Vatican Says that Ordaining Women Priests is a Crime Like Sex Abuse of Children - Page 6

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

Unless there are people in the church that were there at it's founding, then yes today the churches beliefs come from the bible. It's not a book that a bunch of early catholics decided to write random junk in. They were very specific about what went into the bible to ensure that the lay person and the future clerics of the catholic church knew where to find what it is the church believes. And at this point, there is some questions as to what was intended by choosing certain verses because, of course, there is no one alive today who was alive when the bible was put together. Which means that anything that is not inarguably clear has the potential of at some point being interpreted in another way.

I don't know where I said the church comes from the bible, I did say the beliefs come from the bible though. Maybe I should have said that today the beliefs come from the bible.

With regards to women as priests until the 4th century, there is some indication that the catholic church may have had female priests prior to the 4th century. Women were not officially banned from Priesthood until the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century, something I posted above.

The Bible is only one source of the teachings of the Church. Tradition is another. (I would say that the Bible is part of Tradition actually.)

One does tend to see, at least in North America, a tendency for Catholics to argue from Scripture alone. I think this is probably because in many cases they are apologizing to fundamentalists, or have been influenced by them. But it is not really a Catholic way of thinking.

Re banning of women as priests - it is important to remember how the Church typically defines doctrine - at least historically. Historically doctrine is only formally defined in response to a heresy or misunderstanding. A 4th century ban against female priests would suggest a local heresy or schism involving ordaining women - not necessarily a change in policy. Laodicea was a regional council, which suggests a regional issue.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by Trigger

There may be an agenda here; certainly, at the least, the author is trying to maintain a cultural status quo of that time. Christ seems to have had radically different ideas about women.

The assumption seems to be, if St. Paul (or others) teaches something which conflicts with modern-day ideas about women, he must be merely parroting, maintaining the cultural status quo. If he teaches something that agrees with contemporary feminism, he is boldly breaking free of cultural biases. It is one step away from saying, "Anything the Bible says which I do not already agree with, I can ignore."
Christ may well have had teachings about women which conflicted with the common viewpoint at the time, while still limiting the priesthood to men, as it had been throughout Old Testament times. He may have disagreed with the first century status quo on some things, and with the 2010 viewpoint on others. We have our own cultural assumptions and biases to deal with. As Christians, we tend to assume Christ's "opinion" counts for more than our own.
As far as observing cultural norms, the female priesthood would have been fairly easy for the early Church to advocate. Priestesses were an established part of the widespread Greek culture of the time. A Church which continued to affirm difficult and controversial aspects of Christianity (like the teaching on Eucharist, for which Christ lost most of his followers; or on sacrifice to false gods, for which countless early Christians were executed, to name two) would not have sidestepped the female priesthood just to remain in step.

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Catholicism though is a Creedal Church - being Catholic depends on certain fundamental beliefs, not where you grew up, or where your family is. In particular, this includes beliefs about the nature of the Church.

While there is a certain element of development of doctrine, Catholicism and other mainline churches teach that the Church has, and always had, the fullness of truth. Practices or traditions may change, or the way of explaining an idea - Tradition does not. Development in doctrine is not a change in doctrine, it is a further explication or application of ideas that already existed.

If a person does not believe this (even if they might argue with particular examples of how it works) then really they do not believe the most fundamental things about what the Catholic Church teaches and believes about itself.

Saying "I don't agree with these fundamental teachings or practice according to them" but wanting to be considered a member who's opinion should be taken into account is a bit like wanting to be a member of the Communist part while not believing in human equality.

This...sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude or flippant when I posted before Exasperated, though...

[lilyka]

Originally Posted by Trigger

I don't really think that those who support the ordination of women are "demanding" that the priesthood be open to EVERYONE. Obviously, not everyone will experience that particular call. I think we can all acknowledge that much. Though I support women's ordination, it is not a call I have received myself, nor do I have any desire to be a priest.


Except, according to you, if God happens to call a woman to the priesthood?
Just because a woman feels called does NOT mean that she is "haphazardly" doing anything. I can assure you that women take their spiritual callings as seriously as men do. (And I think you mean "usurp".).

