The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionWithout women priests, Catholics miss out on ministry
by Bill Tammeus on Aug. 11, 2010
For decades now I’ve watched Catholics debate whether to ordain women as priests, an issue that flared again recently when the Vatican named “attempted women’s ordination” among “grave crimes.”
As you might expect from a Presbyterian like me (my denomination began ordaining women in 1956), I support ordination for otherwise-qualified women -- support it, that is, in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I do my best not to presume to tell other communities of faith what to believe or do on issues of theology.
But sometimes I wonder if Catholics know what they’re missing by not having female priests. Yes, Catholics get a sense of ministry by women through the often remarkable work of women religious. But even that is different from authorizing women to engage in the full range of ministry, including administering the sacraments.
The first woman to join my church’s pastoral staff was called in the mid-1980s. She had her weaknesses (What member of the clergy doesn’t?), but I remember my older daughter (then an early teenager) telling me she now could think of the possibility of becoming a pastor herself. Well, she didn’t do that. Instead, she’s a university administrator and a darn good one. But at least she could think realistically about being a clergy member.
Since then we’ve had two other female associate pastors and we seriously considered women to call as our new senior pastor before calling a male, who starts duties with us this month.
The first of those female associates was a native of Brazil -- a strong woman with many pastoral skills and special expertise in music. She mothered the church into fresh understandings of hymnody in ways that most males could not have done, with a combination of sharp intellect and passionate heart.
Our last female associate pastor was young and vibrant. She had studied the theatrical arts before sensing a call to ministry and her ministry reflected a flair for the arts, from her children’s sermons using puppet characters she had created to the warm, personal way she celebrated Communion at an evening service she initiated.
But Catherine’s real skill was being a feminine ministerial presence in the midst of pain. When my 31-year-old nephew died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a passenger on the first plane to hit the World Trade Center, she dropped whatever else was on her agenda and came to our house to mourn with us -- several times.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
She didn’t come with clear and headstrong theological answers for us, though of course she was willing to struggle with our questions. Rather, she brought her presence, an absorbing warmth and understanding that I’ve never felt from a male member of the clergy. To survive in ministry as a female, she knew she needed both head and heart, and she had managed not to abandon her nurturing heart as she lived her life on a playing field dominated by men.
She later moved 500 miles away and got cancer. It was no surprise to me when a group of her female friends in our church formed a small group that met periodically to pray for Catherine and, long-distance, support her in various ways. Some in the group visited her periodically as she struggled with the disease that eventually would kill her.
Even after Catherine’s death, this small group of women continues to meet from time to time to support and love one another in Catherine’s name.
I admit that it’s a bit of a triple-bank-shot to get from the first female Presbyterian pastor in 1956 (who’s still alive and active in church life in Florida) to this collection of female friends from my church who gather periodically to care for one another’s souls. But I’m convinced that this group would not exist if we had not made the decision 54 years ago to allow women to be pastors.
I wish all Christians could experience this kind of ministry.
* * *
Bill Tammeus, a Presbyterian elder and former award-winning faith columnist for The Kansas City Star, writes the daily "Faith Matters" blog for The Star’s website and a monthly column for The Presbyterian Outlook. His latest book, co-authored with Rabbi Jacques Cukierkorn, is They Were Just People: Stories of Rescue in Poland During the Holocaust. His e-mail address is wtammeus@kc.rr.com.
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Tammeus' column, "A small c catholic," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add Tammeus to your list.
I'm just a lowly lay person,
I'm just a lowly lay person, but here's what I have NEVER been able to understand. For many centuries, the ONLY Western religion which already HAD a place in the hierarchy for women was the Catholic Church. That being the case - why don't we forget all about making women priests, and simply empower NUNS to administer the sacraments? Would anybody seriously have a problem with that?
Being a vowed religious is
Being a vowed religious is not the same as the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
It's also why not all monks are priests.
You can read all about it HERE.
Yes Pete, you state the issue
Yes Pete, you state the issue correctly. However, what the poster was suggesting is that the rules be changed.
While we are at it, let's
While we are at it, let's declare apples to be zucchini.
Priests by definition are sacramental ministers. Nuns and monks are not (necessarily, monks can be priests, of course). If we said we will "change the rules" to make nuns sacramental ministers:
1. we would not be changing some arbitrary institutional policy, but attempting to change the nature of reality. We cannot do that, not we should not, we are incapable.
2. If nuns were sacramental ministers then they would be priests! Allowing nuns to be sacramental ministers would not side-step the issue of ordaining women, because it is in reality the very same thing!
