The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionTowards the liberation of men
by Nicole Sotelo on Jul. 08, 2010
"… the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women, for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to women an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions, and commerce."
During this week in 1848, five women in Seneca Falls, N.Y., decided to call a convention "to discuss the social, civil and religious condition and rights of women." Days later on July 19 and 20, approximately 300 people gathered at a Methodist church having seen a small notice announcing the gathering in regional newspapers. It does not surprise me that these early feminists already recognized the need for women's religious equality. What does strike me is that at this women's rights event, 40 of the gathered supporters were men.
Also notable is that it was a man, not a woman, who persuaded the convention participants to keep the resolution for women's suffrage as part of the concluding declaration. That man was Frederick Douglass. Douglass, known for working across causes, knew that women's struggle for suffrage and liberation was linked with his own.
I wish the Catholic clergy of our day could understand that, as well.
Much has been said in recent months about the inequities between men and women in the church. Columnists in The New York Times, Newsweek and other media outlets have pondered whether greater women's leadership in the church would have prompted fewer sexual abuse cases and a better response. I think it would have, but not because women are essentially better. That is a false and dangerous notion. Rather, it is because women and men bring variegated gifts and that diversity actually promotes a better functioning and better performing organization.
In fact, research shows that shared leadership is good for business. A 2008 study reported in the McKinsey Quarterly, a business journal, shows that companies with three or more women in high-level management score higher on organizational effectiveness. Additionally, more women in leadership have been shown to result in better organizational performance and higher operating margins.
But beyond increased profit margins or better management, gender justice is needed for women's -- and men's -- liberation. With only one gender building the kin-dom of God, we have only half the kin-dom. Or, as the Chinese proverb goes, "Women hold up half the sky." But one cannot forget that men hold up the other half. And both genders are crushed when one gender is unable to stand tall.
A case in point: Sophia Auld, a white woman, taught Frederick Douglass to read. Later, it was Frederick Douglass, a black man, who championed the right for Sophia and other women to vote. Similarly, it was Harry T. Burn, the young Tennessee legislator who sided with his mother and cast the winning vote to ratify the 19th Amendment that gave women the elective franchise. In turn, his constituents elected him for another term.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Our church and our world need the full contributions of both genders. The women and men who gathered at Seneca Falls knew this, too. The second to last resolution from the convention reads:
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the other women who drafted that resolution 162 years ago this month knew that the responsibility for the "overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit," and the entire community's liberation, rested not only in women's hands, but in men's, too.
It still does.
I would like to dedicate this column in honor of Bill Callahan, whose death we mourn this week. He worked with "zealous and untiring efforts" for gender justice in church and society so that both men and women would one day know true liberation.
[Nicole Sotelo is the author of Women Healing from Abuse: Meditations for Finding Peace, published by Paulist Press, and coordinates www.WomenHealing.com. A graduate of Harvard Divinity School, she currently works at Call To Action.]
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time a Young Voices column 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 Young Voices to your list.
I fail to see the point of
I fail to see the point of Ms. Sotelo's article.
As self-evident as this thought is, I guess it bears repeating. Nevertheless, she is unclear as to what she actually wants. More lay ministry for women? I agree, and lay ministry is of paramount importance. More emphasis on women's religious orders? Again, totally agree, if those orders are orthodox.
Somehow, I get the feeling that ordination for women is somewhere in there. This obviously, as male-only ordination is infallible teaching, will never happen.
Dear Anonymous: I was with
Dear Anonymous: I was with you, sort of, until you posited your bias that expected a bias in Ms.Sotelo's article, only to disclose your own. Until then my response would have been that Ms.Sotelo was only suggesting that the commplementarity of men and women is essential to goodness, whether in life or/and in church. It was up to the reader to agree or disagree and to look towards the consequentials.
Personally, I can't see why women would want to be priests. Christ must really want them to overcome the range and severity of obstacles.
Dear dennism, Thank you for
Dear dennism,
Thank you for your response. Yes, my bias of expecting a bias was certainly evident, but at least I was completely forthcoming.
