Women Priests

[carrdero]

[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes: If women feel a calling to serve God in an "ordained" (for lack of a better word) way, then they can do it by becoming nuns. Their lives are also challenging and present a way to serve God and His people in an "official" capacity.[/quote]

Yes but Jesus did not ordain nuns. The sisterhood seems like just an after thought delegated to women by male religious leaders who probably did not want women to persue the priesthood. 20/20 recently did an expose’ on nuns and they did a fair job exploring the good and the bad about pursuing such a lifestyle.

[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes: As a side note, I have never found a woman who has argued for women's ordination that wanted to be a priest herself.[/quote]
Neither have I but I still believe the option should be available.


[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes: I'm sure they're out there, but I haven't run into them yet. And it seems that the majority of the ones I've talked to use "fairness" as their clarion call.[/quote]

There was a thread on prostitution that I read in another religious forum and a forum member had wanted to know “why would a woman want a job like prostitution?” and somebody responded with the retort that women chose prostitution as a profession “because they did not want to work at McDonalds”. Now I am not relating or supporting prostitution to the topic in discussion (nor am I discrediting McDonald's employees) but it does make one wonder that even with the alternative of allowing women to become nuns, there are still some that may only be interested in becoming a priest because they do not want to participate in ministry that is outlined for a nun.

Edited December 1, 2007 by carrdero

[elizabeth_jane]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1427719' date='Dec 1 2007, 09:07 AM']Yes but Jesus did not ordain nuns. The sisterhood seems like just an after thought delegated to women by male religious leaders who probably did not want women to persue the priesthood.[/quote]
Wasn't it more like the women wanted to follow the male religious orders and they created a seperate sisterhood for them? St. Claire wanted to follow St. Francis, St. Scholastica and St. Benedict...it wasn't a pacifier, it was a sepa rate sort of work.

Female priesthood isn't an "option"--it's a vocation, it's a sacrament, and it's something the Church can't do.
And nuns aren't ordained, anyway, just FYI--that's a topic on another board!

[prose]

So.... Just to be clear I understand, because of everyone supporting female priesthood, only carrdero bothered to give me an answer.

The idea is that women are being (or so they say) spiritually called to be priests (priestesses??) is being squashed by the Church as a human invention, and therefore they are being denied the "right" to live out what their true calling is?

[-I---Love]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1427542' date='Nov 30 2007, 09:22 PM']I disagree and am completely surprised by your comments on this topic, cmotherofpirl.

I am (somewhat) familiar with the different indoctrination methods of different denominations and one has to admit; that the training and curriculum to become a Catholic priest is very extensive and thorough and a decision that no man (and I would also assume any women) would not take lightly or pridefully. Even if the celibacy rules were applied to women, it would still be a challenging commitment, one that every women may not see to a satisfying conclusion. The women who sincerely want to endure and embrace this lifestyle are women who truly feel that this calling will become not only a value to their lives but feel that they can successfully touch an affect other’s lives.[/quote]


These women may sincerely feel they are called to do this...BUT...it still becomes about them and not God. Why? Because God's greatest need and any woman's greatest personal gifts can not be offered by way of a vocation to the priesthood. Therefore they have to create a new path outside of God's need. I do not doubt some of these women's intentions and sentiment...but such good things can lead us to hell. These women are lead astray and in a tricky business of understanding our own spirituality (and psychology) they seek a path w/ misguided help or lack of real spritual direction. Of course others are much more anti-catholic, etc. It seems to me it becomes more of a "want to have this vocation," than "an offering of self in humility to this vocation." There is a big difference.

I concur that equality is often the argument.

[-I---Love]

double

Edited December 1, 2007 by -I---Love

[Lena]

[quote name='prose' post='1427821' date='Dec 1 2007, 02:25 PM']So.... Just to be clear I understand, because of everyone supporting female priesthood, only carrdero bothered to give me an answer.

The idea is that women are being (or so they say) spiritually called to be priests (priestesses??) is being squashed by the Church as a human invention, and therefore they are being denied the "right" to live out what their true calling is?[/quote]

I'll try to answer your question, since you seem to really be interested in hearing opinions for the sake of learning about differing opinions (even if you do disagree with them), as opposed to people who just want to read and rip. It's a good attitude, and a good question, because I think seriously asking for the "why" and a respectful attitude is important.

