I pose to you all 2 questions today:
1) Should women be allowed to serve the priesthood?
My personel thought is no for one personel experience.
I went to the Holy Thursday mass at the Basillica of St.Peter and Paul in Phily, Note in the Roman Catholic church the Holy thursday Mass is one of the most highly sacred in the liturgical year. During the Eucarist, the most sacred part of any mass, a woman stood up and started chanting and yelling that woman should be priests. She was not alone she was part of a organization for that cause. it doesnt make sense to me how you can want o be a priest to worship God but can have such disrespec as to interupt the most sacred part of a mass on a sacred day. It seemds like its more self obsorbed in motive than anything
and the second question:
2) Should priests be allowed to marry?
I also believe the answer to this is no. A priest is supposed to be entirly devoted to the priesthood, to God, and to the people he serves. Having a relationship would cause a conflict in interest cause a man is supposed to be devoed entirly to his wife and family and as i said these could easily come into conflict.
FEMALE PRIESTS & PRIEST MARRIAGE
Moderator: Moderators
-
reality101
- Student
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:19 pm
- Location: pennsylvania
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #31
2. Should priests be allowed to marry?
That reminds me of a joke.joer wrote:After we change their job title and description...YES.
CEO: I have an announcement, the firm is being restructured to take advantage of certain tax benefits.
Manager: How is this going to affect my position?
CEO: You will now be known as the Bishop of Information Technology.
It seems strange to me that religion can be used selectively to avoid adhering to our commonly accepted morality.
It seems to be OK for a religion to discriminate on the basis of a person's gender. A church can refuse a person the position of Bishop (pastor, elder, priest, evangelist) based only on the fact that the person is female. Yet it would be a human rights violation (or would it? ) if a religious organization were to discriminate on the basis of a person's ethnicity or race.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #32
Hello fallibleone. Please to meet you. I don't think of a priest as a middle man.Fallibleone wrote:If we believe that it is possible for each of us to pray to God, and if God is all around us, what is the point of a middle man?
I think a better metaphor would be a like a sales or marketing rep in that company who's mission is getting the knowledge of and faith in God out to as many people as possible.
The priest would be more like the Sales Rep or marketing agent using all the resources of the company at His/or Her disposal to reach and expand the largest market they can.
While you're right you don't need the middle man. But we all have our positions in life and if that's what you figure your were born for, why not pursue it? And while you don't need the middle man there's nothing wrong with him/her doing their job for those who would prefer him or her.
And McCulloch is right. The oppression and repression of women is ending. And the end is in accordance with God's Will. So if the church doesn't change voluntarily SOON. Something should be done to hurry along the long overdue change.
-
Fallibleone
- Guru
- Posts: 1935
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:35 am
- Location: Scouseland
Post #33
Hi, joer.joer wrote:Hello fallibleone. Please to meet you. I don't think of a priest as a middle man.Fallibleone wrote:If we believe that it is possible for each of us to pray to God, and if God is all around us, what is the point of a middle man?
I think a better metaphor would be a like a sales or marketing rep in that company who's mission is getting the knowledge of and faith in God out to as many people as possible.
The priest would be more like the Sales Rep or marketing agent using all the resources of the company at His/or Her disposal to reach and expand the largest market they can.
While you're right you don't need the middle man. But we all have our positions in life and if that's what you figure your were born for, why not pursue it? And while you don't need the middle man there's nothing wrong with him/her doing their job for those who would prefer him or her.
I can see what you're saying with regard to sales or marketing reps. I don't think I agree, though. From my perspective, I see the priest's role as being somewhat different from the one you describe. I do not see priests/vicars/preachers getting the word of God to as many people as they can. This may be a big part of their job, but in my opinion, the larger part involves literally 'preaching to the converted'. In other words, they preach to, instruct and give support and advice to those who are already a part of the church. My question is still why? Why is it necessary for believers to receive the word of God through a middle man (or woman) when that word of God is written down for all to see for themselves?
I feel that I was born to be a professional couch potato. Unfortunately, there does not exist a need for professional couch potatoes in the current climate. Should a position for a couch potato be manufactured to enable me to fulfill my lifelong dream? I'm being flippant, obviously, but you get the point no doubt.
Post #34
A lot of bad logic exist in this thread...
Movign on to Roman Cahtlic Theoogy,and a few obervations and corrections;
1: The "Jesus only picked male Apostles" argument is absurd. All this means is that the original 12 Apostles where men. It doesn't specify that Jesus precluded women from Holding Apostolic Office. It means only that spacific men where selected.
Saying this proves that the Prietshood is closed to women is Logilaly indefnesable. Its liek if I build a company and the oriignal 12 board memebrs where men. It doens't eman I precluded women from beign board members.
1: The Jesus was Sexist claim.
This is absurd.
Just because he only picked 12 men dpesn't mean he precluded women from Apostolic office. It means only that SPacific Men where selected.
3: Precluion of women or Married clergy isn't Discriminaiton becaus their is a logial reaosnf or it. It sliek if you where a movie oroducer and only hired a white man to play the role of WIlliam Wilburforce or Winston Churchhill, or Issac Newton.
Not hirign a black man, or a woman, for those oles isn't "DIsrimination" because obviosuly they where white men.
The Catholic Priesthood is open to any Ethnicity, but not to women because the Priesthood is not simply a job one is hired for. The Prietshood is a Sacramental office in which an Onthological Change occures int he Prietshood holder, whih forever alters him, in Catholic teaching.
The Priest then acts int he Person of Christ when deliverign the Sacraments, and thus is a reflection fo CHrust on Earth.
The reason wmen are imporoper matter for the Sacrament of Holy Orders is because Jesus wa shimself a man and the hole Prietshood is linked to Jesus direclty through both Apostolic Succession and via the Spiritual imlications of the role.
You can scream exism all you like, but the Sacramentality of the offic remains.
And htinkign fo the Prietshood as a job one is hired to do overlooks this relevant peic of infrmaiton.
4: It is true that it is bad logic to think that women shoudln't be Priets because oen woman acted out in a Churhc Liturgy at the holisest time in Mas son a Holy Day.
5: A Church cannot be made to "Hire" a woman as a Priestess becaue if, liek with the Cahtolic Church, it acutlay violates the whole princiole behind the hly Ordrs, the Government woudl in effect be tellign the Cahtolci Chruhc that it must CHange its enture Sacramental theology ofthe Priwtshood to suitt h Govenrmetns standards. This is mroe fair?
And while we're at it lets force hollywood to make Richard the Lionheart black, and Lord Neilson a woman.
6: Why don't those who want to be Priestesses join the Anglican Communion? The structures ar esimilar, they ordain women, and they hold to the same basic theology. If they want Cahtolsiism, their are Anglo-Cahtolics, too.