Consider two aspects of the article -- "Columnists in The New York Times, Newsweek and other media outlets have pondered whether greater women's leadership in the church would have prompted fewer sexual abuse cases and a better response"
What leadership in the church, exactly?
And the use of "kin-dom" (? kingdom?).
I assumed something, but I made it clear that it was only that.
"...as male-only ordination
"...as male-only ordination is infallible teaching..."
Declared INFALLIBLE by stained-glass ceiling MISOGYNSTS like John Paul II, who had no problem empowering and enabling sick pedophiles like Maciel Delgollado to finance his "overthrow" of Communism in Poland, but like so many of his successors remains afraid of women, their power and capacity for leadership.
The fallacy of the Latin Church's INFALLIBLE arguments against women and the sacrament of orders has been masterfully de-constructed here:
http://www.womenpriests.org/classic2/cor_int.asp
cf. pp. 109-135.
We have written several times
We have written several times that the only infallible declaration since the inception of the concept has been the Assumption of the blessed virgin mary. there have been attempts to skirt around that by saying that it is a definitive teaching that there cannot be woman priests and no discussion allowed. But it is not infallible and when there are women priests they won't lose the hermeneutic of continuity but they can stall things and scare people who don't see the important distinction between what they are calling people to adhere to and an authentic ex cathedra declaration. So biases are really not important here.
Furthermore, the majority of male priests would welcome female priests - but they will never be bishops. To be bishop, the powers that be want to be assured that the candidate will not ordain a woman. But there is a lot of support for women's ministry and even women as priests among so many fine priests. But they will remain quiet so as not to cause a row.
"We have written several
"We have written several times that the only infallible declaration since the inception of the concept has been the Assumption of the blessed virgin mary."
That's false, and Virgin Mary is capitalized. I'm not a stickler for punctuation on online forums, but she is the Mother of God. I'm not mad or trying to nitpick, so I hope it doesn't seem that way (although realistically it probably does).
On to the actual point. That is a completely false statement. First, that applies only to Papal infallibility, i.e. statements issued ex cathedra. That does not address the issue of infallibility by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Infallibility can occur in several forms. Second, infallibility did not begin with its solemn definition and delineation during Vatican I. Statements either are or are not infallible, regardless of the timing of the solemn definition thereof. The Assumption of Mary is one such dogma, as is her Immaculate Conception (and many others that the CDF has outlined).
Second, the female ordination question doesn't even fall under Papal infallibility.
"But it is not infallible and when there are women priests they won't lose the hermeneutic of continuity but they can stall things and scare people who don't see the important distinction between what they are calling people to adhere to and an authentic ex cathedra declaratio"
It is infallible. There is no ambiguity. This was clarified by the CDF and the issue is not open for discussion. It was never claimed to be an ex cathedra declaration, but that does not mean it is not infallible because infallibility is not limited to such statements, as outlined very clearly in Church teaching. You literally have no argument.
"But there is a lot of support for women's ministry and even women as priests among so many fine priests"
Fortunately, the private beliefs and opinions of such priests as those are not what is driving Church teaching. They are arguing against something that is intrinsically true and part of the deposit of faith.
How do you know that the
How do you know that the male-only ordination is an infallible teaching? By whom and when was this custom declared infallible? Thanks.
Hi Ann, The official
Hi Ann,
The official commentary form the CDF here http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
gives a helpful summary on infallible teachings, and refers to this particular one in paragraph 11.
Dear "anonymous", Where did
Dear "anonymous",
Where did you learn your theology? Denial of female priests is not a Church dogma, any more than clerical celibacy.
In the early Christian communities, women as well as men conducted eucharistic services; and until the early 12th century there were married priests, bishops and even popes.
Of course, the catechism doesn't explain this!!!
Jim Lovejoy, married priest
Mr. Lovejoy-- It is *your*
Mr. Lovejoy--
It is *your* theology and *history* that is suspect here. Early Christian history is clear--women did NOT conduct "eucharisit services"--Christianity's Jewish roots would never have permitted something like that. Period.