Firstly, I don't see a relationship with God simply as an experience that can just be confined to "roles." Since we do have earthly roles, we have to wonder what they really represent, what they mean, and how is God being experienced through them.

Is it really only a human invention that women could be called to the priesthood? If so, where do we draw that line in understanding what's a human invention and what is God's invention. How valid can a very real desire to serve God as a female priest be interpreted as a mere humanly desire? I'm sure any desire of this nature is born from both the divine and the earthly. I do think it's presumptuous of us to pass judgment over a person's calling. When someone aspires to the priesthood, are they appealing to God as a male? As a female? Or simply as a servant of God? Does our sex limit and overtake the fact that we are all servants of God? I don't think so.

So, then why aren't some women satisfied with the options that are open to them, such as being a nun? That's a good calling, but it is different than the calling to the priesthood. That much is true. I understand that the priesthood is not just an occupation. That's probably the whole point. What else is it? I can't explain that fully as I'm not a priest, but I would say in simple terms that it is a connection with God. That connection is not something that I have, or most others here have. But, if you do feel a desire to be a priest, and you're male, you can share in that relationship. Or maybe be a monk. However, if you're female--sorry, you're denied. Is God really denying, or are humans? While, as a nun, you're still of value and worth, it's not quite the same. You can't partake, as a priest, in the mystery of the Mass. You aren't acting as a shepherd for the people of your community, and all that implies. Don't get me wrong though, I don't believe the priesthood is about power or prestige.

I've read of the belief that it's a lesbian-type relationship because the Church is the Bride. Should it really be a literal application? The priesthood isn't representing an earthly marriage between a man and a woman, because God isn't a gender. Why are are we feminizing the Church as though it can be thought of in terms of gender? I don't believe the Church is a gender. If anything, that's simply a way of placing the Church on a human level, which is limited. Paraphrased from the Catechism, our very knowledge of God is limited, and God transcends language (#40). Further on, [quote]#42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God…with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.[/quote] I think words can be twisted in this case and mis-represented easily enough. People who use the word "lesbian" as a reasoning for why women can't be priests use that word because they know what the connotations are in our society. Sexual orientation does not enter into the matter of the priesthood, so why use terms of sexual orientation?

Some women aspire to be priests because that is how they believe they can serve God. So you might say--oh, it's all about you, as a "feminist" (which has become a dirty word). Firstly, feminism isn't about females-wanting-to-be-males, which is a view born of narrow ignorance. Secondly, I don't think it plays a conscious role in the matter. Someone does not think, oh I'm a feminist that means I have the option to be a priest. I think it's more like oh, I'm a human, what can I do to serve God? Society has changed because of gender awareness, and continues to change. We will never reach a perfect state as a society, but we can learn from the past. Maybe that's why the issue of female priests has come up. Our society is still very patriarchal, to the point where I don't realize the full effects of it on my life until I stop to think and comprehend.

If anyone gets anything out of the concept of women's ordination, I think it does have to be understood as an issue, stated by the late Bishop Kenneth Untener, that people must [i]"accept the suggestion that there is a new question ... the discovery of a different window to look at it. It is the first time (the question) is being discussed in the context of the equality of men and women."[/i] (from the article, "Unanimous voice is recommended, but bishops divided on women's issue" -National Catholic Reporter, July 26, 1996).

It's definitely a new question for Catholicism today in that framework, which is why it's so debated. I think both sides of the debate have compelling reasons. Both sides also think they are right. I don't think there is an absolute truth to this matter, only our human interpretation of what we believe to be true.

Oh, and for anyone that is still reading this and has not walked away in disregard or disgust, yay for you. I never intended to write so much, but it's the kind of issue that isn't in simple terms.

[Jaime]

[quote name='prose' post='1427821' date='Dec 1 2007, 02:25 PM']So.... Just to be clear I understand, because of everyone supporting female priesthood, only carrdero bothered to give me an answer.

