Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by lovebug
 i dont really want to get into it here on the mothering message board... but in short...
as the bible says the women place is the home (whatever that means to her) and she is the make it or break it for family life. with out a women you cant have a family. she does not need to be tied down that heavy to the church. she need to be free to do what god made her for! |
| Unless God is actually talking to them in words, they get a feeling. A sense that is what they are meant to do. The feeling is God calling them to the priesthood. |
) would be that God *does* speak to us in words...the Bible. And if the Bible is God's Words (as Catholics believe) then what God has already spoken trumps "feelings" any day.
|
Originally Posted by Trigger
Also, the office of Deacon is an ordained one. Scripture makes reference to at least one female deacon - Phoebe - so common sense would tell us that there were certainly female leaders in the early church (and, for the record, there were NO priests in the early years of the Catholic Church).
|
|
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom
Well, the Catholic argument (and many Protestant arguments as well
) would be that God *does* speak to us in words...the Bible. And if the Bible is God's Words (as Catholics believe) then what God has already spoken trumps "feelings" any day. |
|
Originally Posted by MusicianDad
Unless God is actually talking to them in words, they get a feeling. A sense that is what they are meant to do. The feeling is God calling them to the priesthood.
And you, and the church can think what you like, but in the end it still comes down to the fact that neither know what God is asking of a person unless they are that person. |
|
Originally Posted by hotmamacita
I am not catholic, but from my understanding of Scripture... it is not about women having their place in the home, with family, being tied down the Church or whatnot....it is about women not holding spiritual authority over men (specifically not preaching or teaching men spiritually) The 1st epistle to Timothy is the most clear but there are so many other areas and passages of the Bible that address this.
|
|
Originally Posted by Bluegoat
No, not really this either. It hinges on the idea that while men and women both share in human nature, there is an ontological difference between men and women - our sex is actually part of our soul. This is different than other physical characteristics, say, hair colour. (And incidentally it is different than the view of many other religions who think there will be no sex in the afterlife).
|
|
Originally Posted by MusicianDad
Well I know at least one Catholic who has consulted with God and gotten a response (in a way).
|
From our diocesan newspaper (penned by an active priest/pastor & director of the diocesan Commission for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs):| The creed notes, “I believe in the communion of saints.” This is a Church that honors Mary, a pregnant teen, as mother of God; Mary Magdalene as Apostle to the Apostles; and St. Catherine of Siena, who “told the pope where to go,” as a saint. Such a Church can’t be too far from getting it right about the leadership role of women! |
|
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom
Am I crazy, or am I just the only one that saw that this document does not "join" the two issues or compare them, but deals with a number of different issues, in two distinct and seperate categories, one moral, and one liturgical?
|
|
Originally Posted by Karenwith4
I live in a country that prohibits discrimination based on gender. This should apply to the church as well, and the fact that the church does not abide by the laws of our government makes it open to commentary, whether I am Catholic or not.
I also live in a province where the Catholic school system is publicly funded and so the fact that this discrimination is taught and sanctioned using my tax dollars is offensive to me on multiple levels. Finally I think the ordination of women would go a long LONG way to limiting the crimes committed by some in the priesthood against children and the absolutely unforgivable way it is STILL handled by the church. |
|
Originally Posted by MusicianDad
So basically the options are to be part of the church or not be part of the church? See that is a huge problem I have, not everyone who is catholic is going to have the same beliefs as some guy in the Vatican.
Like I said previously, DH is catholic (for the record we never bothered even trying to get a catholic wedding because I am not catholic), but there are a few key issues he disagrees with. Same-sex relationships, and women as priests are two of them. But the basis for the religion, he does believe. Not just the Jesus, Christian God, parts but parts that separate Catholicism from other branches of Christianity. I don't think it's fare that he was basically told by the last church he attended the same as what you're saying, if you don't believe what we say then get out. Because he spent a great deal of time looking for answers to his feelings and also believe that God wants him to accept himself as he is, which according to the Catholic church isn't possible because God hates sin and homosexuality is a sin. He follows his religion with the belief that God, not man, is the one who decides what is right for a person. Which is ultimately why he also agrees with the consecration of female priests, because they are the only ones who truly know what God wants of them, and the church doesn't have the power to override God's choice. |
|
Originally Posted by Bluegoat
No, not really this either. It hinges on the idea that while men and women both share in human nature, there is an ontological difference between men and women - our sex is actually part of our soul. This is different than other physical characteristics, say, hair colour. (And incidentally it is different than the view of many other religions who think there will be no sex in the afterlife).