Theologically, it's quite simple--male-only clergy is *God's* plan, not ours. He makes the rules--you can argue with him all you want, but you can never win the argument...
Dear Mr. Lovejoy, I can only
Dear Mr. Lovejoy,
I can only assume that you are licitly married (i.e., former Anglican or Eastern Rite), otherwise I don't understand why you would lecture me on dogma.
Actually, male-only ordination is infallible. Period. There is no discussion here.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis made it clear that the Church has, and will not have, any authority to ordain women.
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith further clarified the state of this teaching.
Consider:
"9. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an "ex cathedra" pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church."
Response to OS by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:
"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."
This battle is over. Women priests are impossible, period. Simulation of an ordination leads to a latae sententiae excommunication.
Someone is conveniently
Someone is conveniently forgetting Mary who was the first to bring forth the body and blood of Christ. But hey, what's a little detail like that when it comes to the profound musings of sexless men.
Your disrespect for fellow
Your disrespect for fellow Catholics, however much you disagree with them, is uncalled for and certainly not appreciated.
Mary is the Queen of Heaven and the Queen of All Saints. She is accorded the most respect out of any human and receives a form of veneration higher than all other saints. Anyone who claims that the Church does not love women or Mary is seriously delusional.
OK, Anonymous you can think
OK, Anonymous you can think of me as "seriously delusional", but I think that how the Church feels about women is more involved than the high status and respect it gives to Mary, the mother of God. To assume that this respect is automatically an indication of how the Church feels about women is, in my view, very limited, perhaps even seriously delusional.
Your logic is faulty. You
Your logic is faulty.
You said the Church does not respect women, or something to that effect.
I said the Church respects Mary greatly, who is a woman.
Therefore your statement is incorrect by proof by counterexample.
But yes, I do not believe that the Church is as misogynistic as you describe.
if we love Mary so much why
if we love Mary so much why do we not daily daily pray with Mary her revolutionary, prophetic, powerful MAGNIFICAT which has the poor filled with every good thing and the rich sent empty away, the proud coming down off their thrones and the humbled happy as, well, like her son said . . .
If we love and respect Mary so much, live her Magnificat!
priests and religious do
priests and religious do every day during the liturgy of the hours.
Let's not just daily pray the
Let's not just daily pray the Magnificat, let's live it!
It is not logic to say that
It is not logic to say that one example is proof of some particular point, as there are always contradictions. To use examples to build an argument, there must be a large enough body of evidence (ie. examples)to then move to a conclusion. You are only citing one piece of evidence and drawing a conclusion from it. I think that this is a mistake.
Also, this veneration may not be an indication of respect for women because there is the possibility that it may be used to limit women to a certain roll and therefor disrespecting the fullness of possibilities the God has given women.
I support venerating Mary, as the Holy Mother of God, but I just see the whole issue as having more layers, as well as having been misused. And, before I draw any conclusions as to what this veneration really means, I have to consider the issues and results from this veneration.
Peace and God's blessing.
I never stated that because
I never stated that because the Church loves Mary, it loves all women.
Those two statements are true independently.
Peace, and read my posts more carefully.
Yes, I hear "evidence"
Yes, I hear "evidence" confused with "proof" all of the time.
And I would also agree that how one transfers a veneration of Mary to women in general may not always be respectful. Mary was a perfect women; one who did not have original sin and all the goes with it (including desires). All other women have original sin and will therefore certainly fall short of her example. This can cause much disrespect from those who will only see one like Mary worthy of respect. In the final analysis I do wonder if Mary has helped women be respected or hindered them.
The Spirit of God is a
The Spirit of God is a volcano bigger than Mount Everest. The dogma, doctrine, theology, Canon Law, Systematics, traditions, and infalibilities of the Patriarchal RCC, to wit, the whole theological shoot'en match, is a 2" tic tac toe grid on top of that volcano.
To arrogantly pretend to know it, and control it is fraud.