The idea is that women are being (or so they say) spiritually called to be priests (priestesses??) is being squashed by the Church as a human invention, and therefore they are being denied the "right" to live out what their true calling is?[/quote]

Scroll up Prose. I've provided a pretty decent response.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

[b]A Gender Gap in the Church?[/b]

By Father Jay Scott Newman

Even a cursory glance at most newspapers and magazines, both
Catholic and secular, suggests that there is a wide gulf of
misunderstanding and mutual suspicion between men and women in the
Church - especially between women and the aging, all-male,
celibate hierarchy.

The basic story line runs thus: The all-male priesthood is the
last redoubt of absolute patriarchal authority left in the Western
world, and those in power -particularly in Rome-will do anything
to preserve their positions of prestige and prevent women from
breaking this last irrational barrier to their full participation
in public life.

The story continues by pointing out that every major Protestant
communion now has female clergy and by suggesting that Rome's
failure to respond to this simple demand of justice is yet another
indication that Catholicism-as all reasonable people know-is and
always has been a force of oppression and domination. So runs the
standard story, but is it true?

In order to answer this question, it is necessary first to examine
the complex movement of feminism. Actually, feminism is not one
movement; it is, rather, several different projects which all
relate in some way to the role of gender in human life. Feminism
is at once a popular cultural movement, an intellectual school of
thought, an economic project and a personal creed. And although it
is a relatively new phenomenon in human affairs, feminism has had
enormous influence- for good and ill-in reshaping human society,
especially Western civilization.

Feminism, for example, has led in most Western nations to
universal suffrage, rapidly expanding economic and educational
opportunities for women, greater participation of women in civic
life and all cultural enterprises, stronger legal and moral
sanctions against sexual and physical abuse of women, and a
general recognition of the human dignity of women and of their
right-equal to that of men-to protection under the law from all
forms of injustice.

On the other hand, feminism, in some of its forms, has also
contributed to the acceptance of no-fault divorce and the
consequent destabilization of the family, the promotion of radical
individualism which depicts the human person as an imperial,
autonomous self free from obligations to all others, and the
acceptance of abortion-on-demand -a project which casts the
"rights" of women against the rights of children and their
fathers.

In short, feminism has brought forth a mix of blessings and curses
which on their face are contradictory. Why? There are several
reasons which explain these curious contradictions; the one we
will examine is this: There are (at least) two feminisms, each
with its own cultural, economic, political, philosophical and
theological assumptions and conclusions. They are secular feminism
and Christian feminism.

Secular feminism, in common with most forms of secular thought,
considers the world of human affairs without any reference to God.
There is no appeal to God as the origin and end of life, as the
author of nature and the source of all law and authority.

Consequently, the human person becomes the only arbiter of good
and evil, the sole source of all meaning and purpose. Each person
must decide for himself what is "good for me" and becomes
authentically himself only when he exercises his radical "right"
to self-determination. Thus does the "right to choose" become the
only moral absolute, and anyone who dares assert that a particular
choice is in itself evil and unacceptable is therefore accused of
intellectual fascism and judgmental intolerance of the other's
"choice."

To this general secular mentality, radical feminism brings ideas
related specifically to gender. One assertion of this type of
feminism is that gender is a quality of the person which touches
one's identity just as all other "merely" biological qualities do.
The color of one's skin, hair and eyes, the size and shape of
one's body and limbs, and one's biological sex are-according to
this view-qualities which describe the outward appearance of the
person but do not in any way constitute his essential identity.
And just as we now condemn any discrimination between persons on
the basis of race as the injustice of racism, so must we reject
any discrimination between persons on the basis of gender as the
injustice of sexism.

Another assertion of secular feminism is that all distinctions
between men and women are cultural, not natural. That is, all
important differences between the sexes are the product of human
choice, not something given in nature, and what is made by human
choice can be changed by human choice. For example, in Italy most
bank tellers are men; in America most bank tellers are women. This
shows that the association of jobs with gender (e.g., grammar
school teachers, nurses and secretaries are women; soldiers,
farmers and auto mechanics are men) is simply the product of
culturally relative, man-made choices which can be undone by
conscious choice and should be undone if injustice is the result.
So, for example, reserving service in the Army to men alone would
be unjust to women who choose for themselves to be soldiers, and
in the interest of justice, the government must permit women to
join the Army and enroll at West Point and in other officer
training programs.