Yes, Jim, we agree, if nuns
Yes, Jim, we agree, if nuns were sacramental ministers they would, indeed, then be priests. Where we disagree is that I don't think doing this would be changing the nature of reality, I think it would be embracing it.
May God's love and peace be always in your heart.
John David
True; "Priests by definition
True; "Priests by definition are sacramental ministers". However, that definition is arbitrary and self-serving. "...change the nature of reality", however is erroneous. It is not 'reality', since the argument is not ontological and exists (is) only because someone (hierarchy) says so...the latter can changed, and the sooner the better.
The argument is ontological
The argument is ontological -- the belief is that Holy Orders is sacramental, and thus an indelible mark is placed on those who are ordained.
If someone cannot be marked in such a manner, then they cannot be ordained. That is the "reality" we are discussing. It is most certainly ontological.
Sorry, and with due respect;
Sorry, and with due respect; 'belief' is not 'ontological'. Even worse is the claim "That is the Reality"...not so. That is the 'condition' to which women are subjected by a misogynist few, an old, tired, worn out bunch of control freaks, who are fearful of understanding and tolerating dissent. Without 'dissent' there can be no change...let rational minds prevail.
Right you are walter Rogers.
Right you are walter Rogers. The ban on womens ordination is a contrivance. It is a social construction of reality that can be socially and arbitrarily changed.
Ontology: the metaphysical
Ontology: the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence
So, yes, the reality of ordination is most certainly an ontological consideration by all applications of the definition. The argument stems from an argument as to the nature of the sacrament, i.e. ontological argument.
Rational minds have prevailed in the current teaching; that's part of the reason why it's there.
Sorry, I find it impossible
Sorry, I find it impossible to reason with someone who has given his/her own rebuttal...kindly review the definition: ontology is the study of 'being', that is 'reality'. It is observable, there for all to see; a belief is not.
The nature of a thing is that by which it is what it is, as in soul. Soul, spirit is conjecture, unprovable...same with sacrament, not ontological at all, but must be believed. Nothing is ontological or real, based on ones belief that it is there...or exists. You might argue to doomsday: "The argument stems from an argument as to the nature of the sacrament, i.e.ontological argument." and you'll never arrive at 'ontology'...rampant foolishness.
Reality is observable through
Reality is observable through reason and senses, i.e. rationalism and empiricism.
Whether God exists is independent of whether he is observable. Similarly, the sun exists even if I have never seen it, or cannot see it now.
Similarly, the Sacraments are either real or not real, and their nature is either existent or not existent. The fact that they require faith does not mean they are some sort of Shroedinger's Cat.
You have no point.
Truthfulness is a distraction
Truthfulness is a distraction to you...you have a position but not a point or substantive ideology. It seems that you live in the subjunctive, wishing and hoping, praying and believing; 'as if'(sic) the imagined, envisioned, imagery 'were'(sic) real. "Reality is observable through reason" is simply more nonsense from you. My concern for you regards your own language "fact that they require faith" is not ontological; "Shroedinger's Cat" is a weak attempt to delve into quantum mechanics...at least sub atomic particles have mass, can be smashed, and are observable...empirical data is ontological.
As is the nature of
As is the nature of ordination...by definition. The argument relating to it is as well, again by definition.
I'm sorry that your post is totally incoherent, so I'll do my best.
I do not live in the subjunctive. I don't really understand why you would make that claim. Also, the subjunctive does not always denote "wishing and hoping." God forbid that a CATHOLIC of all people pray or believe. The horror.
Shroedinger's Cat is a perfect response to your claim earlier, which basically stated that we cannot know what is not empirical. I said this was false.
...never said we cannot know
...never said we cannot know ,what is not empirical', hope not anyway. What I'm saying is that it is not ontological, as in proofs of the sacraments, nature of them, beliefs and wishes and the hodge podge of your discourse. There is no question here regarding quantum mechanics, it tests positively, and it results are amazing. The ontology of metaphysics was in good standing prior to the methodology of science; but it has gone the way of natural law philosophy and belongs in the same realm.
Read the definition of
Read the definition of ontological -- I'm not stating anything controversial. The women's ordination discussion centers around the nature of the Sacrament.
What does this "indelible
What does this "indelible mark" (on the soul) look like?
"Many have also forgotten that to speak of the character of baptism, confirmation, or ordination as 'an indelible mark imprinted on the soul,' is to speak metaphorically. The soul is not physical and so can't be imprinted on. The question is: What does the metaphor mean?" (theologian Joseph Komonchak, 8/1/09 @ 5:01 pm, at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/p?=3876)
Oops ---
Oops ---
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3876
(Question mark goes *before* the letter 'p')
It's immaterial. It exists
It's immaterial. It exists and is literally an mark; it is simply not a physical one.