Except God does not call for division in his church. I think a lot of people think they are soooo called when really they just want what they want. I think a lot of people feel called when really they are just wanting what they want very strongly. If God was really calling them they would not have to start a revolution to get what they desire. They would not have to cause schisms and splits in the unity of the church. I do not believe God would call a woman to the priesthood any more than He would call someone to disrespect the Eucharist or do something flagrently sinful. What I do know is that we have a lot of desires that are strong and need to be laid down at the cross so that we can walk humbly in the places we are allowed to walk. Sometimes I believe these strong desires, or callings (but don't we sound more justified in fighting them when we lable these desires as callings and assign them to God) are merely calling us to sacrifice and dying to ourselves and our desires so that we might walk with humility and purge ourselves of sinful passions that grip us. We really should not be so attatched to anything in this life such that we would cause a scandal to the church over it.

Originally Posted by Trigger

Seriously? Did you really just say that?!"

yeah, it was kinda a joke. but also pretty serious. My friend is looking into joining a monastic community and several people have suggested he become a priest. He does not feel worthy of priesthood but boldly and correctly states, any one, of any station (except he says "any loser" ) can become a monk because they do not need to meet the requirements of being a priest. Even our priest thought it was amusing. He has a point. There are none of the requirements that would bar the average joe from being a priest (being a man is just the tip of the iceberg). regardless of you past, future, family, marital status, physical shortcomings, education or lack there of, or anything else you can find a place in some monastic community or on your own, if God is opening that door to you (of course if God is not opening that door for you, well you're out of luck no one can get around a lack of God opening doors for them. and I think it is very possible to feel called to the monsatic life and God shutting you down. Just as I think it is possible to feel called to the priesthood without there being a place for you in the priesthood according to Gods design for things. Feelings are so untrustworthy.)

Originally Posted by Trigger

So you do not support female altar servers/acolytes, either?

absolutely not. But I am not Catholic. I am Orthodox however when it comes to ordaining women we are on the same page. and while some parishes allow girls to be altar servers I would never allow my dds to do it. They will never be a part of the priesthood and therefore have no reason to serve at the altar. They do not belong back there. There is no reason for them to train to do the things priests do. But even though it is sometimes allowed there are several reasons I would not let my dds do it. first the issue of girls serving at the altar devides people and we will be no part of anything that devides the church. even in such a small way. Secondly I think it stirs up a desire and passion for things one cannot have have which could lead to a sin. a disregard for creating division and stirring up a ruccus, lack of humility and submissiveness. all while sefishly chasing things they want because they want them. It is really easy to justify disregarding doctrines and Traditions when you want something really bad. This could end up fueling a fire that could lead them to believe they are being called by God even though God has not opened this door for them when instead they are being called by a self serving, self promoting spirit. Wanting what they want at the expense of their salvation. . I am however encouraging my girls towards a life of serving God through monasticism. It is a beautiful way to serve the Lord and your brothers and sisters in Christ. One of them wants to be a priests wife. That would be awesome too. It is a hard road but a holy thing to be sure. (our clergy can marry under specific circumstances but I fully understand and respect the RC churches reasons behind their stance on unmarried cergy. No one is forced into the priesthood or a life of celebacy. this is a choice. One that makes sense on a lot of levels. If they want to marry that is fine but the RC church has decided that family life and responsibility stand in the way of a priests duties and a priests duties can standin the way of being an effective and good husband and father. And as someone who goes to an EO church with married clergy I can definietly see the truths behind those reasons. But i also see a lot of benefit to having some married clergy. I really could go either way on that and think whatever a church decides is fine and between them and their priests.)

[Trigger]

Lilyka - You make some ... ah, interesting arguments, but for me the whole "stop making it about what YOU want, instead of what God wants" tactic just doesn't hold water. Who's to say that every male priest, worldwide, has been called - and is not merely expressing his own desire (or his family's, for that matter) to find a life in the priesthood? Is it only by the fact that they are men, and thus (according to you) "able" to be called?

I would have to assume that you don't know any women personally who feel called to the priesthood.

Originally Posted by lilyka

Feelings are so untrustworthy.)

I'll agree with you on that point. It makes prayerful discernment all the more important.

(Do you assume that men are better at prayerful discernment than women? Just wondering ...)

But I am not Catholic.

(our clergy can marry under specific circumstances but I fully understand and respect the RC churches reasons behind their stance on unmarried cergy. No one is forced into the priesthood or a life of celebacy. this is a choice. One that makes sense on a lot of levels. If they want to marry that is fine but the RC church has decided that family life and responsibility stand in the way of a priests duties and a priests duties can standin the way of being an effective and good husband and father.)