So far, so good. But secular feminism then goes one more step: all
distinctions between male and female are unjust because men and
women are equally human, and the law can be concerned only with
human rights; not male human rights and female human rights, not
black human rights and white human rights, just plain human
rights.

Standing behind this assertion is the assumption that the human
person is a mental or spiritual being who possesses a body much as
a carpenter possesses a hammer; both the body and the hammer are
merely instruments used by the owner. To secular feminism, the
body is no more the person than the hammer is the carpenter, and
this concept of the human person has radical consequences.

For example, if two persons fall in love with each other and want
to commit themselves to each other in a relationship recognized by
the state as a legal partnership, then it does not matter whether
one is male and one is female any more than it matters whether one
is red-headed and the other blond or whether one is white and the
other black. If the body and its gender are merely superficial
qualities of the person and if all distinctions between the sexes
are the product of culture and not nature, then homosexual
marriage is illegal and considered immoral only because of the
injustice of sexism, just as racism, until the recent past, was
used unjustly to divide society.

As soon, therefore, as all vestiges of sexism are swept away by
cultural changes, then true equality for all persons will be the
result, and human society will be vastly improved, including a
provision for homosexual marriage. And to secular feminism, no
force is a greater enemy of such "progress" than orthodox
Christianity, especially the Catholic Church.

Which brings us to the Christian part of Christian feminism. Given
the understanding of the human person and the basis of gender
distinctions described above, the secular feminist concludes that
the only reason women cannot yet be priests is that the Catholic
Church is run by sexist misogynists who are dedicated to impeding
the legitimate progress of women. Such feminists cannot believe
that there are other reasons why women cannot be priests because
of their assumptions about human nature, assumptions which are
contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them" (Gn 1:27). Thus does Sacred
Scripture reveal that man is created by God in His own image and
that this creature is divided by God into two sexes. This divinely
given difference, however, is not meant to divide us; Genesis goes
on to explain that the distinction between the sexes is the
foundation of our complementarily, and that the union of male and
female in marriage is the divinely chosen foundation both of
personal fulfillment and the propagation of the human race.

From this revelation emerges an anthropology-a doctrine of man-
which sees the human person as by nature bodily and therefore
"sexed" or "engendered." The distinction of gender is, therefore,
not merely superficial -as race, hair color and finger length
truly are. Because the human person is a substantial unity of body
and soul, it is more the case that the person is a body than that
he has a body. The body and its gender are not merely instruments
to be used as the person chooses. Rather, the body and its gender
disclose something essential about the nature of the individual
person, both to himself and to others. I could dye my hair purple,
for example, without changing my personal identity, but if I
suddenly were a woman rather than a man, I would not be me. I am a
body united with a soul, and my body is male. I am, therefore, a
man, not a woman, and no choice of mine can undo my maleness.

By God's design, gender is an essential-not superficial-quality of
the human person which touches every personal relationship in the
most intimate way. And this distinction between male and female is
not the product of human choice or cultural change; it is given by
God in the nature He created. Now enter the feminist part of
Christian feminism.

A legitimate Christian feminism, reflected in Catholic teaching,
reminds us that despite our gender difference grounded in nature,
men and women are equally human, share equally in God's likeness
and image, and are equally the bearers of human rights and duties.
Where the true rights of women are denied, injustice truly is
present. When women are hated or slighted simply because they are
women, misogyny is at work. The human and personal dignity of men
and women is equal, and men and women are equally redeemed by
Christ.

In sum, before God, men and women are morally equal and before the
law they should be equally protected from injustice, but this does
not mean that they are the same, that they are interchangeable,
that they are undifferentiated. And for this reason, not all
distinctions between the sexes are unjust. Christian feminism must
identify these proper, just distinctions of our nature and help us
appreciate them and their consequences.

The most obvious and the most important distinction of gender is
in the procreation of children. Only women can conceive and bear
children; only men can provide the seed which makes the conception
possible. There are no generic parents or parenting; women are
mothers, and men are fathers. Even when, in the absence of the
father, the mother must perform functions in the family that are
traditionally associated with fatherhood, she remains in her being
and in her relations with her children a mother. The reverse is
true of fathers. A mother who teaches baseball and a father who
stays home to nurture infants are still, respectively, a mother
and a father.