"Being a vowed religious is
"Being a vowed religious is not the same as the Sacrament of Holy Orders".
We know that already Pete!!! The point is WHY NOT empower them as priests.
Just as Cistercian, Benedictine, and Dominican brothers in the monastery are ordained from time to time to the diaconate and the priesthood.
Now, would you care to advance yet another groundless argument for denying ordination to monks and nuns who aren't now priests?
It is impossible for a nun to
It is impossible for a nun to be made a priest, wrong matter for the sacrament. It is possible for monks to be so, though not all are.
It's all here.
Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean that it is groundless. The Sacrament is what it is. You can't change it any more than you could change the others.
You can't have an Italian steak sandwich and a mug of root beer as the matter for the Eucharist. You can't use WD-40 in place of water at baptism. You can't have a man marry a cell phone, or another man for that matter.
The concept isn't that hard to understand, if you TRY to understand.
Sadly, pathetically, Holy
Sadly, pathetically, Holy Orders only apply to men! Women religious vows are not even sacramental! When you think of the sacraments and realize that these women's lives are not included it is truly mind-boggling.
yes, I do have a SERIOUS
yes, I do have a SERIOUS problem with that:
1) it assumes that you know what sisters/nuns want
2) a call to ordination is different to a call to the religious life
3) it is like giving the plantation slaves the keys to the masters house, you can come in but you can't own one
4) or the place the hierarchy has for women is "barefoot and pregnant"
5) why is it impossible for you to HEAR what WOMEN are saying they are CALLED TO?????
The pope and the hierarchy
The pope and the hierarchy more than likely experienced toilet training issues as children which have morphed into more serious difficulties with women since then. The issue of ordaining women to the priesthood becomes theater of the absurd. It permits them to declare once and for all time, "take that mom"!!!.
A sick Church in the hands of sickos.
For me, a woman, the
For me, a woman, the objective reality is simple.
In the RC Church, I am simply a vessel for reproduction of additional Catholics, a servant for males (sometimes abusive ones with whom I must stay and never divorce), a convenient housemaid and volunteer for Church functions, and (if I have a job) another contributor to the Sunday collection plate. If I choose to be a woman religious, I can go with one of the orders that bravely acts for the good of people in the world (and gets investigated for it), or I can just do more cleaning and praying except this time I get to wear a habit.
Maybe that's what I want. Maybe I DO want to be a housewife and volunteer (huge jobs both), or maybe I want to be a woman religious and be contemplative (a really good option for strong, motivated women), maybe I want to work and rear a family as well, or maybe I do want to be celibate. There is really nothing wrong with any of those options, but nobody sees fit even to ask my or other women's opinions about what we want to do with our individual religious and personal lives or accept that we may wish to define our role and not select from a pack of six where one size fits none. Further, if I give my opinion, I am uppity.
If I dare complain, I get told that -- all my experience to the contrary -- I am actually being put on a pedestal and that my role model should be Mary. My abnegation, dedication to my children, faith in Jesus, yadda, yadda, yadda. Future of the faith, and the mother of the faithful, bla, bla, bla. There is an encyclical for every case... So... Being a second-class citizen is a good thing. Enjoy it, and don't worry your pretty little head with all this terribly difficult thinking stuff. We have it all figured our for you.
I am told from birth that all my reproductive functions are dirty, but it is all a big mystery so I should not control my reproduction -- that is contra natura. If I am extremely fertile, I must have dozens of children whether or not I want them or am able to support them. If I desperately want a child but cannot bear one, I cannot take advantage of modern means of reproduction (contra natura again and it could be technical adultery). If I wish not to marry, I must never be sexually active. If my husband beats me and I divorce him, I cannot remarry in the Church. If I have pots of money I can go through the annulment process so I CAN remarry, but maybe I don't have the money or the time for such a large project. If I marry again (even in a civil ceremony), I am excommunicated automatically. The children of that (happier) union will be children without a legitimate father (from the Church's perspective -- not the State's, thankfully).
Priests can do all kinds of awful things and never get hauled before a judge in a courtroom unless someone has the gumption to go directly to the civilian authorities and stay firm throughout the legal process, and not allow themselves to be bullied by the local bishop. The priest almost certainly won't get defrocked and excommunicated. But let one of them say that my situation is unfair, and women should be ordained maybe perhaps if the Church ever changes the rules and the hammer will come down without mercy.
