The Role Of Women In The Church

[philosophette]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1195013' date='Feb 14 2007, 02:16 PM']
There's a lot of problems in the prideful attitudes of traditional Catholics. There's a lot of problems in the irreverent attitudes of many non-traditional Catholics.

I hate the way people take holy and beautiful traditions of the Church and turn them into the prideful vs. the humble. But I mean on both sides... those who would act holier than thou and be judgemental against those who do not do all the same good pious practices; as well as the frustratingly well intentioned people who won't do pious practices because they're afraid of coming off as being holier-than-thou. if everyone acts like that then OF COURSE the only people doing those pious practices will be the ones with the holier-than-thou attitudes. It's really quite a sad cycle.

Anyway, I am no misogynist. I love women for their unique femininity and feel a lot of feminism is trying to justify women by giving them masculinity thereby fueling all the old sexisms in a new and more androgynous way. It's really sad, there could be such a beautiful and good feminist movement to expand upon the beautiful choreography the sexes could have; instead we get this contentious bitter movement trying to tear down distinctions between the sexes.
[/quote]

Al,

I agree with everything which you say here. I am sorry if you felt personally attacked in any way, for that was not my intention. I was speaking to a mindset and an attitude which I find to be wholly demeaning feeling. I think that you do a great job in what you do on PM and I have often found your posts to be very helpful. I do not agree with everything you say, but I do respect you for it.

I do not want an androgynous version of the Church! My Lord, how boring that would be! What I want is the attitude of those who speak about women's roles in the Church to not have such a harsh and demeaning sound to it. I do not think that people are necessarily aware of sounding that way, either, which is the main problem. This is why, in the post, I said "seems misogynistic" not "is misogynistic".

The middle I want is were there is no need for these stupid labels. Self-labling, labeling of others, labeling of ideas, but a place where Catholics are simply [i]Catholics[/i] and can do and be themselves without needing to resort of politics. Perhaps it is too utopian of me, but I have had very bad experiences on both sides of the spectrum, and I do not want to be thought of as either neo-con or lib. It is hard to find a place where you are not somehow compelled to take a side.

[Aloysius]

great... just wanted to make sure I was not contributing to this sense you had of an anti-woman sentiment. my position is pro-woman, that women ought to reclaim femininity and the men ought to reclaim masculinity and that the gender signs of the liturgy ought to be restored to help facilitate all of this.

but you are correct about the more abrasive simplistic posts which may pop up in support of my side. the explanation I offer is that it is reactionary against androgyny and that's why it may seem misogynistic. but that doesn't make a position that veils are required demeaning... that just makes their abrasive, direct, and simplistic comments seem demeaning. in that sense I can understand what you're against.

I'll never like this idea that we all just have to get in the middle and tolerate the charismatic movement as if it were on equal footing with the traditionalist movement. divisiveness and contentiousness is terrible, yes, but there are many things about the traditionalist movement which are necessary to the life of the Church to restore because it keeps a continuity with the entire history of the Church. sometimes innovations might be somewhat good and eventually be adopted into the liturgy; but lots of fleeting innovations are bad for the life of the Church and produce a sense of discontinuity in the liturgical history of the Church and that is unacceptable.

[philosophette]

Hehehe... Charismatic movement is a little too emotional for me (I tend to be uncomfortable with public displays of emotion and laying hands on one another and so on) but the Traditional Latin Mass also seems a little distant to me, as well. I used to attend it, but it is hard for me to feel comfortable at it, even though I learned Latin and made friends there. I guess it is the end result of growing up with video games! hahaa.

How about a Charismatic Latin Mass?

Ok, Al, don't have a heart attack - I'm teasing.

I would willingly wear a chapel veil if it was the norm and the theology behind it was properly understood (which is where people like you come in). I kind of like it, as it makes the Church space feel different, but I hate those lace ones *gag*. My mother over did the lace in our house when I was a kid. I have lace-trauma. I tend to have a big ego though, and unless it was the norm somewhere I went I would not do it. I would quickly go to Pharisee....

Edited February 14, 2007 by philosobrat

[Oik]

Two initial points:
1. I am an Eastern Catholic, all my points come from this
2. I am only replying to the OP, though I have read through the entirety of the thread.