In other words, <being> comes before <doing>, and to a certain
extent "being" what we are determines what we "do" and how we do
it. Many human occupations, such as nurse and mechanic, are
related to gender by custom rather than by nature, and the
function of the job can be performed equally well by male or
female. Family relations, however, and all intimate friendships
are not simply the arrangement of culture and custom. At their
most profound level, familial relationships are grounded in
nature, which for man is to say in his gender-differentiated
bodily existence. Which brings us to women priests.

Jesus Christ, the eternal Word made Man, reveals that the one true
God is a Trinity of Divine Persons: the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the very heart
of Christ's teaching is that God is our loving Father. Not our
mother; our Father. Moreover, Christ founded a Church on earth to
continue proclaiming the Gospel until He returns in glory, and He
entrusted the task of teaching, sanctifying and governing that
church to 12 Apostles, all hand-picked by Christ and all men
(males). These men, in turn, and St. Paul with them transmitted to
other men after them the power and duty to teach, sanctify and
govern the Church in Christ's name with the aid of the Holy
Spirit. Thus, by divine election was the Sacrament of Holy Orders
instituted for the welfare of the whole Church.

In the Old Covenant there were many priests who offered sacrifice
for the sins of the people. In the New Covenant there is only one
Priest, Jesus Christ. Moreover, He is both the priest Who offers
the sacrifice and the Sacrifice Which is offered. In Baptism, all
the Christian faithful-male and female alike-become sharers in the
priesthood of Christ. This is the royal or common priesthood of
the baptized which enables them to offer to the Father the
sacrifice of broken and contrite hearts, the sacrifice of holy
lives. Because we are baptized into the death and resurrection of
Christ, we become adopted sons of the Father and heirs to the
Kingdom of God. Without distinction, men and women who follow the
way of the Cross become equally capable of imitating Christ in the
daily struggle to die to self and live for others; this is the
fundamental equality of all Christians and the basis for full
membership in the Church-a membership conferred by reception of
the three sacraments of initiation: baptism, confirmation and the
Holy Eucharist.

But in addition to the common or royal priesthood of baptism,
there is another sacramental participation in the priesthood of
Christ. This form of Christian priesthood is ordered to the royal
priesthood but is essentially different from it; this is the
hierarchical or ministerial priesthood which is validly conferred
only on baptized males in the presbyterate and the episcopate.
Bishops and priests are made sharers in the priesthood of Christ
in such a way that they are able to stand in the place of Christ
and act in His Person. It is the restriction of this ministerial
priesthood to men only which secular feminism finds so offensive
and irrational for the reasons touched on above. Let's examine two
of them: cultural conditioning and function related to role.

No one disputes that Christ only men to be His apostles. The
question is, Why? Was He prevented by local prejudice and custom
from sharing apostolic authority with women? Or was His choice of
men alone solemn, free, deliberate and normative? It is frequently
suggested that because Christ lived in a primitive, misogynist
culture, His message would have been ignored if He had chosen
women to be His messengers; therefore, He chose only men. But now,
continues this argument, since our culture is more advanced and we
see that women and men are equal, there is, accordingly, no reason
why women cannot take their rightful place among ordained leaders
in the Church.

But here is the problem: Christ was not restrained by the cultural
defects of His day. Indeed, He regularly violated unreasonable
taboos of all kinds to demonstrate both His sovereignty and our
need to live in the truth. His friendship with Martha and Mary,
His encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well, His healing of
the woman with a hemorrhage, His treatment of the woman caught in
adultery, and His reliance upon Mary Magdalene to be the first
witness of the Resurrection all indicate that Christ's attitudes
about women were not the product of His time and place. To suggest
that Jesus was not free to choose only the persons He wanted to be
His apostles or that He did not truly know who would make the best
apostles is hubris of the worst kind. It suggests that the
Incarnation would have served humanity better by coming in
California in 1996 than in the exact time and place chosen by God,
what St. Paul termed the very "fullness of time."

So much for cultural conditioning; now for function related to
role. The ministerial priest stands in the place of Christ and
acts in His Person for the Church. Christ is both Head of the
Church and Bridegroom of the Church; the priest who represents
Christ sacramentally must therefore be able to act as the
Bridegroom as well as the Head. If you were casting a movie about
Richard Nixon, you would cast Anthony Hopkins, not Barbara
Streisand, to play the title role. Likewise, in the sacred
liturgy, he who stands in Christ's Person must have a natural
resemblance to Christ's humanity, which is now and always male.