I do not, and never did (even as a child) find this acceptable. I voted with my feet. Others have chosen differently and I will defend to the death their right to do so. But don't try to treat women like mushrooms and wrap it all up in 'like substance' and 'ontological marks' and symbols and mysteries. It is the same old "No Gurlz Allowed" sign on the little boys' clubhouse door.
Pfffttt! Women have called the Church's bluff. The play will go on for many years, but let us not pretend that the game is over. I do not expect to see women priests in the RC Church before I die and I have a few decades left on this earth, but I DO know that the Church as we know it needs to change or it will die - and all its good works with it. It will die taking with it the goodness and beauty that it DOES have, and that will be a huge loss for the world. Isn't that too high a price to leave the "no girls, they have cooties" sign on the door?
--Andy Jo--
"Why don't we forget about
"Why don't we forget about making women priests and simply empower NUNS to administer the sacraments?" What? To be empowered to administer the sacraments means to be ordained. Otherwise, the sacraments aren't sacraments and they aren't being administered. What religion are you?
I would not!. As long ass
I would not!. As long ass they were gven the same education regarding the church's take on doctrine and the sacraments, etc, etc. WE are the Body of Christ as well as MEN!
Dear Guernica, Rejoice! It
Dear Guernica,
Rejoice! It was lowly lay persons that Jesus came to serve. Unfortunately, while "for many centuries the ONLY Western religion which already HAD a place for women was the Catholic Church", that "place" was as a misbegotten male and a source of temptation.
Also, it wasn't until a few hundred years after Jesus had returned to our Father that the "church" defined itself as "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" at the Council of Nicea. Remember, Peter was not the first bishop of Rome, or pope, or even an ordained priest. He, too, was a lowly layman whom Jesus sent out to share the Good News. "Apostle" means one sent, a messenger. That is the dismissal we receive at the end of Mass, "Ite, missa est", "Go and share the Good News".
The first and only priest ordained by God is Mary, his "chosen one". She is the only one who made the body and blood present in our world. She is the only one who can truly say "This is my body... This is my blood." Our priests can only re-present the Sacrifice of the Mass, reminding us that Jesus sacrificed himself for us once and for all times.
The first "apostle" was Mary Magdalene. She's even acknowledged as the "apostle to the Apostles".
So as for "making women priests" or "apostles", it's already been done. Our Christian family is the result of God's plan for our salvation. And women have been the most faithful disciples of Jesus, especially our good and beloved nuns.
Paz y Bien, Rolando.
Firstly, a nun is a woman who
Firstly, a nun is a woman who takes holy vows and lives her life within the walls of a convent her whole life. She is monastic.
A religious sister, they are apostolic and live amongst us, take vows, etc.
A woman who feels called to live a religious life of a sister or nun is not necessarily called to be a priest. It is completely different. That is like asking a masseuse to operate just because they both work in the healing profession. There may be some nuns or sisters who do feel called to be priests, but consecrated religious life is in and of itself a vocation.
Bill, thank you for sharing
Bill, thank you for sharing your experience with women in the ministry in your Church. I yearn for the day when women will be allowed to be priests in the big "C" Catholic Church.
I am the husband of a United
I am the husband of a United Methodist clergywoman. Both of us work under the direction of a female Bishop. I certainly can affirm what Bill Tammeus says.
You are right. You are not
You are right. You are not Catholic, so your opinion is not relevant. The lay women of the parish are called to assist their fellow faithful. We don't need women priestesses to do pastoral work. Shepherds on men, not women.
...except for the sad fact
...except for the sad fact that he is correct. This misbegotten personnel policy has cost the Church and it's people a great deal. You only have to look at the hordes of ill-suited men who have occupied the position of "priest" (or even Pope) through the centuries, simply on the basis of accidental gender. It's no way to run a church.
Tabitha, your comment was
Tabitha, your comment was confusing to me. First of all, I don't understand your redundant use of "women" and "priestesses" and then linking these to a need in pastoral work. Did you mean to say we don't need women to do pastoral work? We don't need priestesses ...? And then to add that shepherds are men, not women. Don't be so sure on this score. The world is a pretty big place; shepherds come in both genders and in all ages. But the topic you really raise is relevance and so I wonder, what relevance does the gender of shepherds have to Mr. Tammeus article?
Your very harsh first statment is dismissive and reeks of superiority. The opinion of any baptized Christian is certainly relevant on matters that concern all Christians. Mr. Tammeus spoke of "ministry" including, but not limited to the sacraments. The number of R.Catholics missing out on sacramental "ministries" is large and growing. Let's face it two reasons this is so is because we are "without women priests" and without a fair policy of married priesthood.