Mary, a woman, is the first Priest. The all male ordination proclmation was done by Religious Identity Theives who have NEVER atoned! Time to repent!
I can't respond to rant posts
I can't respond to rant posts because they include nothing of value.
Interpretation of the will of God, if one accepts the Bible as true, is anything that is not explicit in the Bible. All Christians except strict fundamentalists do it.
I'm not denigrating Mary at
I'm not denigrating Mary at all. I'm merely pointing out that the first person who brought forth Christ's actual body and blood was a woman--from her own body and blood. I just happen to think that that particular detail gets left out in the priesthood discussion.
I do admit that at times it is difficult for me to remember the Vatican curia are my fellow Catholics. mea culpa.
The thing is, Mary was never
The thing is, Mary was never a priest. The fact that she was the Mother of God is actually unrelated to the priest discussion. In fact, one could claim that if God had wished for female priests, He would have entrusted his Church to His Mother, which He did not. But that's neither here nor there.
But He did entrust the
But He did entrust the fullness of His Church to His mother which is why we consider her the First in heaven and the Queen of heaven and earth--the first intercessor of all intercessors, she who commands the angels and whom they willingly obey.
I suspect even Benedict would disagree with your statement that Mary is uncconnected to the priestly discussion. What is unconnected is all this thinking about Mary as the first of all intercessors and not extending it to other women and instead extending it exclusively to men.
I imagine that dear Mary
I imagine that dear Mary would get slapped down pretty quickly by those Catholics who claim to love and respect her if she dared raise her downcast eyes and announce she'd be saying Mass from now on....
Mary was perfect. Therefore
Mary was perfect. Therefore that situation would never come up anyway.
or proclaim the Magnificat
or proclaim the Magnificat
Actually, it turns out that
Actually, it turns out that many of these men are not so sexless after all. That may be one of the problems.
Comments such as this one
Comments such as this one above seem like they're written by someone whose view of religion is entirely legalistic. This is, of course, contrary to one of the major themes about religion that Jesus taught.
If a person has an experience of religion that includes talking to God as you would to your parent, striving for a sense of closeness to God, and attempting to find God revealed in each other, I doubt that this person would think that all this worthless argument about doctrine, infallibility, and authority was actually connected with anything religious or holy at all.
"Comments such as this one
"Comments such as this one above seem like they're written by someone whose view of religion is entirely legalistic."
False. But I'm not about to go off and claim that everyone can do what they want and there is no such thing as actual Truth as long as you feel spiritually content.
Does that describe your philosophy? Probably not (I hope not). Neither does your statement describe me. It's a totally false dichotomy that is being set up.
"This is, of course, contrary to one of the major themes about religion that Jesus taught."
I would never contradict Jesus, needless to say.
"If a person has an experience of religion that includes talking to God as you would to your parent, striving for a sense of closeness to God, and attempting to find God revealed in each other, I doubt that this person would think that all this worthless argument about doctrine, infallibility, and authority was actually connected with anything religious or holy at all."
That's your opinion. But for you to claim that you are aware of the spirituality of every single person on this planet and therefore capable of making statements like that is a bit presumptuous, I would say. I know plenty of people who are incredibly "legalistic" but still pray for hours each day. So, you're wrong.
Aha. Christianity's Jewish
Aha. Christianity's Jewish roots did not allow Gentiles!! until Paul had it out with Peter andJames.
Jewish *women* were allowed
Jewish *women* were allowed to be Christians before the Gentiles were brought in--yet they were not allowed to be priests.
Both the fact and the manner in which Gentiles became Christian add further support *against* women's ordination--the dramatic inclusion of Gentiles into Christianity was well-documented in Scripture. There is no similar tale of "dramatic inclusion" of women priests to be found in the New Testament.