In fact, their are some Old Cahtolcis which ordain women.
7: Given the Holy Nature of Religious beelifs, it is perhaps wise to judge the religion and its isntetutions not bas eodn modern cultural standards, but its own beelif system and internal logic, and to udnertand why they do as they do, rather than ccondemn them for not suiting the current cuture.
8: Why do we clal them "Priests" anyway? A woman who takes the office is nto a Priest, btu a Priestess. Why not use the corect term? Seakign of correct terms... The Apostles wherent selected to eb Prietss, btu Bishops.
9: I am a Libarterian in terms of CIvil policy. In my view, the Government shoudl be small, and exist to maintian the common order, not to tlel peopel how to run their lives.
Therefore, if soemoen owns the land, and pays his taxes, he has the right to do as he pleases with his land.
If a man owns a store, and pays his taxes, he has the right ot hire and fire who he likes.
If the store owner doesn't liek redheads and refuses ot hire them, it shis buisness.It doesn't matter how silly his reasonignis, it shis store.
Just ike soemoen can put up a sign that says "No blacks".
Or, for that mater, "No Whites".
Their property, their rules.
Certain exceptiosn wudl be made, such as Hospitals and other nessisary services. I'd say a Hospital cannot refuse to treat soemone base don Race, ect, nor shudl the Police be allowd to discriminate on who they protect.
But other than Nessisary servcs, such as htose, and food and shelter, any buisness owenr may be allwoed to do as he likes on his own property.
Movign on to Roman Cahtlic Theoogy,and a few obervations and corrections;
1: The "Jesus only picked male Apostles" argument is absurd. All this means is that the original 12 Apostles where men. It doesn't specify that Jesus precluded women from Holding Apostolic Office. It means only that spacific men where selected.
Saying this proves that the Prietshood is closed to women is Logilaly indefnesable. Its liek if I build a company and the oriignal 12 board memebrs where men. It doens't eman I precluded women from beign board members.
1: The Jesus was Sexist claim.
This is absurd.
Just because he only picked 12 men dpesn't mean he precluded women from Apostolic office. It means only that SPacific Men where selected.
3: Precluion of women or Married clergy isn't Discriminaiton becaus their is a logial reaosnf or it. It sliek if you where a movie oroducer and only hired a white man to play the role of WIlliam Wilburforce or Winston Churchhill, or Issac Newton.
Not hirign a black man, or a woman, for those oles isn't "DIsrimination" because obviosuly they where white men.
The Catholic Priesthood is open to any Ethnicity, but not to women because the Priesthood is not simply a job one is hired for. The Prietshood is a Sacramental office in which an Onthological Change occures int he Prietshood holder, whih forever alters him, in Catholic teaching.
The Priest then acts int he Person of Christ when deliverign the Sacraments, and thus is a reflection fo CHrust on Earth.
The reason wmen are imporoper matter for the Sacrament of Holy Orders is because Jesus wa shimself a man and the hole Prietshood is linked to Jesus direclty through both Apostolic Succession and via the Spiritual imlications of the role.
You can scream exism all you like, but the Sacramentality of the offic remains.
And htinkign fo the Prietshood as a job one is hired to do overlooks this relevant peic of infrmaiton.
4: It is true that it is bad logic to think that women shoudln't be Priets because oen woman acted out in a Churhc Liturgy at the holisest time in Mas son a Holy Day.
5: A Church cannot be made to "Hire" a woman as a Priestess becaue if, liek with the Cahtolic Church, it acutlay violates the whole princiole behind the hly Ordrs, the Government woudl in effect be tellign the Cahtolci Chruhc that it must CHange its enture Sacramental theology ofthe Priwtshood to suitt h Govenrmetns standards. This is mroe fair?
And while we're at it lets force hollywood to make Richard the Lionheart black, and Lord Neilson a woman.
6: Why don't those who want to be Priestesses join the Anglican Communion? The structures ar esimilar, they ordain women, and they hold to the same basic theology. If they want Cahtolsiism, their are Anglo-Cahtolics, too.
In fact, their are some Old Cahtolcis which ordain women.
7: Given the Holy Nature of Religious beelifs, it is perhaps wise to judge the religion and its isntetutions not bas eodn modern cultural standards, but its own beelif system and internal logic, and to udnertand why they do as they do, rather than ccondemn them for not suiting the current cuture.
8: Why do we clal them "Priests" anyway? A woman who takes the office is nto a Priest, btu a Priestess. Why not use the corect term? Seakign of correct terms... The Apostles wherent selected to eb Prietss, btu Bishops.
9: I am a Libarterian in terms of CIvil policy. In my view, the Government shoudl be small, and exist to maintian the common order, not to tlel peopel how to run their lives.
Therefore, if soemoen owns the land, and pays his taxes, he has the right to do as he pleases with his land.
If a man owns a store, and pays his taxes, he has the right ot hire and fire who he likes.
If the store owner doesn't liek redheads and refuses ot hire them, it shis buisness.It doesn't matter how silly his reasonignis, it shis store.
Just ike soemoen can put up a sign that says "No blacks".
Or, for that mater, "No Whites".
Their property, their rules.
Certain exceptiosn wudl be made, such as Hospitals and other nessisary services. I'd say a Hospital cannot refuse to treat soemone base don Race, ect, nor shudl the Police be allowd to discriminate on who they protect.
But other than Nessisary servcs, such as htose, and food and shelter, any buisness owenr may be allwoed to do as he likes on his own property.
Post #35
Howdy Fallibleone, forgive me in my newly emerging forgetfulness, I had forgotten that we had already met. Good Will to you Fallibleone.
So anyway in your point of view priests instead of lawyers might work better in that joke.
Anyway my point is this. The priests like the lawyers have years of study and experience and often a life long dedication to developing an expertise in their line of work. You don’t have to take advantage of the wealth of experience and breadth of knowledge, but some people, many as a matter of fact, would enjoy the value of their training.
By the way all my potatoes have left my couch. They grew up and went away. How much do charge for couch potatoeing? I sort of miss having the couch potatoes around.
Howdy ZAROVE! Please to meet you.
I couldn’t tell clearly from your post if you were for or against women being priests. I liked you presenting your points either way. The first two points seemed to defend the fact women could have been priests. Then you get to the roles in films as a lead in to the Sacramental reasons you see as precluding women from the priesthood.
The Sacraments and more specifically the Sacrament of Holy Orders is another thread all together.
But just briefly. There are indications both inside and outside the bible as to what you bring up in your first two points and that’s that women were in fact playing a much more significant part in Jesus' ministry than the male-dominated church allowed us in future generations to see.
The Sacraments as they are known today, get their definition and understanding from a theologian from around about 1100 AD in church history.