This is not to say that women are not fully Christian, completely
redeemed, or equally able to imitate Christ in the struggle for
holiness; of course they are and can. Indeed, women frequently
manifest Christ's holiness far more clearly than their brothers in
the Church. Nevertheless, the sacramental economy takes human
nature and created realities as its starting point. Bread and
wine, oil and water: this is the stuff of which sacraments are
made. And embodied, engendered human nature is also an essential
feature of the sacraments. For this reason and because the Church
is the Bride of Christ, a female priest (were such possible) would
essentially be in a lesbian relationship with the Church. Some
will object that this is taking sacramental symbolism too far;
secular feminists will respond, "So what?" But faithful to the
scriptural teaching about human nature and the Church's
constitution, we must be concerned more about what the priest is
than about what he <does.> A woman may preach well and run a
parish well, but that no more makes her able to be an icon of
Christ the Head and Bridegroom of the Church than playing baseball
well transforms a mother into a father. And it is no accident that
the Catholic faithful call their priests "Father."

Even if we grant all of the above, however, the question still
remains: Did Christ intend the choice of only men to be normative
and binding for the ministerial priesthood in all times and
places? Before answering that question, though, we must first ask
a separate question: Who has authority? The answer is simple: only
the Bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome are authentic and
authoritative teachers of the Faith. When the Pope and the College
of Bishops, or even the Pope alone, teach in a matter of faith or
morals, then all Christians are obliged to give religious assent
of intellect and will to that teaching. The assistance of the Holy

Spirit is given to prevent the Pope and bishops from teaching
error in a matter of faith or morals either when that teaching is
extraordinary (as in an ecumenical council or a dogmatic papal
proclamation ex cathedra) or when it is universal and ordinary
teaching. (cf. <Lumen Gentium>, no. 25). This authority to teach
was recently exercised by Pope John Paul II precisely to answer
the question posed above: Is Christ's choice of only men for the
ministerial priesthood binding on all times and places? Yes.

On May 22, 1994, Pope John Paul II promulgated an apostolic letter
entitled <Ordinatio Sacerdotalis>. In his letter, John Paul II
quotes from a 1975 letter of Pope Paul VI addressed to the
Archbishop of Canterbury in which Pope Paul wrote: The Church
"holds that it is inadmissible to ordain women to the priesthood
for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example
recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing His Apostles
only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which
has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching
authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women
from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for His
Church."

Pope John Paul continues by recalling the 1977 Declaration on the
Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood,
<Inter Insigniores>, and his own 1988 Apostolic Letter <Mulieris
Dignitatem>, on the dignity of women. Then, after acknowledging
that some theologians mistakenly believed that this matter was
still open to debate, John Paul concludes with these remarkable
words: "In order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter
of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's
divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming
the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), I declare that the Church has no
authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and
that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church's
faithful."

Lest any doubt remain on this matter, on Oct. 28, 1995, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a
clarification at the direction of the Pope which declares that the
restriction of the ministerial priesthood to men belongs to the
deposit of faith: "This teaching requires definitive assent,
since, founded on the written Word of God and from the beginning
constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church,
it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal
Magisterium." Rome has spoken; the case is closed.

But is it? All Catholics of good will accept this matter as
definitively decided, and yet controversy continues. At first
glance, the controversy seems to be evidence of a gender gap, a
gulf of misunderstanding between men and women. On closer
inspection, however, one sees that the great divide is not a
gender gap; it's a doctrine gap. The difficulty is not between men
and women; still less is it between women and the hierarchy. The
problem is that there are not a few people in the Church, both men
and women, who have been seduced by the errors of secular feminism
and who therefore reject the authentic teaching of the Catholic
Faith. These same dissidents then describe their disagreement with
the Church as a gender gap and ascribe it to bad faith, crass
ignorance and misogyny on the part of the hierarchy, especially
Pope John Paul II. Their diagnosis, however, is based on confusing
secular feminist assumptions with the truth about human nature, a
truth supported and defended by authentic Christian feminism and
Christian anthropology.