Ah, that you are not RC is telling here. Do you really know the history of this decision? It actually has NOTHING to do with family life vs. priestly responsibility - that's just the spin the Church puts on it now, to justify keeping the status quo.

With all due respect, I think that your opinons on this matter are a bit skewed since you are not Roman Catholic.

[lilyka]

My reasons for not being RC (it was my first stop) have nothing to do with the things being discussed here. Women in the priesthood and priests abusing children being bad are exactly the same in both churches. We were in fact one church for the first 1000 years and do share a lot of doctrinal beliefs.

I know there are some Catholic clergy who still marry (Eastern Rite. SO it is not as set in stone as one might think/. Regardless of what their original reasons may or may not have been, their likelyhood of changing will be based on the current "spin". I am not sure why people outside the priesthood are so concerned about priest getting married or not. Its the way things are. Why try to change it especially when it does not pertain to the average layman.

As for callings...well I don't know that I necessarily believe in callings in general. Anytime someone is called it sounds more like it is just something they are excited about or something they really want to do regardless of weather or not that is compatible with the churches teachings, Gods law, basic common sense. SOmetimes it all lines up. People are qualified for a role and should step into it. Our qualifications are not always based on things we control. I think a better way to find out where you are supposed to be serving is to look at which role you are qualified to serve and step up to the plate. If you are qualified to be a priest, be a priest, if you are willing to be a monastic (I am not) then serve God that way. If you are qualified to serve elsewhere in the church (choir, reader, teacher, groundskeeper, parish council) then that is your "calling". People who have children need to be parents regardless of if that is their callings. A man can never be a mother and a woman can never be a father regardless of how passionately they want to be that. Its a silly example but thats how I feel.

[lilyka]

If God is calling a woman to be a priest and calling someone else to fight it tooth and nail to protect the teachings and Traditions of the church don't you think it is possible one of them is dead wrong about their calling or who is calling them to it? There is only one Holy Spirit....

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by Trigger

Is it only by the fact that they are men, and thus (according to you) "able" to be called?

Do you assume that men are better at prayerful discernment than women?

Originally Posted by Trigger

Except, according to you, if God happens to call a woman to the priesthood?

The argument is getting narrowed down to women, as if there were no other requirement for ordination than a Y chromosome, or women were the victims of some kind of vindictive snub. A person can be ineligible for the priesthood based on marital status, physical or mental condition, and probably other requirements I am unaware of. I am not RC, but our own priests cannot be divorced, blind, deaf, have killed in a war, or be missing limbs or fingers, to name just a few restrictions. For that matter, the priesthood of the Old Testament was restricted to members of only one house or tribe. What if a man who was not a Levite felt "called" to be a priest back then? His "calling" would conflict with the very belief and tradition he supposedly wanted to serve.

[hotmamacita]

Originally Posted by Trigger

Ah, that you are not RC is telling here. Do you really know the history of this decision? It actually has NOTHING to do with family life vs. priestly responsibility - that's just the spin the Church puts on it now, to justify keeping the status quo.

With all due respect, I think that your opinons on this matter are a bit skewed since you are not Roman Catholic.

[EFmom]

Originally Posted by lilyka

I am not sure why people outside the priesthood are so concerned about priest getting married or not. Its the way things are. Why try to change it especially when it does not pertain to the average layman.

Having been raised Roman Catholic and at one point was a member of a mainstream Protestant denomination that both allows married clergy and ordains women, it makes a huge difference. In my experience, give me married clergy any day of the week in terms of many factors that affected me as a member of the congregation. It makes the clergy much more compassionate, caring, understanding and effective on many levels. So yes, I can see why rank and file Catholics might care about this as it does affect them.

There is also a very serious shortage of RC priests. Many parishes no longer have a full time priest. That certainly affects the rank and file who are members. Married and women priests would help in that regard.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Trigger

Ah, that you are not RC is telling here. Do you really know the history of this decision? It actually has NOTHING to do with family life vs. priestly responsibility - that's just the spin the Church puts on it now, to justify keeping the status quo.

With all due respect, I think that your opinons on this matter are a bit skewed since you are not Roman Catholic.

This seems a bit ironic to me somehow.

[Trigger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/op...ef=maureendowd

[Shantimama]

Originally Posted by Trigger

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/op...ef=maureendowd

Excellent article - especially the last paragraph.