Holy Orders has varied in the kinds of Orders allowed from 7 to 13 types over the years by Roman Catholic and the different orders of the church.
So contrary to popular belief many of things you bring up to explain the basis of exclusion of women from the priesthood are NOT indelible. And in fact have been very malleable over the approx. 2000 year history of the church.
So as women are FINALLY beginning to get there due recognition in the secular branches of more socially advanced societies, the changes in the church will soon enough (in historical time) reflect the long overdue recognition of feminine qualities emerging in secular society now.
Peace ZAROVE!
What you say is true enough. If we want to go it alone we could. It's like my sister after 37 years of marriage and my 60 year-old brother-in-law has fallen in love with a NEW 35 year-old woman. My sister can’t afford a lawyer, so she bought a $35 book and just follows the instructions. So you don’t really need lawyers either. Why not eliminate the middle man? That reminds me of another joke. What do you call 1000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.I do not see priests/vicars/preachers getting the word of God to as many people as they can. This may be a big part of their job, but in my opinion, the larger part involves literally 'preaching to the converted'. In other words, they preach to, instruct and give support and advice to those who are already a part of the church. My question is still why? Why is it necessary for believers to receive the word of God through a middle man (or woman) when that word of God is written down for all to see for themselves?
So anyway in your point of view priests instead of lawyers might work better in that joke. Anyway my point is this. The priests like the lawyers have years of study and experience and often a life long dedication to developing an expertise in their line of work. You don’t have to take advantage of the wealth of experience and breadth of knowledge, but some people, many as a matter of fact, would enjoy the value of their training.
By the way all my potatoes have left my couch. They grew up and went away. How much do charge for couch potatoeing? I sort of miss having the couch potatoes around.
Howdy ZAROVE! Please to meet you.
I couldn’t tell clearly from your post if you were for or against women being priests. I liked you presenting your points either way. The first two points seemed to defend the fact women could have been priests. Then you get to the roles in films as a lead in to the Sacramental reasons you see as precluding women from the priesthood.
The Sacraments and more specifically the Sacrament of Holy Orders is another thread all together.
But just briefly. There are indications both inside and outside the bible as to what you bring up in your first two points and that’s that women were in fact playing a much more significant part in Jesus' ministry than the male-dominated church allowed us in future generations to see.
The Sacraments as they are known today, get their definition and understanding from a theologian from around about 1100 AD in church history.
Holy Orders has varied in the kinds of Orders allowed from 7 to 13 types over the years by Roman Catholic and the different orders of the church.
So contrary to popular belief many of things you bring up to explain the basis of exclusion of women from the priesthood are NOT indelible. And in fact have been very malleable over the approx. 2000 year history of the church.
So as women are FINALLY beginning to get there due recognition in the secular branches of more socially advanced societies, the changes in the church will soon enough (in historical time) reflect the long overdue recognition of feminine qualities emerging in secular society now.
Peace ZAROVE!
-
Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: FEMALE PRIESTS & PRIEST MARRIAGE
Post #36Why not? Maybe it's time the RCC grew up a little and started practicing something called equality.reality101 wrote:1) Should women be allowed to serve the priesthood?
Without doubt, then maybe they'd stop molesting altarboys. The reality is that sex is natural and normal and withholding it with a lifelong vow of chastity is perverse.2) Should priests be allowed to marry?
Post #37
The argument hat women played a signifigant role in Jeuss ministry is ntothe same as an argument in favour of a sacramental Prietshood.
The arugment is used well too often, btu fails to address the real point beign raised. Women today play a vital role int he Catholic Churches ministeis. I doubt anyoen can look at Mother Teresa and htink her ministerial role is insignifigant, and nay number of religious and lay women support the Church and ply vital roles within its structures.
To say that women had a signifigance they lost int he later Generaitosn of CHristendom is rellay an obficiation of the facts presented, and confuses signifigance wit Ordinaton too the Prebytery.
That said, you cannot possibley understand the Cahtolic midnset without examinign why and how they do things.
Posters here who think its abotu equality, and not ordaiign women is beign sexist agaisnt women, fail to udnerstand precicley how the Priwsthood is approached, and what it means, and hwy women arne't Ordained.
Just as thosw who approach the Proesthood as just a job people do, and are hired for, tend to overlook both the level of proffessionalism needed, and degreed study, as it snot like workign a factory or a Seven-Eleven, and the Sacramental nature of the role.
In Catholic thinking, the Priesthood, and in fact all Holy Orders, are representitve of Christs SPirit beign delivered as a mean and CHannel of Grace via the medium of his clergy.
As a result, you have to admit the reason that wmen cannot be clergy int he eyes of the Cahtokic Churhc is because women simply aren't capable of beign in the person of Christ and thee is no sacramental validity to ordianign women.
Its nto a mater of equality, or sexism.
Nor is it because they seekto deny women positions of power within the Church, as other have said.
Its not even base dle on dead tradition.
There is a vitality to the Priesthood, which to the Cahtolic ( And Orhtodox) cannot be tmapered with o else it is lost.
The sacramental view then is what will have to be appriciated, before people make such judgemnts. Least of all non-Cahtolics.
I am not a Cahtolic, btu understand their reaoning and must present their side fairly. Just as others should.
The arugment is used well too often, btu fails to address the real point beign raised. Women today play a vital role int he Catholic Churches ministeis. I doubt anyoen can look at Mother Teresa and htink her ministerial role is insignifigant, and nay number of religious and lay women support the Church and ply vital roles within its structures.
To say that women had a signifigance they lost int he later Generaitosn of CHristendom is rellay an obficiation of the facts presented, and confuses signifigance wit Ordinaton too the Prebytery.
That said, you cannot possibley understand the Cahtolic midnset without examinign why and how they do things.
Posters here who think its abotu equality, and not ordaiign women is beign sexist agaisnt women, fail to udnerstand precicley how the Priwsthood is approached, and what it means, and hwy women arne't Ordained.
Just as thosw who approach the Proesthood as just a job people do, and are hired for, tend to overlook both the level of proffessionalism needed, and degreed study, as it snot like workign a factory or a Seven-Eleven, and the Sacramental nature of the role.
In Catholic thinking, the Priesthood, and in fact all Holy Orders, are representitve of Christs SPirit beign delivered as a mean and CHannel of Grace via the medium of his clergy.
As a result, you have to admit the reason that wmen cannot be clergy int he eyes of the Cahtokic Churhc is because women simply aren't capable of beign in the person of Christ and thee is no sacramental validity to ordianign women.
Its nto a mater of equality, or sexism.
Nor is it because they seekto deny women positions of power within the Church, as other have said.
Its not even base dle on dead tradition.
There is a vitality to the Priesthood, which to the Cahtolic ( And Orhtodox) cannot be tmapered with o else it is lost.
