consequences which obtain because ordination of women is an impossibility. They are not reasons against women's ordination. John Paul taught clearly against it because it is wrong; it is not wrong because he taught against it.

So much for binding and loosing.