[quote]
1) I am SICK SICK SICK of hearing about how women should/must/have to/are offending God and the angels of they do not/are recommended to wear chapel veils in church.
--- Some women feel a call to do this, some women do not. It is not the norm anymore. I do not do it because most of the women who do do it around me are very "holier than thou" about it and it makes me feel ostracized. I respect anyone who does it for devotional reasons, but I think there is a fine line between devotion and showmanship and I have seem far more showmanship than devotion where I live.
I also notice that it is mostly MEN who devote SO MUCH time to talking about it. Geesh. If only they were SO INTERESTED in compassionating us and understanding what our monthly annoyance entails.[/quote]
There are always holier than thou out there in the world. It is not going away. I have been accused of it myself many times for insignificant things. However, I don't see how a chapel veil or headcovering has anything to do with it, either way.
It does not matter to the actaul practice of headcoverings whether men or women are more or less concerned with it.
The Pope is a man. He will always be a man. If He institutes the mandatory pracitce of headcovering for the Roman Church, they I submit that women in his Church would follow it. Still, it would be a man that decided.
The closing generalization is one I don't understand.

[quote]2) I feel like there is a spirit of misogyny around here, especially among the more traditionally leaning Catholics. I doubt that it is intention, but it still clouds the discussions.[/quote]
Feminism, misogyny...its all the same in clouding one's judgment.

[quote]FOR THE LOVE OF MARY people, if you are going to debate SO MUCH about the how women are not to do this or that PLEASE have a few decent conversations about what women CAN DO in the liturgy. What can we do? Is us reading also offensive? I am sure a number of you would say so. How about bringing up the gifts? How about doing the collection? How about ANYTHING.
I am not a mother, I am not a wife, I am not a nun. I do not have those roles in the Church at this time... I am a single woman and I go to church, I participate in the liturgy and I feel very ALONE. I feel like there are few places for me in the Church outside of Mothering someone or cleaning the Church or cooking... THERE has to be more. I did some cantoring at one point and several people had the NERVE to come up to me and tell me that the place of women in the Church is to cook the after Mass meal, not to lead the singing. It hurt even worse because the men who cantor make it a competition and are not nice to one another... and I had spent a month preparing without their support.
I look back at the whole "Alter Girls" discussion and its tag line is "step away from the alter". Excuse me? This is the mindset of the future leaders of the Church? I love reverence in the Mass, but it is like the involvement of the woman seems to destroy that in their minds. Is not that flesh that the priests hold of a WOMAN. Was not the first Altar of Christ a WOMAN, was not his first throne a WOMAN, was not his first friend a WOMAN, his first disciple a WOMAN, were not the ones who were faithful to him in his passion WOMEN.
People of this mindset which so bothers me also seem to have a deep devotion to Mary, but what kind of Mary do they love? She was WOMAN, she was instrumental in our salvation, she said yes to God when most men would not even have the courage to do so. She had breasts, a womb, long hair, a feminine features and emotions - she was the best of each and every woman we know --- not some kind of uber woman who was/is beyond any other womanly trait we can think of. If she is I do not think I want her for my model then, for that will just set me up for discouragement and failure.
[/quote]
I am sorry that you were ill treated. Sounds like some people you have encountered are misinformed.
What can anyone DO in the Liturgy? First off, the word Liturgy means "work of the people." Just by showing up and celebrating (in the East, we celebrate the Divine Liturgy) you are doing God's work. So, Liturgy already involves doing. Demanding that you have a right to do things merely becuase of 'gender' or 'sex' is offensive. It is not a matter of can men or women read, it is a matter of who is the tonsured reader (which the West has completely and purposely forced into disuse). No one can go behind the Iconostase unless they are given this. It is the Holy Place. Again, this has been lost in the West. No one but a tonsured reader should read unless they are asked to by the Priest. In my Church, women are asked all the time. In other Eastern Churches, there are Women readers, trained and blessed by the Bishop. We need to restore this everywhere, HOWEVER, not because of 'gender' or 'sex', but becuase of Tradition. Who does the collection can be man or woman. As for 'bringing up the gifts', only the Roman Church does this. The Eastern Chruches don't (to my knowlegde). In my Church, the Holy gifts are prepared before the Divine Liturgy. We have the beautiful tradition of having certain people (those who have volunteered ahead of time) in the parish baking the prosphora (bread used for the Eucharist).
In the Eastern Chruches, there will not be altar girls ever. This practice allowed in the Roman Church is against our tradition. However, Priest' wives and Deacon's wives have very important roles in the Church. I also hope that one day soon, the order (legitimate and historical) of Deaconesses will be restored, as well as consecrated virgins and widows.
In regards to the Holy Theotokos, we have a deep devotion to her in the East. The Holy Mothers are also highly commemorated in our Churches. Some even have the title, "Equal of the Apostles". I invite you, as did Pope John Paul the Great, may his memory be eternal+, to research the treasures of the East. See also Orientale Lumen written by Him.