The sacramental view then is what will have to be appriciated, before people make such judgemnts. Least of all non-Cahtolics.
I am not a Cahtolic, btu understand their reaoning and must present their side fairly. Just as others should.
Post #38
ZAROVE Thanks for the post. Good to post to you again. Peace be with you.
You have an interesting Post Zarove. The thing is it doesn’t represent ALL Catholics. Many of the women who run the church as you mentioned do so without much recognition. And as far as Christ is concerned they aren’t doing it for the recognition. As far as we are concerned as Christians we should follow Christ’s teaching in treating them with equal respect as men. Many of these women would love to have higher positions in the church and to serve as servants of God in a similar capacity of Priests in the sense of distributing and consecrating the sacraments. And there ‘s no GOD given reason why they shouldn’t. You write
Actually It would be wrong to say women can’t be clergy because They aren’t capable of being in the person in Christ. To say that would show a lack of understanding of the feminine aspects of God and Christ.
You say:
So when the concept of God was as a burning bush that’s the way he appeared to us. Not because God was fire, but because that was the only capacity we could imagine God appearing. So when God appeared as a women it was only because we lacked the capability of seeing God as a woman. Well ZAROVE we are just beginning to be able to picture God as a women. And I don’t doubt that our next appearance of a celestial being will be a women.
Its nto a mater of equality, or sexism. Yes it is.
Nor is it because they seekto deny women positions of power within the Church, as other have said. Yes they do
Its not even base dle on dead tradition. That’s exactly what it’s based on.
There is a vitality to the Priesthood, which to the Cahtolic ( And Orhtodox) cannot be tmapered with o else it is lost. That’s not true. As I said in my prior post it’s been tampered with for 2000 years. Contantly been adjusted to fit our best understanding at the time.
The sacramental view then is what will have to be appriciated, before people make such judgemnts. Least of all non-Cahtolics.
Well I’m a Catholic and you are only partially right What you present here only applies to the beliefs of the conservative Catholics. The liberals and progressive Catholics see things in a much realistic view.. Check out this Catholic site.
The center for the Catholic conversation... shaping the lives of 21st century Catholics
National Catholic Reporter
Home » forums » Thematic Tables » --- Diocesan Life
Shortage Of Priests
http://ncrcafe.org/node/876
Peace be with you.You have an interesting Post Zarove. The thing is it doesn’t represent ALL Catholics. Many of the women who run the church as you mentioned do so without much recognition. And as far as Christ is concerned they aren’t doing it for the recognition. As far as we are concerned as Christians we should follow Christ’s teaching in treating them with equal respect as men. Many of these women would love to have higher positions in the church and to serve as servants of God in a similar capacity of Priests in the sense of distributing and consecrating the sacraments. And there ‘s no GOD given reason why they shouldn’t. You write
As a result, you have to admit the reason that wmen cannot be clergy int he eyes of the Cahtokic Churhc is because women simply aren't capable of beign in the person of Christ and thee is no sacramental validity to ordianign women.
Actually It would be wrong to say women can’t be clergy because They aren’t capable of being in the person in Christ. To say that would show a lack of understanding of the feminine aspects of God and Christ.
You say:
You are right in saying that Holy Orders are representative of Christ’s Spirit. You err when you say it was delivered as a man. It was delivered in the form of a human being. It could have been female just as easy as male. You know why Christ’s Spirit wasn’t delivered in the form of a woman? It wasn’t because God thought that men were better representatives of God’s Grace, it was because of our lack of gender value and respect to the divinely created human form of God , the female. If Christ was a woman we would have killed her a lot sooner and not listened to the message of God because she was a woman and we we’re prejudice of woman and disrespected them to no end.In Catholic thinking, the Priesthood, and in fact all Holy Orders, are representitve of Christs SPirit beign delivered as a mean and CHannel of Grace via the medium of his clergy.
So when the concept of God was as a burning bush that’s the way he appeared to us. Not because God was fire, but because that was the only capacity we could imagine God appearing. So when God appeared as a women it was only because we lacked the capability of seeing God as a woman. Well ZAROVE we are just beginning to be able to picture God as a women. And I don’t doubt that our next appearance of a celestial being will be a women.
Its nto a mater of equality, or sexism. Yes it is.
Nor is it because they seekto deny women positions of power within the Church, as other have said. Yes they do
Its not even base dle on dead tradition. That’s exactly what it’s based on.
There is a vitality to the Priesthood, which to the Cahtolic ( And Orhtodox) cannot be tmapered with o else it is lost. That’s not true. As I said in my prior post it’s been tampered with for 2000 years. Contantly been adjusted to fit our best understanding at the time.
The sacramental view then is what will have to be appriciated, before people make such judgemnts. Least of all non-Cahtolics.
Well I’m a Catholic and you are only partially right What you present here only applies to the beliefs of the conservative Catholics. The liberals and progressive Catholics see things in a much realistic view.. Check out this Catholic site.
The center for the Catholic conversation... shaping the lives of 21st century Catholics
National Catholic Reporter
Home » forums » Thematic Tables » --- Diocesan Life
Shortage Of Priests
http://ncrcafe.org/node/876
Post #39
ZAROVE Thanks for the post. Good to post to you again. Peace be with you.
And also with you.
You have an interesting Post Zarove. The thing is it doesn’t represent ALL Catholics.
But does it have to?
Catolisism is not about COnsensus, and is nto Democratic in nature. Catholisism is an intricate philosophical and theological system developed from a concept of defined dogma which is absolute.( And the temr Dogma, dispite its negative connotations, is not a negative word.)
It matters little if someone classifies hemselves as Catholic, and htinks women shoul be ordaiend.The CHurch teachings differ form that opinion, and thus, from a Cahtolic perspective, is wrong.
Many of the women who run the church as you mentioned do so without much recognition.
Many Priets or lay male members also don't gain recognition. Nor is it the poitn of rnnung a CHurch. One doesn't adinister Parishes fo the sake of rcognition to begin with.
And as far as Christ is concerned they aren’t doing it for the recognition.
I said this, but needed to repeat it.
As far as we are concerned as Christians we should follow Christ’s teaching in treating them with equal respect as men.
But the toruble is, you equate equel respect wiht the ability to be Ordained. Somehow, not ordainign women is showing disrespect to women, or greater respect to men.
This is a false perception.
Catholsisim doens't view men and women as haivng unequel value, and doens't repsect men more than omen. However, Catholsisim does teach that men and women, though equel in value and int he eyes of God, are different and have vastly different roles.
And Catholsisims sacramental nature prevents Women form beign ordaiend because it wodl see such an Ordination as invalid due to those sharp differences and spaciifc commandmetns given tot he Early Church Hrself.