Why should we continue to be
Why should we continue to be silenced by a claim of infallible teaching. As a University student over 50 years ago I was active in the Catholic(Newman) Society and the constitution of the society called for a male president. At the time this seemed logical as we imagined few males would join a religious society headed by a woman. I fear we were right at the time but attitudes HAVE changed. We NEED the contribution of that other half of the human race. In the bible we read that there would be no male nor female no slave nor freeman -we are ALL Children of God - perfectly equal in the sight of our creator.
As a woman, an older woman, I
As a woman, an older woman, I am quite tired of having to explain why I want to be an equal member of the human race. Men don't have to offer an explanation. As much as I appreciate Ms. Sotelo's article, I'm sure her intentions are good but it's time to stop begging and making nice. Of course we have all sorts of gifts, talents and skills to offer. It's quite simple what women want....full and total equality in all things.....the Glory of God is a human fully alive.....and that includes ordination for women but not in this clerical Vatican based hierarchy.
Can men give birth yet?
Can men give birth yet?
perhaps this is now declared
perhaps this is now declared another excommunicable offense, automatic?
Puh-lease stop with the
Puh-lease stop with the "infallibility" stuff. No one is or was infallible, even if they declare themselves to be rather recently in history. That "teaching" or "declaration" itself is man made. Thus fallible.
Ordination of women will happen, and possibly sooner than you might think.
What we really have to worry about is this: asking the first question. If Galileo was right and the Church apologizes, if limbo can be blithely thrown out the door, if the Vatican says aliens probably exist, if married men from other churches can become ordained, and then women, what other things was "the Church" hierarchy wrong about? Was Jesus divine? Was He Married? Was Mary a Virgin? Did he really "ordain" anyone? Do we go on after death? Why do they promise us salvation for our souls but it cannot be proven? Why do they want money to do this? Do these questions matter or should we perhaps focus on His greatest commandment, to create the kingdom of heaven here on earth, to live fully and love deeply while still alive, rather than threatening others and basing our entire lives on fear, guilt and retribution from man-made, power and money based declarations?
Can we live with the discussion of such questions, and the potential answers?
"No one is or was infallible,
"No one is or was infallible, even if they declare themselves to be rather recently in history. That "teaching" or "declaration" itself is man made. Thus fallible."
I'm sorry, why would you voluntarily label yourself Catholic? I mean that in all seriousness. If the Church is fallible, why bother being Catholic at all, given that it believes itself to be infallible?
"Ordination of women will happen, and possibly sooner than you might think."
It will never happen. End of discussion. That's actually the Vatican position. No debate will be fostered because none can possible be productive. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. That Holy Spirit makes the deposit of faith clearer over time. That deposit of faith includes male-only ordination. You are chasing dreams if you think that women will EVER be priests.
"If Galileo was right and the Church apologizes"
Not doctrinal.
"if limbo can be blithely thrown out the door"
Not doctrinal or ever codified.
"married men from other churches can become ordained"
Not doctrinal, disciplinary.
I would suggest more research, less factually incorrect statements.
It will never happen. End of
It will never happen. End of discussion. That's actually the Vatican position. No debate will be fostered because none can possible be productive. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. That Holy Spirit makes the deposit of faith clearer over time. That deposit of faith includes male-only ordination. You are chasing dreams if you think that women will EVER be priests.
"If Galileo was right and the Church apologizes"
Not doctrinal.
"if limbo can be blithely thrown out the door"
Not doctrinal or ever codified.
"married men from other churches can become ordained"
Not doctrinal, disciplinary.
I would suggest more research, less factually incorrect statements.
________
Try thinking outside the box anon. Jesus did. Remember when the stone rolled back and He broke out of that dungeon of death. He defeated death and calls us to do the same.
All coffins are boxes. People can get so freakng obsessed with rules they become incacerated by their rules and regulations. They begin to strangle themselves and others. If you believe in everlasting life and Love all things are possible. Be brave. Have faith. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. It's of grave importance
I love being lectured, so
I love being lectured, so thanks for your reply.
"Try thinking outside the box anon. Jesus did."
I do think outside the box. The fact that you would consider giving me this particular advice after reading one of my posts tells me a great deal about your own ability to shed stereotypes and first impressions.