[JMJ]

The Catholic Church has come a long way in dealing with the abuse of children by clergy in a better fashion. The writer of this article seems to think that the legal action should be part of the religious action. Of course priests and bishops are legally required to report any abuse that they know about. It hasn't always been the case, but it is now. Of course, priests who abuse children will be taken out of ministry from here on out. In addition, anyone who works with minors in the church now has to go through safe environment training and automatically becomes a manditory reporter. I've had to go through it multiple times just to volunteer at retreats that might attract a few teenagers. All priests are fingerprinted, etc. There is more concern for the victims, and if anything is still being covered up, it's by individuals, not with the blessing of the church heirarchy. The document was addressing something different than the reporter wanted it to, and that is the only basis for criticism.

If I really thought that way about the Church, I would have a really hard time being Catholic. Trigger, I mean no disrespect when I ask why you decide to remain Catholic if you think the Church is wrong on so many counts? Why do you choose to say the things you are saying so critical of the Catholic Church and remain in ministry as an active member of your parish? Again, I don't mean to be disrespectful. I just personally choose to not give my full support to organizations that don't have my full support, and I have a hard time understanding why someone else would and am really trying to respectfully seek understanding.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by JMJ

The Catholic Church has come a long way in dealing with the abuse of children by clergy in a better fashion. The writer of this article seems to think that the legal action should be part of the religious action. Of course priests and bishops are legally required to report any abuse that they know about. It hasn't always been the case, but it is now. Of course, priests who abuse children will be taken out of ministry from here on out. In addition, anyone who works with minors in the church now has to go through safe environment training and automatically becomes a manditory reporter. I've had to go through it multiple times just to volunteer at retreats that might attract a few teenagers. All priests are fingerprinted, etc. There is more concern for the victims, and if anything is still being covered up, it's by individuals, not with the blessing of the church heirarchy. The document was addressing something different than the reporter wanted it to, and that is the only basis for criticism.

If I really thought that way about the Church, I would have a really hard time being Catholic. Trigger, I mean no disrespect when I ask why you decide to remain Catholic if you think the Church is wrong on so many counts? Why do you choose to say the things you are saying so critical of the Catholic Church and remain in ministry as an active member of your parish? Again, I don't mean to be disrespectful. I just personally choose to not give my full support to organizations that don't have my full support, and I have a hard time understanding why someone else would and am really trying to respectfully seek understanding.

Not to sound cynical... But I'll believe it when I see it.

They were "dealing with the issues" before too apparently, when they shuffled priests between parishes after the priest was caught.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by JMJ

All priests are fingerprinted, etc.

I think this varies from diocese to diocese, because I'm fairly certain that priests in my own diocese are not required to be fingerprinted.

I was required to submit to a federal background check, attend special "training", and conform to new "safety" standards, all in direct response to the abuse scandal. The finger of blame was shifted oh-so-subtly to the laity during this process, which really angered me and a whole lot of other catechists, ministers, and volunteers.

why you decide to remain Catholic if you think the Church is wrong on so many counts? Why do you choose to say the things you are saying so critical of the Catholic Church and remain in ministry as an active member of your parish?

Obviously, there's no short and simple answer to that question; however, in essence I love my church - or rather, what I believe my church was meant to be. At the present time, I have little love for the Church hierarchy and their agendas that have created the church that we have today. Having formally studied the Hebrew and the Christian scriptures, along with Christology and the history of the Catholic Church, I find myself in disagreement with certain doctrines which I (and others, I'm certainly not alone here) feel have little to no historical and spiritual basis. Still, I love what is good and right about my church ... things like community, passion for social justice, ritual, music, Sacraments - and especially, Eucharist.

I believe everything in our profession of faith, the Creed.

I like the way one of my fellow ministers puts it: "If we continue to place our faith in Peter instead of Jesus, we will be disappointed every time."

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Trigger

I like the way one of my fellow ministers puts it: "If we continue to place our faith in Peter instead of Jesus, we will be disappointed every time."

Certainly we wouldn't put our faith in Peter instead of Jesus, but isn't accepting the authority of Peter, who was given the authority by Jesus to speak for him, one of the more basic things that separates us as Catholics? The belief that the pope does not indeed speak for Christ is pretty much the basis for Protestantism, is it not?