It woudl acutlaly be disrespectful to prdain women, as at that point you are nto only sacraligiosu of the Sacrament and makign the woman a participant in this sacraledge, you are also denyign her God-given fimininity and proclaimign her intercangable with a man, thus denyign her any grace, dignity, or value as a woman.
Many of these women would love to have higher positions in the church and to serve as servants of God in a similar capacity of Priests in the sense of distributing and consecrating the sacraments. And there ‘s no GOD given reason why they shouldn’t. You write
Catholcis disagree. They can cite both scripture and tradition o the matter.
And again, the Cahtolic CHurhc herself is seen as thr Pillar and FOundation of truth. They do speak for God in a Cahtolic context.
Quote:
As a result, you have to admit the reason that wmen cannot be clergy int he eyes of the Cahtokic Churhc is because women simply aren't capable of beign in the person of Christ and thee is no sacramental validity to ordianign women.
Actually It would be wrong to say women can’t be clergy because They aren’t capable of being in the person in Christ. To say that would show a lack of understanding of the feminine aspects of God and Christ.
Can you show those self-same aspect sin light of Cahtolic theology and how they relate tot he Proesthood? Or are you imposing on Catolic hteology your own private understanding?
You say: Quote:
In Catholic thinking, the Priesthood, and in fact all Holy Orders, are representitve of Christs SPirit beign delivered as a mean and CHannel of Grace via the medium of his clergy.
You are right in saying that Holy Orders are representative of Christ’s Spirit.
Actually I should have chosen a different word. The term "Representitive" now means someone who act sint he name of, whereas in Cahtolcitheology, it means, they present anew. The Sacraments, all of htem, are given directy by CHrist through the Priest.
You err when you say it was delivered as a man.
Accprdig to whom? You, or the Catholic Church?
It was delivered in the form of a human being.
Jesus was a man.
It could have been female just as easy as male.
Jesus as a man, though.
You know why Christ’s Spirit wasn’t delivered in the form of a woman? It wasn’t because God thought that men were better representatives of God’s Grace, it was because of our lack of gender value and respect to the divinely created human form of God , the female.
This is presumptive speculation, though, and not relevant in terms of Catolic theology.
If Christ was a woman we would have killed her a lot sooner and not listened to the message of God because she was a woman and we we’re prejudice of woman and disrespected them to no end.
Yet we listened to other omen. Sapho was listened to. As was Deborah. As was Sarah.
Do not udnerestimate th e past, and the women in it.
So when the concept of God was as a burning bush that’s the way he appeared to us. Not because God was fire, but because that was the only capacity we could imagine God appearing. So when God appeared as a women it was only because we lacked the capability of seeing God as a woman. Well ZAROVE we are just beginning to be able to picture God as a women. And I don’t doubt that our next appearance of a celestial being will be a women.
But, this si sheer speculation on our paet, and still doens't address actual Cahtolic theology.
Its nto a mater of equality, or sexism. Yes it is.
No, its not.
Nor is it because they seekto deny women positions of power within the Church, as other have said. Yes they do
Its not even base dle on dead tradition.
That’s exactly what it’s based on.
According to you.
But you have not presented reasonable evidence for this.
Nor have you seemed to have even understand the prspective of the Cahtolics, and insetad ascribe to them your views on thigns and projec tontot hem motivations that answer their actiosn in yor midn base don your thinking, which always leads one ot error in regars to others.
There is a vitality to the Priesthood, which to the Cahtolic ( And Orhtodox) cannot be tmapered with o else it is lost. That’s not true.
As I said in my prior post it’s been tampered with for 2000 years. Contantly been adjusted to fit our best understanding at the time.
The Sacramental nature of the Prietshood can be attestes to form th Churhc Fathers, and the approach of the Oridnation proccess andhose who hodl it has not changed since he early days o the Church.
( If yo men disiplines regardign the Prietshood, they differ from eh Sacramental nature of it.)
The sacramental view then is what will have to be appriciated, before people make such judgemnts. Least of all non-Cahtolics.
Well I’m a Catholic and you are only partially right What you present here only applies to the beliefs of the conservative Catholics. The liberals and progressive Catholics see things in a much realistic view.. Check out this Catholic site.
The center for the Catholic conversation... shaping the lives of 21st century Catholics
National Catholic Reporter
Home » forums » Thematic Tables » --- Diocesan Life
Shortage Of Priests
There ar eno Liberal or Cnserviitve Cahtolics in the view I present above. Again, Cahtolsism is not politics, and is not Democratic.
I soeak where ROme has spoken, and what I present is what has been established by Churhc Cousnils, Scriptute, tradition, the Magesterium, and the Pontiff.
It is the official teachign fo the Cahtolic Church.
Liberal Catholics have no more contorle over this than do COnservitives, nor is this a Liberal or COnservitive issue.
The Church alone sets her teachings, and it is for he Cahtolic to conform to this, or not.
And also with you.
You have an interesting Post Zarove. The thing is it doesn’t represent ALL Catholics.
But does it have to?
Catolisism is not about COnsensus, and is nto Democratic in nature. Catholisism is an intricate philosophical and theological system developed from a concept of defined dogma which is absolute.( And the temr Dogma, dispite its negative connotations, is not a negative word.)
It matters little if someone classifies hemselves as Catholic, and htinks women shoul be ordaiend.The CHurch teachings differ form that opinion, and thus, from a Cahtolic perspective, is wrong.
Many of the women who run the church as you mentioned do so without much recognition.
Many Priets or lay male members also don't gain recognition. Nor is it the poitn of rnnung a CHurch. One doesn't adinister Parishes fo the sake of rcognition to begin with.
And as far as Christ is concerned they aren’t doing it for the recognition.
I said this, but needed to repeat it.
As far as we are concerned as Christians we should follow Christ’s teaching in treating them with equal respect as men.
But the toruble is, you equate equel respect wiht the ability to be Ordained. Somehow, not ordainign women is showing disrespect to women, or greater respect to men.
This is a false perception.
Catholsisim doens't view men and women as haivng unequel value, and doens't repsect men more than omen. However, Catholsisim does teach that men and women, though equel in value and int he eyes of God, are different and have vastly different roles.
And Catholsisims sacramental nature prevents Women form beign ordaiend because it wodl see such an Ordination as invalid due to those sharp differences and spaciifc commandmetns given tot he Early Church Hrself.
It woudl acutlaly be disrespectful to prdain women, as at that point you are nto only sacraligiosu of the Sacrament and makign the woman a participant in this sacraledge, you are also denyign her God-given fimininity and proclaimign her intercangable with a man, thus denyign her any grace, dignity, or value as a woman.
Many of these women would love to have higher positions in the church and to serve as servants of God in a similar capacity of Priests in the sense of distributing and consecrating the sacraments. And there ‘s no GOD given reason why they shouldn’t. You write
Catholcis disagree. They can cite both scripture and tradition o the matter.