"People can get so freakng obsessed with rules they become incacerated by their rules and regulations. They begin to strangle themselves and others."
I do not, but thanks for warning me against people who are like that.
"Be brave. Have faith. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. It's of grave importance"
Good. So I'll think outside the NCR box, indeed a matter of great importance given the appalling amount of heresy on here. I will do so immediately and with fervor.
"diversity actually promotes
"diversity actually promotes a better functioning and better performing organization."
God creates diverse people because God seems to think diversely and value diversely.
Nature makes diverse people because being diverse helps us survive.
Ordinatio
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
available:www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
from which I quote:
"Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
So much for the power to
So much for the power to 'bind and loose'.
Operative word by the way, is "I" declare. JPII did not speak ex cathedra no matter what Ratzinger later tried to say. Or was the Vatican I teaching on the procedure for declaring an infallible doctrine not actually infallible?
You obviously do not
You obviously do not understand the infallibility of the Church.
No one, including Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ever claimed that the statement was issues ex cathedra. He clarified that it is an infallible teaching of the universal and ordinary (other order...) Magisterium, and therefore, obviously, infallible.
"So much for the power to
"So much for the power to 'bind and loose'" I can't help but to chuckle at that. I have a feeling you would support any binding or loosing that you personally agreed with. I guess that is why it isn't called the Colkoch Catholic Church.
How do you figure John Paul II didn't speak ex cathedra? I guess you could say that John Paul II didn't uniquely define the teaching, he reiterated it based on Scripture and Tradition. But then again if you read the doctrine of Papal Infallibility you would know that that is an essential component.
And don't you find it a little ironic that you would criticize his use of "I declare." When the leftists also criticized Pope Benedict for returning the use of the "royal we" as in "we declare".
The dispute on this teaching
The dispute on this teaching centers around the assent of the Universal Magisterium. The theological commission studying this issue stated there was not real reason not to ordain women. Three quarters of the members in fact. It was never put to any kind of vote of global bishops, so there was never a basis for stating this position included the Universal Magisterium. It was a product of JPII and the CDF.
I'm not much of an advocate on this issue, but I really object to how it was promulgated. It's about infallibility all right, the creeping kind.
This quote always sounds to
This quote always sounds to me as if it was copied from a document 400 or 500 years old trying to staunch the truth of Galileo.
Why would Will quote the
Why would Will quote the church's "rationale" for banning women from ordination? Is it in support of the rationale?
Could it be that the writer considers it one of those "unalienable" truths that cannot be disputed or questioned? To me, this is truly interesting---that the rationale put out by PJII et al. is satisfying and unquestioned by some faithful and considered a God-given absolute truth.
So I continue to study why it is that some faithful accept without question such rationale in a day and age where equality and inclusivity is gradually being actualized. Is there a need for absolute security, a need to have all "truths" nailed down and reliable? a need to be "right"----a need to believe that it is "God's will" that some should be privileged and others "put in their place"? Honestly, it's a mystery to me.
There's always a need for
There's always a need for Truth. Truth does not change, either. That's the point.
Well Will,as my mother would
Well Will,as my mother would say, "Why I do declare...." but she would speak it in motherly disdain for arrogant pomposity rather than in support of it. "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", and this particular quote becomes more odious and disdainful every time I see it. It veritably reeks of a fundamentalism that is born in pride, abuse of reason and authority rather than in scripture or the tradition that respects but is not chained to a specific, selective past.
I fail to see the point
I fail to see the point of Ms. Sotelo's article
___________________________________
Yes you do FAIL anon. Why? Precicely because YOU CANNOT SEE!
Ordination for women is paramount.
Infallibility is a ruse built on the holy smoke patriarchs have been smoking and breathing on the spiritual environment for centuries.
HOLY POLLUTION HAS PRODUCED SUCH A THICK CLOUD OF SMOG IT HAS MADE YOU WHOLLY BLIND. AND THAT IS WHY YOU FAIL ... TO SEE!!