[quote]
One of the posts says this:
1 Corinthians 14:34
"Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53014.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53014.htm[/url]
Women are commanded to keep silent and not to have authority of teaching in the Church, this command of Saint Paul the Apostle is in reflecting the Jewish Temple System that the Catholic Church proceeds to being the Universal Religion of God.


Ouch. That is all I can say. Where is the kindness and sensitivity to women in these responses? It is so harsh. So black and white.

Well, I don't want to be silent. I want to speak, and teach, and love, and use all of my gifts, but as time goes on and I keep being mistreated by men in the Church and put down simply because God made me female I really really wonder if the Catholic religion is really the true faith. How could God, who made men and women both, desire that we be treated like this?[/quote]
Sister, I urge you to persevre and like so many, run the race to win.
[quote]
Now do not take me as some kind of liberal, left wing feminist. I am Catholic feminist. I do not want a female priesthood or anything like that. What I want is for YOU MEN to stop talking to us like we are either idiots, going to take over the Church, want to destroy the Church, want to take away all of your little roles from you and never give them back... talk to us as if you are the sole authority on EVERYTHING CATHOLIC even though you are lay men and not priests or bishops... you are not greater than we are just because you are a man or have read more books than we have time to because we are busy serving and doing your laundry, cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the children.

Do you know why we are silent, why we do not have time to do all that you do? It is because we are fulfilling the love of Christ in the lives of others. You may have the staff, but we have the heart and the heart is what draws people to Christ.

So, PLEASE people, lets have a conversation about what women CAN DO in the Church and the liturgy... because I am VERY frustrated.[/quote]
I have met a few who use this term Catholic feminist. What are its fruits? I do not see what feminism can offer the Church, either here or in Heaven. I can see the fruits of dignity that Christ and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church offers.
What I see is a society were men and women do not understand even the most basic realities of 'mankind'.

For a true Christian Anthropolgy, we need to realize that we do not know WHY God created man and woman. Man and woman is a Mystery. Like all Holy Mysteries, we MUST respect it, because it is given from God.

[philosophette]

Oik.

I attended an Eastern Rite Parish (Romanian Byzantine) for two years. I was very involved in the parish life and I learned how to bake the prosphora. It was definitely different from my Roman Rite experience. I especially like how there is a deeper involvement of the congregation (The Lord Have Mercys... Father Bless...). I attended the Chrysostom Liturgy and I feel it is more attentive to the attention span of the normal person! :

The issue of the iconostasis is something which bothered me. The men of the parish would be allowed to go behind it, but they would stand back there with the priest and gossip and chat, but the women were told that they were not allowed because they are impure (do to menstruation). It was an odd situation indeed.

Catholic Feminism has nothing to do with mainstream feminism. It is an understanding of the authentic role of women in creation and the Church. I consider Edith Stein's book on woman to be a paramount Catholic Feminist work.

[Oik]

Sadly, many Eastern Chruches are marred by markedly ethnic exclusiveness.
However, The US is not Romania, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Thankfully many Bishops (including those of my Church) understand this and the 'ghetto ethnic' mentality is falling a way.

I can tell you that while this might happen, it is not the norm. The Deacon or Priest is usually very strict about the Holy Place. However, like anything, you have those who do not respect this.