And again, the Cahtolic CHurhc herself is seen as thr Pillar and FOundation of truth. They do speak for God in a Cahtolic context.
Quote:
As a result, you have to admit the reason that wmen cannot be clergy int he eyes of the Cahtokic Churhc is because women simply aren't capable of beign in the person of Christ and thee is no sacramental validity to ordianign women.
Actually It would be wrong to say women can’t be clergy because They aren’t capable of being in the person in Christ. To say that would show a lack of understanding of the feminine aspects of God and Christ.
Can you show those self-same aspect sin light of Cahtolic theology and how they relate tot he Proesthood? Or are you imposing on Catolic hteology your own private understanding?
You say: Quote:
In Catholic thinking, the Priesthood, and in fact all Holy Orders, are representitve of Christs SPirit beign delivered as a mean and CHannel of Grace via the medium of his clergy.
You are right in saying that Holy Orders are representative of Christ’s Spirit.
Actually I should have chosen a different word. The term "Representitive" now means someone who act sint he name of, whereas in Cahtolcitheology, it means, they present anew. The Sacraments, all of htem, are given directy by CHrist through the Priest.
You err when you say it was delivered as a man.
Accprdig to whom? You, or the Catholic Church?
It was delivered in the form of a human being.
Jesus was a man.
It could have been female just as easy as male.
Jesus as a man, though.
You know why Christ’s Spirit wasn’t delivered in the form of a woman? It wasn’t because God thought that men were better representatives of God’s Grace, it was because of our lack of gender value and respect to the divinely created human form of God , the female.
This is presumptive speculation, though, and not relevant in terms of Catolic theology.
If Christ was a woman we would have killed her a lot sooner and not listened to the message of God because she was a woman and we we’re prejudice of woman and disrespected them to no end.
Yet we listened to other omen. Sapho was listened to. As was Deborah. As was Sarah.
Do not udnerestimate th e past, and the women in it.
So when the concept of God was as a burning bush that’s the way he appeared to us. Not because God was fire, but because that was the only capacity we could imagine God appearing. So when God appeared as a women it was only because we lacked the capability of seeing God as a woman. Well ZAROVE we are just beginning to be able to picture God as a women. And I don’t doubt that our next appearance of a celestial being will be a women.
But, this si sheer speculation on our paet, and still doens't address actual Cahtolic theology.
Its nto a mater of equality, or sexism. Yes it is.
No, its not.
Nor is it because they seekto deny women positions of power within the Church, as other have said. Yes they do
Its not even base dle on dead tradition.
That’s exactly what it’s based on.
According to you.
But you have not presented reasonable evidence for this.
Nor have you seemed to have even understand the prspective of the Cahtolics, and insetad ascribe to them your views on thigns and projec tontot hem motivations that answer their actiosn in yor midn base don your thinking, which always leads one ot error in regars to others.
There is a vitality to the Priesthood, which to the Cahtolic ( And Orhtodox) cannot be tmapered with o else it is lost. That’s not true.
As I said in my prior post it’s been tampered with for 2000 years. Contantly been adjusted to fit our best understanding at the time.
The Sacramental nature of the Prietshood can be attestes to form th Churhc Fathers, and the approach of the Oridnation proccess andhose who hodl it has not changed since he early days o the Church.
( If yo men disiplines regardign the Prietshood, they differ from eh Sacramental nature of it.)
The sacramental view then is what will have to be appriciated, before people make such judgemnts. Least of all non-Cahtolics.
Well I’m a Catholic and you are only partially right What you present here only applies to the beliefs of the conservative Catholics. The liberals and progressive Catholics see things in a much realistic view.. Check out this Catholic site.
The center for the Catholic conversation... shaping the lives of 21st century Catholics
National Catholic Reporter
Home » forums » Thematic Tables » --- Diocesan Life
Shortage Of Priests
There ar eno Liberal or Cnserviitve Cahtolics in the view I present above. Again, Cahtolsism is not politics, and is not Democratic.
I soeak where ROme has spoken, and what I present is what has been established by Churhc Cousnils, Scriptute, tradition, the Magesterium, and the Pontiff.
It is the official teachign fo the Cahtolic Church.
Liberal Catholics have no more contorle over this than do COnservitives, nor is this a Liberal or COnservitive issue.
The Church alone sets her teachings, and it is for he Cahtolic to conform to this, or not.
Post #40
ZAROVE, Thanks for the reply. Here's a couple of post from another thread and site. B7M8 maintains a position similar to yours. Like you she is more traditional and Conservative.
Women’s roles need to be defined by women.
Howdy B7M8 and AnnieO! Long time no post. I hope you don’t mind a little intrusion here. I just had something to say to B7M8. I like your openness and willingness to discuss issues. I hope perhaps a little freash opinion backed up by Pope’s comments could maybe add to your perspective a little bit. You both are people I admire. B7M8, I don’t know how to format so I’ll put your questions in quotes.
I mean I’m not saying anything the Pope’s haven’t said. Just the words are different the meaning is the same. They both basically say women must define themselves and the Church has to give their self-definition just consideration. Check out this excerpt from an old thread:
http://ncrcafe.org/node/378
What do you think about these comments from the Popes as they relate to women’s vocations in the Church?
In "MULIERIS DIGNITATEM" JOHN PAUL II says the following:
CONCLUSION
If you knew the gift of God
31. "If you knew the gift of God" (Jn 4:10), Jesus says to the Samaritan woman during one of those remarkable conversations which show his great esteem for the dignity of women and for the vocation which enables them to share in his messianic mission.
The present reflections, now at an end, have sought to recognize, within the "gift of God", what he, as Creator and Redeemer, entrusts to women, to every woman. In the Spirit of Christ, in fact, women can discover the entire meaning of their femininity and thus be disposed to making a "sincere gift of self" to others, thereby finding themselves.
During the Marian Year the Church desires to give thanks to the Most Holy Trinity for the "mystery of woman" and for every woman - for that which constitutes the eternal measure of her feminine dignity, for the "great works of God", which throughout human history have been accomplished in and through her. After all, was it not in and through her that the greatest event in human history - the incarnation of God himself - was accomplished?
Therefore the Church gives thanks for each and every woman: for mothers, for sisters, for wives; for women consecrated to God in virginity; for women dedicated to the many human beings who await the gratuitous love of another person; for women who watch over the human persons in the family, which is the fundamental sign of the human community; for women who work professionally, and who at times are burdened by a great social responsibility; for "perfect" women and for "weak" women - for all women as they have come forth from the heart of God in all the beauty and richness of their femininity; as they have been embraced by his eternal love; as, together with men, they are pilgrims on this earth, which is the temporal "homeland" of all people and is transformed sometimes into a "valley of tears"; as "they assume," "together with men, a common responsibility" "for the destiny of humanity" according to daily necessities and according to that definitive destiny which the human family has in God himself, in the bosom of the ineffable Trinity.