Unfortunately for the Church, many of these gender dissidents are
in positions of ecclesiastical power. Scarcely a diocese,
seminary, religious community or parish has escaped the
machinations and protests of those who are sincerely, though
wrongly, convinced that the Church is on the losing side of this
cultural conflict. They seek to change the Church's teaching,
indeed her very constitution, and much damage has been inflicted.
The constant skirmishes over the use of feminist language
(described as "inclusive") are an ubiquitous, if silly, example of
the consequences of this doctrine gap.

The doctrine gap, though not a true gender gap, does appear to be
something of a generation gap. Many senior and middle-aged clergy
and religious profess to be shocked and frightened by the
"insensitivity" of most of the younger clergy to these questions.
What the seniors take to be signs of misogyny or other forms of
masculine insecurity, however, is usually simply a difference in
belief as outlined above. The secular feminists generally attempt
to turn every dispute into a personality problem (He's rigid.)
congenial to the therapeutic mentality, rather than face the
possibility that an objective, reasonable difference exists and
that they might be wrong. These disputes are commonplace in every
setting where the two generations meet in the Church seminaries,
religious houses and parishes. And in the crossfire, many lives
have been badly damaged and countless vocations destroyed. Who can
doubt that the spread of the Gospel is impeded by this sad
spectacle?

How can this doctrine gap be bridged? How can all of Christ's
faithful live in peace and mutual respect? In his letter to all
the conferences of bishops explaining the doctrinal force of
<Ordinatio Sacerdotelis>, Cardinal Ratzinger pointed the way: "The
singular originality of the Church and of the priestly ministry
within the Church requires a precise clarity of criteria.
Concretely, one must never lose sight of the fact that the Church
does not find the source of her faith and her constitutive
structure in the principles of the social order of any historical
period.

While attentive to the world in which she lives and for whose
salvation she labors, the Church is conscious of being the bearer
of a higher fidelity to which she is bound.

It is a question of a radical faithfulness to the Word of God
which she has received from Christ, Who established her to last
until the end of the ages. This Word of God, in proclaiming the
essential value and eternal destiny of every person, reveals the
ultimate foundation of the dignity of every human being, of every
woman and of every man."

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1427719' date='Dec 1 2007, 09:07 AM']Yes but Jesus did not ordain nuns. The sisterhood seems like just an after thought delegated to women by male religious leaders who probably did not want women to persue the priesthood.[/quote]

And where is the evidence for this?

Let's say the Church is just being sexist in insisting that women cannot be ordained. Granted, the Church has done a lot of sinful things, but when it comes to defining sacraments and other doctrine, we know that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from pronouncing anything false. So, for the Church to decide that women can be ordained means that the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years... and that would mean Jesus didn't establish the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit has failed to protect it... so why be Catholic?

[quote name='carrdero' post='1427719' date='Dec 1 2007, 09:07 AM']There was a thread on prostitution that I read in another religious forum and a forum member had wanted to know “why would a woman want a job like prostitution?” and somebody responded with the retort that women chose prostitution as a profession “because they did not want to work at McDonalds”. Now I am not relating or supporting prostitution to the topic in discussion (nor am I discrediting McDonald's employees) but it does make one wonder that even with the alternative of allowing women to become nuns, there are still some that may only be interested in becoming a priest because they do not want to participate in ministry that is outlined for a nun.[/quote]

Again, those are secular vocations. The priesthood is a sacramental vocation. I think at the heart of our debate is the inability of those coming from a secular perspective to understand that divine realities play by different rules.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Lena' post='1427880' date='Dec 1 2007, 08:20 PM']Oh, and for anyone that is still reading this and has not walked away in disregard or disgust, yay for you. I never intended to write so much, but it's the kind of issue that isn't in simple terms.[/quote]
Absolutely beautiful, thank you Lena.

[carrdero]

[quote]Louisville writes: And where is the evidence for this?

Let's say the Church is just being sexist in insisting that women cannot be ordained. Granted, the Church has done a lot of sinful things, but when it comes to defining sacraments and other doctrine, we know that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from pronouncing anything false.[/quote]
You don’t know for sure, you [b][i]believe [/i][/b]that the Holy Spirit protects the church from pronouncing anything false. This “order of protection” from the “Holy Spirit” also extends to the 33,000 other different organized religious institutions and everyone of them cannot be pronounced True or Untrue especially from any other organization’s understanding.