Joan, I think Tabitha thinks
Joan, I think Tabitha thinks that Mr. Tammeus's opinion is not relevant because he disagrees with Rome. I am willing "to bet the farm", as they say, that if he agreed with Rome, Tabitha would find him and his opinions very relevant. It doubt that it has anything to do with not being Catholic.
Thank you Jon Altman and I
Thank you Jon Altman and I apologize for TR's narrow sectarian bias. We are all believers in he Christ of faith who came to show that Love could transcend narrow hearts and minds. I would love as an RCC and deeply need to see women ordained priests in the RCC. Thank you for your opinion. It is deeply relevant because it is Christian!
Does a mother not shepherd
Does a mother not shepherd her family???? What condemnation you show!!!!!!
Such bitterness...you must
Such bitterness...you must have been very hurt by your mother to speak so. I AM CATHOLIC AND A WOMEN AN LISTEN TO ME...WOMAN'S ORDINATION IS BIBLICALLY BASED....THE FIRST HOUSE CHURCHES WERE WOMEN LEAD. WOMEN STOOD AT THE CROSS WHEN JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED ALL THE MEN FLED IN COWARDNESS EXCEPT JOHN. A WOMEN WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO KNOW THAT JESUS HAD RISEN AND A WOMAN WAS THE "APOSTLE TO THE APOSTLES." So YES, CATHOLIC WOMEN WANT TO BE PRIESTS!!!!!!
The Magesterium has declared
The Magesterium has declared the issue closed, there will never be women as Catholic Priests. If you are a Catholic, which you clearly state, then part of your obligation is to obey the Magesterium. The Church is so in need of new nuns and vocations have been on the decline for years. There is a place, a very important one for women in the heart of the Church. Just because a few of you do not like it, or think it is not enough does not a women Priest make. You do a great diservice to the many Nuns and Sisters out there living their vocation. Allowing a woman to become a Priest in the Catholic Church is like having a man be named as President of the world's feminist movement. Some roles are simply unique to their missions. Imagine a split that could be caused by such a move on the part of the Church. Many, many would leave as what is happening with the Anglican Union. Do you really advocate such disunity and loss of souls as a result? You are talking about undoing centuries old tradition. That is harmful. To every woman Priest allowed, I would like to put forward that question, How do you feel personally for being the cause of so many souls leaving the Catholic Church? Was it worth it the minister to the remaining few? How selfish. And how long before will it be before you demand to be Bishops and then the Pope? Look at the Anglicans, not long. And many of them are turning to Rome now and Catholicism. What do you tell them when they arrive and find a newly allowed woman Priest presiding over their new Parish. Unfortunately it creates more confusion and loss to allow or even debate this sort of thing. Better to support you Faith than trying to change it.
"The Magesterium has declared
"The Magesterium has declared the issue closed"
And the Sun still revolves around the Earth because the Magisterium once said did!
Different levels of
Different levels of certainty, different issues altogether, etc. They are totally incomparable.
"Better to support you [sic]
"Better to support you [sic] Faith than trying to change it."
Advocating women's ordination has absolutely nothing to do with the Faith.
On the other hand, ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate has everything to do with making the Church of Rome truly 'catholic' in its ordained ministries.
Joseph, The Church of Rome
Joseph,
The Church of Rome (i.e. everyone's Church, the catholic Catholic Church, etc.) is certainly universal in its ordained ministries. The fact that they do not conform to your misguided views is not God's problem, so resolve that with Him on your own.
In the meantime, they are matters of faith, or so the belief is. Until we establish the practice of ordaining only men as nothing more than disciplinary, then it is necessarily also a matter of faith (/and morals).
So the ordained ministries of
So the ordained ministries of the Church of Rome are "matters of faith"?
I disagree, and so do many other folks far better versed in the subject than am I.
See http://www.womenpriests.org/scholars.asp.
And many persons far better
And many persons far better versed in the subject than the Women"Priests" disagree with your conclusion.
Point being?
And the ordained ministry, as a Sacrament, most certainly is a matter of faith.
Point being? Women can
Point being?
Women can preach, teach, reconcile, and preside at liturgy just as well as men.
Jesus did not ordain anybody to "priesthood", Jewish or Christian. Indeed, ordination to ministry itself was a historical development, not at all part of the experience of our primitive ancestors in the faith. Yet, they had what we certainly would acknowledge to be "valid" sacramental eucharists. Even today, Catholic ordination, strictly speaking, is to the presybyterate or episcopate, not to any kind of "priesthood". The primitive Christian communities did not have the bifurcated priesthood that came about (and only gradually) more than a hundred or so years later.