The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine "genius" which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations; she gives thanks for all the charisms which the Holy Spirit distributes to women in the history of the People of God, for all the victories which she owes to their faith, hope and charity: she gives thanks for all the fruits of feminine holiness.
The Church asks at the same time that these invaluable "manifestations of the Spirit" (cf. 1 Cor 12:4ff.), which with great generosity are poured forth upon the "daughters" of the eternal Jerusalem, may be attentively recognized and appreciated so that they may return for the common good of the Church and of humanity, especially in our times. Meditating on the biblical mystery of the "woman", the Church prays that in this mystery all women may discover themselves and their "supreme vocation".…With these sentiments, I impart the Apostolic Blessing to all the faithful, and in a special way to women, my sisters in Christ.”
Just as Pope John Paul II prays “the Church prays that in this mystery all women may discover themselves and their "supreme vocation".
Well they have found it for today’s day and age and they will continue to find their "supreme vocation" in the ages to come. And the current Pope we so generously praise gives us our invitation to discussion and review of the issue of the needed change in woman’s roles in the church in his first speech. God Bless him indeed.
Excerpts.From the Pope’s first speech:
BENEDICT XVI, A POPE OF CHRIST, COMMUNION, COLLEGIALITY
VATICAN CITY, APR 20, 2005 (VIS)
"Theological dialogue is necessary. A profound examination of the historical reasons behind past choices is also indispensable.""The current Successor of Peter feels himself to be personally implicated in this question and is disposed to do all in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism."
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Then here's B7M8 response
Howdy, Joer. Good to hear
Submitted by b7m8 on September 14, 2007 - 5:54am.
Howdy, Joer. Good to hear from you!
I really like “On the Dignity of Women” and pretty much anything Benedict writes. It seems to me, though, that the problem with self-definition is when it happens without consideration of God’s plan. Neither men nor women have the capacity to define our roles without recourse to his plan. The language of the body, male and female, is an objective reality, which needs to be recognized. (You do seem to agree that gender roles are real, though.) It seems to me that women defining fatherhood and motherhood is as wrong as men doing it. We need to turn to the Creator and ask him to show us what it means to be a man or a woman. To me it is not important to “self-define” or “self-determine” but to seek to know what God intended us each to be.
You speak of a “Female Expression of God on earth”. It may just be how we each understand the words but to me, we are not expressions of God; we are creations of God. We reflect him, as does all of creation, but the term “expression” implies a pantheistic view (God is us and we are God) which is not Christian.
I don’t think a father knows a mother’s nurturing instincts. I think he knows a father’s nurturing instincts. From a Christian view, life is not about self-determination and self-expression. It is about self-denial. I (the Christian) give because I love; I sacrifice because I love. Finding oneself and having fullness of life are functions of sacrifice. (“He who loses his life for my sake will find it.” “I am the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. I have come that they may have life and have it to the full.”)
(This next comment is a personal soapbox issue for me, so please make allowances.) Saying women can do anything “with full male support” makes me really uncomfortable. Either I can do the work or I can’t. (I do recognize the necessity for men not to undermine women in order for us to have a fair chance; that’s a separate issue.) I find having men cheerlead me to the top patronizing. I have worked in an environment where I was the only woman. I did not want special treatment when doing my job and rejected it when offered. By doing this I gained (I hope) the respect of the men I worked with.
Forgive me for being cynical but there have been many women involved at all levels of government in different areas of the world, especially in the U.S. I don’t really see that we are better off. Or worse off for that matter! People are good and bad, competent and incompetent regardless of gender. I do think that bring the “feminine genius” to the world will make a difference, though; but first we have to recognize what that is.
The speech you quote from is actually referencing ecumenism. I found a speech where he directly deals with the question of women in the governing bodies of the Church. A quick summary: Pope Benedict speaks of the need for humility for the priest. Women have always been involved in the governing of the Church from a charismatic standpoint, which although not official is nevertheless real and necessary to the survival of the Church. Christ, in the Sacrament of Holy Orders governs the Church, using the priest who is faithful to his mission. Recognizing the two means of governing, he concludes, “However, it is right to ask whether in ministerial service — despite the fact that here Sacrament and charism are the two ways in which the Church fulfils herself — it might be possible to make more room, to give more offices of responsibility to women.” (full text at link below)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16romclerg.HTM
Home » forums » Thematic Tables » --- Everything under the sun ...
Slow Talk
http://ncrcafe.org/node/965
I wrote:
You have an interesting Post Zarove. The thing is it doesn’t represent ALL Catholics.
No it doesn't have to, but when the Churches position changes as it has Many Mnay times in the past, and becomes more representative of my position, you might wish it did. Here's the psostsYou wrote:
But does it have to?
Women’s roles need to be defined by women.
Howdy B7M8 and AnnieO! Long time no post.
I hope you don’t mind a little intrusion here. I just had something to say to B7M8. I like your openness and willingness to discuss issues. I hope perhaps a little freash opinion backed up by Pope’s comments could maybe add to your perspective a little bit. You both are people I admire. B7M8, I don’t know how to format so I’ll put your questions in quotes.
Good.“I always feel helpless when I hear the anger and frustration of those who see women as oppressed by the Church. I’d like to look at this a different way because it is clear that there is a sense of injustice which drives your arguments and others”.
Yes“Can we agree that men and women are different?”
Yes“Not that one is better than the other, but just different?”
This is where there is divergence. The Female expression of God on Earth has been stiffed for thousands of years. So the profundity of the Female Expression of God on earth remains to be seen. As it is achieved the depths of both male and female personalities will become more profound.“And that the differences are not just superficial but are deeply part of who we are?”
Yes. When the female gender roles are defined by male leaders they are not permitted to express the feminine genius as proclaimed by the Pope John Paul II. Women must define their own roles because Males don’t have the capacity based on the different you professed to what women are or are really capable of by virtue of their gender.“Are gender roles always wrong?”
When defined by woman will gain new depths in parenting.“What about fatherhood and motherhood?”
Different yes. Equal no. Congruent yes. Equivalent in importance of self-definition and self-determination. Different in manner of expression.“Aren’t they essentially different but equal roles?”
Only when he doesn’t allow the necessary self-expression and self-determination of the feminine aspects of their co-creative parenting pairing.“Can a father breastfeed his child?”
Can a father know a mother’s nurturing instincts?
“Does that make him less of a parent than the mother?”
Equally impaired by the male restricting and lack of understanding of the feminine expression of their co-operative efforts.“What about the non-physical roles mothers and fathers play in their children’s lives?”