[quote]Catholic Feminism has nothing to do with mainstream feminism. It is an understanding of the authentic role of women in creation and the Church. I consider Edith Stein's book on woman to be a paramount Catholic Feminist work.[/quote]

This isn't feminism, this is the Truth and it transcends such labels. Can a man be a feminist? If so, why can't Manism be about feminism? Can I call myself a Manist, meaning one who is a man supporting the same idea. It all seems too exclusive. The Truth is all inclusive and it is the Church.
I have not read the book you mention, but I can tell you that the miracle (or at least one imporant one) that lead to the canonization of Edith Stein was one of a married Melkite priest!
Please see this [url="http://www.melkite.org/Stein2.html"]link[/url]

[Veritas]

+

I'm not going to get into a big debate over all of this and I haven't had time to read all of the posts. But, I will say 1. I am not more Catholic than the Pope 2. "neo-con" is a ridiculous label (Catholics aren't liberal or conservative -those are political terms: We are either faithful or unfaithful). 3. Men and women are different, but are equal in dignity. Therefore, it is perfectly respectable for there to be distinct gender roles. One need look no further than our bodies and Genesis for this. For example, I, a woman, prefer men in leadership positions. I think it more suits their talents and God-given abilities as well as being Biblical. I also prefer women in the role of helper for the same reasons.

I think sometimes women need to get over themselves. I have never felt ill-used or abused by the men on phatmass. On the otherhand, I find their honesty refreshing. I am so tired of feminazis. Women and men are not identical.

[philosophette]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1195207' date='Feb 14 2007, 05:06 PM']
+

I'm not going to get into a big debate over all of this and I haven't had time to read all of the posts. But, I will say 1. I am not more Catholic than the Pope 2. "neo-con" is a ridiculous label (Catholics aren't liberal or conservative -those are political terms: We are either faithful or unfaithful). 3. Men and women are different, but are equal in dignity. Therefore, it is perfectly respectable for there to be distinct gender roles. One need look no further than our bodies and Genesis for this. For example, I, a woman, prefer men in leadership positions. I think it more suits their talents and God-given abilities as well as being Biblical. I also prefer women in the role of helper for the same reasons.

I think sometimes women need to get over themselves. I have never felt ill-used or abused by the men on phatmass. On the otherhand, I find their honesty refreshing. I am so tired of feminazis. Women and men are not identical.
[/quote]


Just because you have not experienced does not mean that other women have not.

I think the male/female leadership really depends upon the situation. I do not think that men always make the best leaders.

Feminazis? Wow, you are harsh. That kind of attitude is the type that really hurts other people. I do not think Jesus would ever call anyone a "feminazi".

I think that I will get "over myself" once I start having some decent experiences of the proper roles of men and women in the Church. Until then I am going to keep waiting and see what happens. You are really very rude to be so hard on the people in this conversation without actually reading the whole discussion.

Edited February 14, 2007 by philosobrat

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1195207' date='Feb 14 2007, 06:06 PM']
+

I'm not going to get into a big debate over all of this and I haven't had time to read all of the posts. But, I will say 1. I am not more Catholic than the Pope 2. "neo-con" is a ridiculous label (Catholics aren't liberal or conservative -those are political terms: We are either faithful or unfaithful). 3. Men and women are different, but are equal in dignity. Therefore, it is perfectly respectable for there to be distinct gender roles. One need look no further than our bodies and Genesis for this. For example, I, a woman, prefer men in leadership positions. I think it more suits their talents and God-given abilities as well as being Biblical. I also prefer women in the role of helper for the same reasons.

I think sometimes women need to get over themselves. I have never felt ill-used or abused by the men on phatmass. On the otherhand, I find their honesty refreshing. I am so tired of feminazis. Women and men are not identical.
[/quote]

Maybe you SHOULD actually read the entire thread before commenting, since your comments do not respond to the actual discussions that took place.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='philosobrat' post='1194863' date='Feb 14 2007, 12:55 PM'] My understanding is that if you desire a reverent liturgy, balanced roles for men and women in the Church, a respect for the dignity of each person, a sense of the sacred and the vocation of the Catholic in the modern world then you are CATHOLIC not a neo-con. Neo-con, in my experience, means you are too far to the right; liberal is too far to the left. The happy middle is where Benedict XVI sits and JPII sat. I like to stick with the Pope.
[/quote]

It's all good. It's a different, and basically useless because I don't like labels for anybody for the most part, discussion anyways. I just thought it was interesting because most "traditionalist" catholics that are still in union with your Pope etc. call the many catholics who are not overly conservative or liberal a "neo-con". It's a generalization, but but looking from the outside in many people see the "conservatives" "neo-cons(ervatives)" and the "liberals". I just thought it was interesting that the label was thrown in the other direction.