The church is not the deposit of faith, and the deposit of faith is not the church. Jesus delivered God's message of our salvation. It would be up to human beings, inspired by the Spirit (the Source of life and change in the church), to develop the ordained ministries known today as diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate. Such formal ministries developed out of communal necessity.
Cardinal Ratzinger said that
Cardinal Ratzinger said that official teaching, i.e., that the church lacks authority to ordain women, is not *part* of the deposit of faith but, instead, only *pertains* to the deposit of faith. In other words, Ratzinger considers this teaching to fall into the so-called "secondary object" of infallibility, i.e., that which is necessary to preserve and explain the faith.
Maybe he's right, but non-reception to date would suggest otherwise. Jesus, after all, said nothing about women's ordination. Why? Because Jesus did not ordain anybody as we understand and apply this term today.
Jesus ascended to heaven a Jew, and Jews had their own priesthood.
I love my Faith ... it warms
I love my Faith ... it warms me, stimulates my mind, satisfies my intellect. I do not love all of the administrative apparatus, however. There's a difference between the Faith and those authorized to celebrate sacraments. I fear the apparatus is the last surviving only-men-are-really-fit-to-rule organization on earth, and has that characteristic because of the male dominant society in which it is rooted. While that society has learned better slowly over the centuries, the apparatus has not. I hope that things in this regard will change, both with regard to women and with regard to married people. The Magesterium that declared the Church unable to ordain women is perfectly capable of changing its mind, and will. I hope that happens before the Roman Church becomes a small minority on the planet (there are those women, and there will be more, who separate from a Church glass ceiling that tells them "NO", and their children will follow them), and that it will not await the day when priests are as scarce as Bishops now are. The Faith, however, Christology, the understanding of Scripture, the marvellous process of exploring natural law and the whole topic of peoples' relationships with the Divine, that's nearly perfect (Vatican II left things to be resolved still) and fully defensible vis a vis the skeptics.
Why does any women want to
Why does any women want to support the all boy's club. The catholic church original picked and chose what it wanted in the bible. It allowed mary magdalen to be refered to as a prostitute until 1968. Only now is it becoming more commonly known that paul referred to one of the best apostles among was a female named junia later changed to a males name of junias. One wonders just how much more deceit and lies the catholic church has committed to keep women as second class citizens. After all they have been so forthcoming with their recent crimes by hiding it or erasing it. One wonders how many more crimes they have hidden for their political ideology. Women all over the world are waking up and educating themselves on the churches lie and erasind women from their rightful place in the world and religion. It is the beginning of the end for this criminal institutions.
TR you exhibt all the charity
TR you exhibt all the charity and couth of a Vatican prelate. God, save us from these people, Lord hear our prayer.
I enjoyed reading this
I enjoyed reading this article, except for one of the last comments, the reference to making "the decision 54 years ago to ALLOW women to be pastors." That is what is so painful to women.....how about making the decision 54 years ago to "invite" women to be pastors.
I do my best not to presume
I do my best not to presume to tell other communities of faith what to believe or do on issues of theology.
On the contrary, we need our Protestant brethren to help keep us honest. If they did not, we'd likely still find Dominicans selling indulgences for the construction of basilicae.
I would assert though that the issue at hand is not one of theology, but of fundamental humanity. One that is obvious to people of good will, except those who continue to try and prop up a tradition that is in every sense of the word, dead.
With all due respect, you
With all due respect, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Catholic concept of a priest. This is not to be wondered at since you do not have anything like it in the Presbyterian Church. You seem, naturally enough, to equate preaching and serving - acting as a minister - as fundamentally being the same as a priest. That, of course, if the fly in the ointment. All of those things are things any catholic woman can do (admittedly there are rule on preaching at Mass, but those are simply rules and in any event a woman can preach otherwise.) The priest fundamentally is the minister of the sacraments - preaching and other ministries being an adjunct, and not fundamental, to the role of priest. The Presbyterian understanding of the sacraments is quite different from that of Catholicism. TULIP, Real Presence, the Sola(s), monergism, cooperation/synergism. With all due respect you are outside your ken.
While many on this site greatly dislike it, the Church, in the person of Pope John Paul II, and through its ordinary magisterium, has conclusively taught that the Church CANNOT ordain women - no one can. The sacramental order is, for whatever God's purpose in it may be, is limited to males.
I do not pretend to fully understand it- but the Church is plenty clear on the issue. Perhaps it has to do with the Trinity? - One God in Three distinct persons, each fully God yet each different? So, men and women are both fully human, yet only men can be priests or fathers and only women can be mothers? I don't know, but it is the faith in any event. Only Jesus was sacrificed - yet Jesus is fully God, yet separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit? Not altogether easy to get your head around.