[quote]Louisville writes: So, for the Church to decide that women can be ordained means that the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years...[/quote]
They say a moment of realization is worth a thousand prayers…..
[quote]Louisville writes: and that would mean Jesus didn't establish the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit has failed to protect it... so why be Catholic?[/quote]

….but I think that you are throwing out the baby Jesus with the Holy bath water. There is nothing else that you can think of that the Catholic Church is worthy of except introducing and imposing primitive doctrine and faith? Is the church so afraid to be exposed as wrong or incorrect by not ordaining woman that they are willing to continue to hide behind faith at the dishonor of supporting the thinking that women are the “weaker vessel”? Is this the real reason?

[quote]Louisville writes: Again, those are secular vocations. The priesthood is a sacramental vocation. I think at the heart of our debate is the inability of those coming from a secular perspective to understand that divine realities play by different rules.[/quote]I think that you may be misunderstanding the possibility that there may be no divinity, sacredness, holiness or grace about GOD. The heart of this debate is a human one. One that cannot be defined as male or female. When a women stands at the alter and is conducting a service it is not her breasts, her womb or her femininity that we should be paying attention to but what this person can offer and provide to the congregation. I don’t care whether this woman is a practicing Catholic, Mormon or Jehovah Witness, she is a human BEing first and foremost.

Edited December 2, 2007 by carrdero

[jeffpugh]

Did you read the big long post that takes up half this page? Check it out Mr. Carrdero. You might enjoy it.

[edit: fixed Carrdero's name]

Edited December 2, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='prose' post='1427821' date='Dec 1 2007, 08:25 PM']So.... Just to be clear I understand, because of everyone supporting female priesthood, only carrdero bothered to give me an answer.

The idea is that women are being (or so they say) spiritually called to be priests (priestesses??) is being squashed by the Church as a human invention, and therefore they are being denied the "right" to live out what their true calling is?[/quote]

I think the issue is a big deal for the people who support women's ordination because they see the priesthood as a kind of career - a very holy and fulfilling career that allows you to help many other people, but still a career. And for kind-hearted and generous women who aren't aware of the reasons behind an all-male priesthood, their exclusion seems like a slur on their gender and on their ability to serve God.

What they do not realise is that there are other equally valuable ways for them to serve God with their whole being. The priesthood is presented in the secular press and in some Catholic circles as the Top Job, the only real and worthwhile way to make a difference in the world as a Catholic. The Blessed Mother and what she means to us is downplayed by everyone from Dan Brown to some Catholic parishes (heterodox AND orthodox) which try to mould her to fit their own ideas. With her degredation, the importance of womanhood is diminished to the point where some people can't see any value in being a woman in the Catholic church - not unless the priesthood is opened up to them.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1428227' date='Dec 2 2007, 04:45 PM']Did you read the big long post that takes up half this page? Check it out Mr. Carrdero. You might enjoy it.

[edit: fixed Carrdero's name][/quote]
Yes, I read that.

[adt6247]

Saying it is unjust that women cannot be priests is akin to saying it is unjust that men cannot get pregnant. It is impossible. A woman cannot act [i]in persona Christi[/i] any more than a man can ovulate. The biological significance is important. It is a matter of reality, represented in sacred tradition AND sacred scripture. This tradition is older than the Catholic church herself; it dates back to Judeism. Priesthood, and leadership, is the burden of men, and men alone. Sex isn't merely a physical trait, it is indivisible from who we are; our very souls are male or female, as well as our bodies.

The feminine is receptive; the masculine gives the whole of self. This is seen clearly in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where the priest intercedes on behalf of the congregation. The congregation has the feminine role collectively, whereas the priest acts as Christ offering the sacrifice to the Father for the remission of sins and the sanctification of the people. As a true servant of the liturgy, he empties himself, and gives everything he has for his flock.

Perhaps if the church would ban celebrating the mass [i]versus populum[/i] and equally disgusting and damaging innovations as altar girls, reception on the hand, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, this understanding would shift back... but that's another topic altogether.

Edited December 3, 2007 by adt6247