I can completely agree that the Eucharist is present in the Catholic Church in ways that it is not in other denominations (besides the Orthodox), but for example, Episcopalians have very similar beliefs about the Eucharist along with much more liberal ideas about women priests, homosexuality, etc. along with the belief that they are following Jesus and not Peter. It just seems like if the Church made all the changes you want to see, we would basically turn into Episcopalians, or at least I am having a hard time understanding what the difference would be.

Maybe I just don't have enough understanding about the Episcopalian faith and how it is different from Catholicism. I'm just having a hard time understanding why many Catholics (Yes, I know it is not just you. I go to a very diverse parish myself.) are trying to change my faith when they are free to believe what they want, and another religion that seems to match their beliefs rather well exists. Basically, why is there a push to get the Catholic Church to change instead of trying to get Catholics to convert to what someone perceives as a "better" religion?

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by JMJ

Certainly we wouldn't put our faith in Peter instead of Jesus, but isn't accepting the authority of Peter, who was given the authority by Jesus to speak for him, one of the more basic things that separates us as Catholics? The belief that the pope does not indeed speak for Christ is pretty much the basis for Protestantism, is it not?

The pope is supposed to be Christ's representative, speaking on Christ's teachings and "feeding the flock" - not coming up with new stuff and claiming it's from Christ.

I don't consider Benedict a very good shepherd.

I'm just having a hard time understanding why many Catholics (Yes, I know it is not just you. I go to a very diverse parish myself.) are trying to change my faith when they are free to believe what they want, and another religion that seems to match their beliefs rather well exists. Basically, why is there a push to get the Catholic Church to change instead of trying to get Catholics to convert to what someone perceives as a "better" religion?

I'm not trying to change anyone's faith. Faith, no matter what organized religion one follows, is a personal and individual thing. One person's relationship with the Triune God cannot possibly be the same as anyone else's.

I still feel, however, that there is a whole lot of change/evolution needed in the Catholic Church. And I do believe that it will happen, because it is already happening - albeit quietly - in my diocese. There are some progressive bishops out there, who aren't afraid to make a little noise, and we are blessed to have one shepherding our local flock.

I'm not looking to convince anyone on this forum - obviously, the majority contingent of Catholics here is extremely conservative. But as long as you all have the freedom to voice your thoughts, I will do so (respectfully, of course ) as well.

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by Trigger

I don't consider Benedict a very good shepherd.

eep! Really?? I <3 Pope Benedict!

I still feel, however, that there is a whole lot of change/evolution needed in the Catholic Church. And I do believe that it will happen, because it is already happening - albeit quietly - in my diocese. There are some progressive bishops out there, who aren't afraid to make a little noise, and we are blessed to have one shepherding our local flock.

Progressive doesn't always equal good, just as Conservative doesn't always equal good.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Trigger

The pope is supposed to be Christ's representative, speaking on Christ's teachings and "feeding the flock" - not coming up with new stuff and claiming it's from Christ.

I don't consider Benedict a very good shepherd.

Hmm... to me, when Pope Benedict says that he doesn't have the authority to make women priests, this is exactly what I see him doing. The Church doesn't really change its teachings, only certain practices, and the pope doesn't have the right to contradict previous teachings all the way back to Christ.

I'm not trying to change anyone's faith. Faith, no matter what organized religion one follows, is a personal and individual thing. One person's relationship with the Triune God cannot possibly be the same as anyone else's.

While I don't think that anyone's relationship with God is exactly the same, some people actually seek to accept and follow all the teachings of the magisterium. Sometimes, there is a range of acceptable belief, and some things are undefined, and one person can easily believe one thing and another something else. However, when we're talking about changing something that the magisterium clearly defines, any Catholic that wanted to remain faithful to the magisterium would have to change their beliefs as well. It is exactly because certain things don't change that I have faith in the Church to teach the things that are difficult to understand. If the magisterium just went and contradicted itself, it would absolutely destroy any moral standing it has.

I'm not looking to convince anyone on this forum - obviously, the majority contingent of Catholics here is extremely conservative. But as long as you all have the freedom to voice your thoughts, I will do so (respectfully, of course ) as well.

And thank you for so boldly giving your opinion. It makes for interesting conversation. You have a very different understanding of Catholicism, and I have a difficult time understanding your perspective and the perspective of the many liberal Catholics who go to my parish, but you're all my sisters and brothers in Christ, and I'd like to understand better so that I can love better. Thanks for sharing.