You bet cha. And we (males) need to accept the women need time and space to evolve and develop their feminine expression and influence on the world sphere of influence. From the very personal level of the family unit right on up to making the guiding decisions of the world as heads of world governments with our full male support. Even if we don’t get it because we’re not women. Than and only than will the playing field between men and women begin to become level.“Aren’t there differences there, too?”
I mean I’m not saying anything the Pope’s haven’t said. Just the words are different the meaning is the same. They both basically say women must define themselves and the Church has to give their self-definition just consideration. Check out this excerpt from an old thread:
http://ncrcafe.org/node/378
What do you think about these comments from the Popes as they relate to women’s vocations in the Church?
In "MULIERIS DIGNITATEM" JOHN PAUL II says the following:
CONCLUSION
If you knew the gift of God
31. "If you knew the gift of God" (Jn 4:10), Jesus says to the Samaritan woman during one of those remarkable conversations which show his great esteem for the dignity of women and for the vocation which enables them to share in his messianic mission.
The present reflections, now at an end, have sought to recognize, within the "gift of God", what he, as Creator and Redeemer, entrusts to women, to every woman. In the Spirit of Christ, in fact, women can discover the entire meaning of their femininity and thus be disposed to making a "sincere gift of self" to others, thereby finding themselves.
During the Marian Year the Church desires to give thanks to the Most Holy Trinity for the "mystery of woman" and for every woman - for that which constitutes the eternal measure of her feminine dignity, for the "great works of God", which throughout human history have been accomplished in and through her. After all, was it not in and through her that the greatest event in human history - the incarnation of God himself - was accomplished?
Therefore the Church gives thanks for each and every woman: for mothers, for sisters, for wives; for women consecrated to God in virginity; for women dedicated to the many human beings who await the gratuitous love of another person; for women who watch over the human persons in the family, which is the fundamental sign of the human community; for women who work professionally, and who at times are burdened by a great social responsibility; for "perfect" women and for "weak" women - for all women as they have come forth from the heart of God in all the beauty and richness of their femininity; as they have been embraced by his eternal love; as, together with men, they are pilgrims on this earth, which is the temporal "homeland" of all people and is transformed sometimes into a "valley of tears"; as "they assume," "together with men, a common responsibility" "for the destiny of humanity" according to daily necessities and according to that definitive destiny which the human family has in God himself, in the bosom of the ineffable Trinity.
The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine "genius" which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations; she gives thanks for all the charisms which the Holy Spirit distributes to women in the history of the People of God, for all the victories which she owes to their faith, hope and charity: she gives thanks for all the fruits of feminine holiness.
The Church asks at the same time that these invaluable "manifestations of the Spirit" (cf. 1 Cor 12:4ff.), which with great generosity are poured forth upon the "daughters" of the eternal Jerusalem, may be attentively recognized and appreciated so that they may return for the common good of the Church and of humanity, especially in our times. Meditating on the biblical mystery of the "woman", the Church prays that in this mystery all women may discover themselves and their "supreme vocation".…With these sentiments, I impart the Apostolic Blessing to all the faithful, and in a special way to women, my sisters in Christ.”
Just as Pope John Paul II prays “the Church prays that in this mystery all women may discover themselves and their "supreme vocation".
Well they have found it for today’s day and age and they will continue to find their "supreme vocation" in the ages to come. And the current Pope we so generously praise gives us our invitation to discussion and review of the issue of the needed change in woman’s roles in the church in his first speech. God Bless him indeed.
Excerpts.From the Pope’s first speech:
BENEDICT XVI, A POPE OF CHRIST, COMMUNION, COLLEGIALITY
VATICAN CITY, APR 20, 2005 (VIS)
"Theological dialogue is necessary. A profound examination of the historical reasons behind past choices is also indispensable.""The current Successor of Peter feels himself to be personally implicated in this question and is disposed to do all in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism."
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Then here's B7M8 response
Howdy, Joer. Good to hear
Submitted by b7m8 on September 14, 2007 - 5:54am.
Howdy, Joer. Good to hear from you!
I really like “On the Dignity of Women” and pretty much anything Benedict writes. It seems to me, though, that the problem with self-definition is when it happens without consideration of God’s plan. Neither men nor women have the capacity to define our roles without recourse to his plan. The language of the body, male and female, is an objective reality, which needs to be recognized. (You do seem to agree that gender roles are real, though.) It seems to me that women defining fatherhood and motherhood is as wrong as men doing it. We need to turn to the Creator and ask him to show us what it means to be a man or a woman. To me it is not important to “self-define” or “self-determine” but to seek to know what God intended us each to be.
You speak of a “Female Expression of God on earth”. It may just be how we each understand the words but to me, we are not expressions of God; we are creations of God. We reflect him, as does all of creation, but the term “expression” implies a pantheistic view (God is us and we are God) which is not Christian.
I don’t think a father knows a mother’s nurturing instincts. I think he knows a father’s nurturing instincts. From a Christian view, life is not about self-determination and self-expression. It is about self-denial. I (the Christian) give because I love; I sacrifice because I love. Finding oneself and having fullness of life are functions of sacrifice. (“He who loses his life for my sake will find it.” “I am the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. I have come that they may have life and have it to the full.”)
(This next comment is a personal soapbox issue for me, so please make allowances.) Saying women can do anything “with full male support” makes me really uncomfortable. Either I can do the work or I can’t. (I do recognize the necessity for men not to undermine women in order for us to have a fair chance; that’s a separate issue.) I find having men cheerlead me to the top patronizing. I have worked in an environment where I was the only woman. I did not want special treatment when doing my job and rejected it when offered. By doing this I gained (I hope) the respect of the men I worked with.
Forgive me for being cynical but there have been many women involved at all levels of government in different areas of the world, especially in the U.S. I don’t really see that we are better off. Or worse off for that matter! People are good and bad, competent and incompetent regardless of gender. I do think that bring the “feminine genius” to the world will make a difference, though; but first we have to recognize what that is.
The speech you quote from is actually referencing ecumenism. I found a speech where he directly deals with the question of women in the governing bodies of the Church. A quick summary: Pope Benedict speaks of the need for humility for the priest. Women have always been involved in the governing of the Church from a charismatic standpoint, which although not official is nevertheless real and necessary to the survival of the Church. Christ, in the Sacrament of Holy Orders governs the Church, using the priest who is faithful to his mission. Recognizing the two means of governing, he concludes, “However, it is right to ask whether in ministerial service — despite the fact that here Sacrament and charism are the two ways in which the Church fulfils herself — it might be possible to make more room, to give more offices of responsibility to women.” (full text at link below)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16romclerg.HTM
Home » forums » Thematic Tables » --- Everything under the sun ...
Slow Talk
http://ncrcafe.org/node/965