The role of the priest is to stand in for Christ as priest (not, of course, as victim.) To do so, the Church understands that the individual must be ontologically equivalent to Christ as priest. |
| 1 Cor 12: Now concerning spiritual things, my brethren, I would not have you ignorant. You know that when you were heathens, you went to dumb idols, according as you were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, saith Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; And there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all. And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit. To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; To another, faith in the same spirit; to another, the grace of healing in one Spirit; To another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of speeches. But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. For the body also is not one member, but many. If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. And if they all were one member, where would be the body? But now there are many members indeed, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour, That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another. And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But be zealous for the better gifts. And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way. |
|
Originally Posted by Trigger
But the majority of Catholic Doctrine is not stated infallibly. Nor is the issue of women as priests.
|
| Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches. |
| "the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church." |
|
Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove
It comes from the whole "different parts of the one body" thing.
As we can see from St. Paul, not all of us are called to the same thing. In demanding that we all be able to be priests, we are violating the very tenents that our faith was founded on. Saying that the priesthood should be open to everyone is akin to saying that we should all be hands, or all be feet. God chose specific people to fulfill specific roles. |
|
Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove
Again- there needs to be an examination (as SNAP is doing) into the long standing abuse of children by nuns.
So, ordaining women does nothing to stop crimes against children.. |
|
Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove
ADDITIONALLY- sexual crimes against children are FAR FAR more previlant in Protestant denominations (which have MARRIED pastors) than within the Catholic Church. OH YES- a child is far more likely to have a sexual crime committed against them in a public school than any other venue.
|
|
Originally Posted by Karenwith4
I think ordaining women would change the need for the Catholic church to shuffle sex offenders from parish to parish, avoiding the problem and maintaining their declining number of priest. The introduction of women into the power structure would also IMO make a difference about how these issues are handled.
|
| I'm not arguing that sex crimes don't happen in other situations. Clearly they do. But I would like to see your evidence that it happens far more in Protestant denominations. From what I have read pedophilia runs at about 4-6% of priests which is the top end of the estimates for the general public where it is estimated at 1- 4%. (source) |
| None of that negates however that the sex abuse of children should in any way or circumstance be compared to elevating the status of women to be on par with men. The idea is both absurd and clearly illustrates just how out of touch the patriarchy is with reality. I personally think it is a deliberate diversionary tactic |
| The more grave delict of the attempted sacred ordination of a woman is also reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: 1° With due regard for can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, both the one who attempts to confer sacred ordination on a woman, and she who attempts to receive sacred ordination, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. <snip> Art. 6 § 1. The more grave delicts against morals which are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are: 1° the delict against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of eighteen years; in this case, a person who habitually lacks the use of reason is to be considered equivalent to a minor. 2° the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors under the age of fourteen, for purposes of sexual gratification, by whatever means or using whatever technology; § 2. A cleric who commits the delicts mentioned above in § 1 is to be punished according to the gravity of his crime, not excluding dismissal or deposition. |
|
Originally Posted by lilyka
It seems like people fighting for their right to be a priest despite their lack of meeting the qualifications, are the very least qualified to do so. it seems like they really do not understand the role of the priest. I would be horrified to learn my priest had arrogantly forced their way into the priesthood. (if it were a woman it would be obvious and I would never ever go to a parish that had a woman serving at the alter. Not because I am a woman hater but it would be an assult against Tradition. Women are not allowed to serve at the alter.) I really do not understand why they do not switch to a protestant denomination that allows whatever it is they want. (if you are fighting against doctrine, disrespecting the churches teaching, nashing tradition, you are already a protestant who attends a catholic/orthodox parish, anyway. Luther didn't start out to start a new denomination. He just wanted a few simple changes in the Catholic church.)
|