Dear Anonymous, Thank you for
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for the response.
As much as it may please you to imagine the ordination of women, it will never validly happen because the Church teaches (and believes it teaches) infallibly. There is absolutely no way that the Church will simply state that infallible teachings are not fallible and that it was just kidding for the past 2,000 years. You are literally fighting for the impossible. It's over. Move on or move out -- but be honest with yourself. Your "paramount" is a pipe dream.
*"infallible teachings are
*"infallible teachings are fallible" should be the correct text; I apologize for the error.
It is not a Pipe Dream. It is
It is not a Pipe Dream. It is a shared dream. The shared dream of the Jesus of history and the Christ of FAITH. That dream about true faith and the reign of God's kin-dom will not die and will not move on as you so conveniently suggest.
Unfortunately for you and Vatican power brokers "we are all one in Christ Jesus." and they can't stop that. Male and female are created in the image and likeness of God and they can't stop that either.
So buck up! Hear the Good News. Let it knock you and a few others off their high horse. Hear the Good News that proclaims liberty to the oppressed. Hear the Good News that Mary changed God into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and was and is the first Priest. Hear the Good News proclaimed in her Magnificat that ... the power driven will be sent empty away.
Hear the Good News, o ye of little faith, that Mary, the Mother of God is the first Priest. And guess what? Mary is a woman! And guess again. Mary is not (an) invalid nor is she bound, muzzled, and shackled by the church tho they try.
Again: In Christ there is no male or female. So: It matters not a jot or tittle if the Priest during Mass and at the Consecration is male or female because in Christ there is neither.
PS.Just for grinns read up on the historical context of Infallibility and why it was declared. It has no foundation in religious truth. It is a contrivance. Its establishment as a doctrine does however have some very important socio-political motivations. It derives from a political chess game the Pope was playing for preservation of power and jurisdiction during the 19th C. The onset and rise of nationalism in Europe and the Western hemisphere threatened to diminish what was left of the Holy Roman Empire (Ancien Regime) and Papal authority in Europe.
Dear anonymous, Thank you for
Dear anonymous,
Thank you for your sentimental but vacuous reply.
It is clear that the Church does not believe that it is within Jesus' will or God's plan that women ever be ordained. True faith does not allow women priests. See? I can make random statements with no proof either.
Male and female are equal but different. The day I can make a baby come out of my body is the day that I will concede that women and men should be treated the same.
In Christ, gender exists. Are you saying that God made a mistake by creating two genders, given that you don't think he sees in terms of genders? I don't understand. Is this some sort of bizarre test to see whether we actually can overcome our natural propensity to observe the perfectly obvious?
P.S.: I have. And circumstances do not determine fact.
"With only one gender
"With only one gender building the kin-dom of God, we have only half the kin-dom."
Behind your reasoning seems to be the bizarre premise that only ordained men build the kingdom of God. As a lay person, I'm insulted. The Church consists of priests and laity, and the work of the Church is done by both. Priests aren't doing the work of the Church more than laity are; they are just doing it in a particular sense.
Perhaps if you had a correct understanding of the role and dignity of the laity, you wouldn't make such a big deal about ordination.
How inclusive! I like that
How inclusive! I like that very much. Jesus Christ is Kin of kins and we are all children of God. WE are all kindred. Blessed is S/he who comes in the name of God ... not just for us men but also for us women and our salvation!
Great article, Ms. Soleto!
Great article, Ms. Soleto! Please keep up the good work and the great journalism!
THANK GOD FOR THIS IMPORTANT
THANK GOD FOR THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE and for remembering the great Americans of our past, including Seneca Falls, and Mr. Frederick Douglass
This article need be read from every pulpit in America, including the ones where concealed weapons are now required by law . . .
"...as male-only ordination
"...as male-only ordination is infallible teaching..." Then why were those little boys molested? Maybe a few women around, with the natural instinct and protective nature over children that we carry, and that would not have gone on so long.
"Then why were those little
"Then why were those little boys molested?"