There is no debate about
There is no debate about whether women should be priests. The Pope has no authority to declare it "OK" for women to be priests. The Catholic Church, established by Christ, follows the tradition set by the Davidic kingdom, wherein only men (specifically, sons in the line of Aaron) were "allowed" to be priests. In addition, when these priests were serving in the temple, they had to be celibate for that span of time.
But I also suppose that no one cares that women have always held a special place in the Catholic Church; for instance, St. Teresa of Avila, a saint from the 1500's, is called a "Doctor of the Church". Any other Christian religions do that?
If women truly feel called to be priests, and it is not their egos guiding their way, then they are free to leave.
The Pope has no
The Pope has no authority
_____________________
You are right. When it comes to Women's Ordination the institutional Church admits it has no authority. Absolutley correct. However, the People of God do have that authority and we say a resounding eternal YES! to Women Priests in the RCC. Of course, if that makes you uncomfortable Suzanne you could take your own advice and ... "hit the trail."
Or...she can remain within
Or...she can remain within the Catholic Church while those who support simulation of ordination can forge and hit their own proverbial trail.
Why be Catholic if you support women priests? Why not move to a very similar Christian denomination? There are tens of thousands out there.
I AM A CATHOLIC LAY WOMEN
I AM A CATHOLIC LAY WOMEN WITH NO DESIRE TO BE A PRIEST MYSELF, BUT please don't TELL me to move to a very similar Christian denomination just because I may agree with many who can quote reasons why a women could be a priest. While I understand that our Church leaders and the Pope do not agree at this time, that does not mean that I can not question their decisions and think for myself. Jesus ask all of us to follow him. We receive Confirmation and the gifts of the Holy Spirit just so we can search our conscious and respond to his prompts. I am very weary of anyone who would rather tell me to give up on my Church rather then try to respond with kindness and gentle acceptance of my right to my view.
"Why be Catholic if you
"Why be Catholic if you support women priests?"
Because we are both witnessing and responding to the influence of the Holy Spirit calling the Church of Rome to be inclusive not only in its outreach but also in its ordained ministry.
Women, true priests by virtue of their baptism, are just as capable as are men in preaching the Word of God, reconciling sinners to the Church, and presiding at the sacred liturgy.
Ordained ministry need not remain a gender-specific enterprise.
"Because we are both
"Because we are both witnessing and responding to the influence of the Holy Spirit calling the Church of Rome to be inclusive not only in its outreach but also in its ordained ministry."
The Church of Rome has spoken on the issue of women priests.
And you stated that you removed yourself from communion with that same Church of Rome, so I do not understand on any level why they would even consider following what you tell them to do.
The Church of Rome is inclusive in all ministries. That does not mean disobedient to God's will.
"Women, true priests by virtue of their baptism, are just as capable as are men in preaching the Word of God, reconciling sinners to the Church, and presiding at the sacred liturgy."
We are all priests. There are also ordained priests. And no.
"Ordained ministry need not remain a gender-specific enterprise."
There is no other option. Would you like your gravity existent or non-existent today, Joseph? What other laws of nature and of God should we rewrite at your whims?
"The Church of Rome has
"The Church of Rome has spoken on the issue of women priests."
Yes, and it's ignited much needed discussion about a clearly unresolved issue.
"The Church of Rome is inclusive in all ministries."
No, it is not.
"We are all priests."
Yes.
"There are also ordained priests."
Yes, they've been ordained to the presbyterate (or episcopate), not to any "priesthood". See my comments of August 2 & 5 at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/p?=3876; title of thread is "Participatio Actuosa".
Your final paragraph makes no sense: Gravity is a natural science phenomenon; ministerial ordination is a communal practice rooted in religious belief and related values.
"Yes, and it's ignited much
"Yes, and it's ignited much needed discussion about a clearly unresolved issue."
In the same way that I can claim that freedom of press is not a constitutional right. The government has moved on; the issue is resolved. Dissent does not constitute legitimate lack of resolution; sometimes it is merely inability or unwillingness to accept reality.
"No, it is not."
Yes
"Yes, they've been ordained to the presbyterate (or episcopate), not to any "priesthood""
Ordained ministry -- we call their status the priesthood, at least colloquially.
"Gravity is a natural science phenomenon; ministerial ordination is a communal practice rooted in religious belief and related values."
What's being questioned here is the nature of the reality of the related concepts. Sure, there is a distinction between empirical nature and rational/faith-based nature, but it is not actually so important in the context of my previous post.
I reach my conclusions based
I reach my conclusions based on historical fact.