Okay, back on topic for realz this time

[philosophette]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1195374' date='Feb 14 2007, 07:08 PM']
It's all good. It's a different, and basically useless because I don't like labels for anybody for the most part, discussion anyways. I just thought it was interesting because most "traditionalist" catholics that are still in union with your Pope etc. call the many catholics who are not overly conservative or liberal a "neo-con". It's a generalization, but but looking from the outside in many people see the "conservatives" "neo-cons(ervatives)" and the "liberals". I just thought it was interesting that the label was thrown in the other direction.

Okay, back on topic for realz this time
[/quote]


Interesting point. I am just speaking to how they are used where I live. The terms probably differ from region to region... but they are kind of dumb anyway.

[Socrates]

Two points:

1) (a little off-topic, but) The term "neo-con" is being completely misused here. "Neo-conservative" means literally "new conservative," and its main use is in politics, where it refers to a political ideology held by people who are largely former liberal, largely Jewish, who support "interventionalist" foreign policy and the state of Israel. They are opposed by "paleo-cons" (old-school conservatives) who believe in limited government and "isolationist" military policy. They do not consider "neo-cons" true conservatives.
(Won't get into the whole debate here, as it's off topic.)
But, basically, "neo-conservative" does [i]not[/i] mean "ultra-conservative."

I don't like this political term being used religiously, but when I have seen it used previously in this context, it was used by "Rad-trads" to refer basically to any orthodox Catholics who were not "rad-trads." (Basically, using it to mean "wannabe, not really
conservative") It was used in just the opposite way you appear to use it.

2) While I'm not a "rad-trad," I am firmly against feminism in the Church, and believe in maintaining the ancient traditions of the liturgy practiced for 2000 years of Christendom. I do not the innovations of "altar girls" and superfluous "Eucharistic Ministers."
This has nothing to do with being misogynist or hating women, but is out of respect for the sacred liturgy. Serving at the altar was traditionally a role tied closely to the priesthood, and was a way to prepare boys for a possibile vocation to the priesthood. This role has been all-male for as long as it was recorded, and I see no need to change this in order to be "politically correct."
Likewise with "EMs." [i]Extraordinary[/i] ministers of the Eucharist was originally a role for extraordinary circumstances, where the priest is unable to to bring the sacrament to persons due to distance, etc. But now, it seems in many parishes, every "church-lady" sees it as her birthright to handle the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord.

There have always been roles for women in the Church, as attested to by thousands of female saints. But this does not mean we should try to crowd as many women around the altar as possible as altar servers, EMs, lectors and the like.

In fact, I find the whole feminist concern about there not being a place for women in the Church odd and misplaced, as many Catholic parishes have become increasingly female-dominated, and it is men that are not coming to Church, often put-off by the overly-feminine atmosphere.

As for quoting St. Paul being seen as "misogynistic," I think we should trust that the Apostle knows what he is talking about, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, better than we do. We chould try to conform our attitudes to the Church, rather than vise-versa.

And these debates about altar girls, chapel veils, etc., are not male vs. female, but are more about tradition. Some of the harshest critics of altar girls and such that I have seen have been women, in fact.

[goldenchild17]

Well put. Agreed on all counts.

[philosophette]

Socrates,

The wording of the person quoting St Paul was what I said seemed misogynistic, not St Paul himself.

What is wrong with women being lectors?

Men who do not come to church simply because there are too many women there really have no excuse. If they are supposed to be leaders why would they let that stop them? So we are supposed to be more masculine just so the men feel comfortable? Why not a healthy balance? Without female altar servers, EM, or the like I do not see what is wrong with female lectors.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1195427' date='Feb 14 2007, 06:14 PM']But now, it seems in many parishes, every "church-lady" sees it as her birthright to handle the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord.[/quote]it's not just ladies who see it as their birthright though.