Because some priests succumbed to disordered temptations. Why don't we, say, make all Masses be celebrated in Urdu because "little boys were molested?" The sexual abuse scandal is a horrible tragedy, but it is NOT one that should be used disgustingly as an opportunity to push completely irrelevant agendas, which is itself diminishing the severity of the crimes.
Female ordination is one such.
"with the natural instinct and protective nature over children that we carry"
The Church has no authority to ordain women. Period. This is not something open for discussion because it is part of the deposit of faith. The matter is settled for all but those who enjoy scraping away at stone walls with feathers.
Sexual abuse happens in Catholic churches, Protestant churches, schools led by priests, schools led by nuns, Boy Scouts, YMCAs, orphanages, halfway homes, families, and every other possible environment.
There is no reason to believe that this sexual abuse scandal could have been alleviated by having, say, married priests or women "priests" because other sample populations with those features unsurprisingly still suffer from child abuse. Any such link, even if demonstrable, would nevertheless be totally irrelevant to ontological reality, which states unequivocally that female ordination is impossible, period.
Those little boys were
Those little boys were molested because the moral relativism that invaded the church after VII decided in oppostion to church teaching that homosexuality was ok. They then infiltrated and systematically excluded good orthodox men from becoming priests. Doubt me, then read "Goodbye good men." Now that they seminaries have been flushed of this filth and new orthodox priests are entering the system the abuse has dropped dramatically despite the spotlight that has been put on the Church to find it.
Now as to whether or not women with "the natural instinct and protective nature over children that we carry" would be a solution to the problem I suggest you ponder why the LCWR refuses to work with SNAP, or explain the problems with the Irish Sisters of Mercy, or the abuse in the Magdalene asylums before you mount your high horse of innocent feminism.
Your just a garden variety
Your just a garden variety bigot Kscrawler so stop hiding behind Jesus to get your idefensibly ugly ideas to smell better.
Feel free to point out where
Feel free to point out where I have said anything that is inaccurate. It's easy to insult, but a lot harder to prove me wrong. Go ahead take a stab at it. You might want to read "Goodbye Good Men" before you call me a bigot.
well, for one thing kscrawler
well, for one thing kscrawler you claim it all began with the Second Vatican Council, but I must ask where you get this data, and how reliable and valid it may be.
Certainly Marcial Maciel DElGollado was relieving his painful condition before then, and got permanent protection and empowerment from Wojtyla in return for that trip to Poland in 1979, etc.
Certainly the experience was institutional in Ireland, at least, well before then.
Rather may we say that the great and Blessed Pope John XXIII opening the window to let in some air also let in some light upon an institutionalized horror which had been going on for centuries, and the revelations came with the Council's meta-analysis of our Church.
I only respond as you invite us to "Feel free to point out where I have said anything that is inaccurate. It's easy to insult, but a lot harder to prove me wrong. Go ahead take a stab at it."
The only evidence you proffer is a polemical, unproven, and wrong, book from which the truth varies.
"The abuse has dropped
"The abuse has dropped dramatically despite the spotlight that has been put on the Church to find it". I think, rather, the abuse has dropped dramatically because of the spotlight that has been put on it, not despite it. But it was not put on it by the leaders of our Church. It was up on it by the secular press. I think that if it was up to our leaders, there would be no spotlight, all would still be secrete and the abuse would have continued.
And please consider Jesus speaking of the speck and log in the eye before you take anyone to task about any moral "high horse".
I really believe it's
I really believe it's imperative that we use our names in these postings. The use of "anonymous" and other handles is not fair to those of us unafraid to use our real names.
Big business did not give
Big business did not give workers their rights. Workers fought, went on strike and died gaining their freedom. It was a bloody struggle. Men like Wolf Tone lost limbs in the struggle for workers rights. Women must be willing to do the same thing. The catholic church will not give freedom. Women must willing to fight. Freedom is not free. That includes freedom from the catholic monarchy. Fight for the right. We have women in combat. There are fighters. In the marines? Yes! In the catholic church?
Post new comment