You base your conclusions on doctrinal belief.
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; republished 2010).
My earlier link should be http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3876.
Mine are based in historical
Mine are based in historical fact as well. I'm sorry that you disagree with reality.
Furthermore, there is a reason the belief is doctrinal.
Canon 749.3: No doctrine is
Canon 749.3: No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
"Nearly all of the vast amount of papal teaching, i.e., encyclicals, exhortations, letters, addresses, homilies, etc., is non-infallible. That is, most of the time the pope makes no pretense of teaching definitively, of defining doctrines...
"Similarly, even when the college of bishops teaches solemnly, as it did at the Second Vatican Council, it does not exercise its infallible authority. If it wished to teach infallibly within or outside of an ecumenical council [under canon 749.2], the college would have to do so quite explicitly, that is, with the expressed intention to act infallibly and the agreement that an opinion is to be definitively held...
****************
"The third paragraph of the canon [749.3] is perhaps the most important canonically. Unless a teaching is clearly established as infallibly defined, it is not infallible. 'Manifeste' means manifestly, plainly, evidently. Doctrines which are assumed or deduced or inferred to be infallible do not so qualify. The action of teaching infallibly must be clear and unambiguous, so that it does not engender confusion"
"[Note] 2. The statement by the CDF of October 28, 1995,...that the teaching to the effect that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women requires the definitive assent of the faithful since 'it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium' is an exaggeration. The teaching (restated in the applet 'Ordinatio sacerdotalis, May 22, 1994,...) does not meet the test of explicitness; neither the pope nor the college of bishops declared that they were making an infallible definition, nor has it been demonstrated that the whole body of Catholic bishops has taught the doctrine in such a way as to oblige the faithful to give it definitive assent. Consequently its infallibility can hardly be considered 'manifestly evident'. For a careful discussion of this point, see 'Tradition and the Ordination of Women', a document of the Catholic Theological Society of America of June 1997..."
Source:
John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green (eds.), NEW COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CANON LAW, Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, Paulist Press, 2000, pp. 913-914.
You write, "Ordained ministry -- we call their status the priesthood, at least colloquially."
Yes, but popular (and historically misinformed) usage of the term 'priesthood' within this context does not make it correct. See Kenan Osborne's PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF THE ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH for information on how the terms 'presbyter' and 'episkopos' would morph over several hundred years into the terms 'priest' and 'bishop' as we understand such terms today.
"Doctrines which are assumed
"Doctrines which are assumed or deduced or inferred to be infallible do not so qualify"
In the opinion of one theologian, and I would agree with him. But his opinion on the Codex is not infallible, and his inference, being such, is not a direct conclusion from "manifestly evident."
"The teaching (restated in the applet 'Ordinatio sacerdotalis, May 22, 1994,...) does not meet the test of explicitness; neither the pope nor the college of bishops declared that they were making an infallible definition"
The Pope mirrored the language used in the Codex in Canon 749.2. Furthermore, the CDF clarified any misconception on this count. One need not start one's sentence with, "I infallibly state..." Nowhere is this strictly mandated by the Codex.
"In the opinion of one
"In the opinion of one theologian..."
The COMMENTARY has three editors and a number of contributors, all of whom are expert canonists.
"[The writer's] opinion on the Codex is not infallible..."
Not infallible? Good grief, demonstrate some knowledge of the term.
Your final paragraph is simply off-base.
"Gravity existent or
"Gravity existent or non-existent" has nothing to do with this issue because the "block" to the ordination of women has nothing to do with "nature" or "God". This so called "rule" is purely man-made! The history of the Church can prove that!
Hey Brian we have have a RTOW
Hey Brian we have have a RTOW it's called Baptism, So scoot over ban man you're bogarting the church!
Where is it a resounding yes?
Where is it a resounding yes? Only a few loud mouthed, outspoken people wish to overturn decisions of the Magesterium and Catholic Faith. Women HAVE a place, an important one in the Church. Nuns. We could not do without their service. Yet I see no men clamouring around for the right to become a Nun. Why don't you advocate both in your statements, as a beacon of true equality? The people can scream all they want. The issue has been closed by Rome and people are moving on to more important things. Looks like all of Rome has "hit the trail" on this issue. As a Catholic I am happy to see that no more time will be wasted debating this issue in Rome. There are more pressing issues.
It may not be debated in
It may not be debated in Rome, but as parish after parish after parish after parish is closed, denying access to the sacraments, especially in rural areas, for lack of celibate, male priestly vocations, the issue of female ordination will continue to be discussed among the laity who will be cut off from the sacraments by Rome's stubborness.
Post new comment