As said on a sign held by one of Terry Pratchett's characters while in a coma, "I aten't Ded".
Yes, I'm back from holiday. However, I am in the middle of a major work project. Can't way what it is, yet, but I promise to blog it if it comes to fruition. Anyway, it means I'm up to my ears in work-related stuff.
We could talk amongst ourselves, Albert. It will be a memorable week in your calendar. Do tell us next week your impressions of Pope Benedict's visit. I hope it is all that you hope for.
As for P, he has bigger fish to fry. Perhaps this is contributing to global warming. ;-)
Well, measured, I think it's been a huge success, more than any of us could have expected. Those of us who have seen the Holy Father in the flesh, already knew that his personal presence would enchant people in ways they had not expected. The media has built him up into this authoritarian rottweiler character, which now looks absurd - and has called into question their whole (mis)reporting of him.
His teaching has been excellent. He has focussed on reason - the very thing that indolent secularists think we Catholics are not interested in. He has indicated that the lack of reason, if there is one is on the secular side.
And then there are the protests. For all that we are always being told what to do and what to believe by an intolerant and unself-critical secularist voice, they were not able to muster many people - compared with the crowds who turned out to welcome the Holy Father (the protestors would have been even fewer in number, if the individuals concerned had bothered to check the claims of the Protest the Pope group, though evidence based believing is not really a strength of contemporary secularism - at least not in matters of religion).
In fact, who were the protestors? Well, it is difficult to protest against a man of such reason as the Pope without sounding unreasonable yourself. Hence, those opposed to the Pope were an interesting coalition: Ian Paisley & Co., groups of Islamist fundamentalists praising the Taliban and Al Qaeda and protesting the Pope's opposition to religious violence, and then Peter Tatchell's mob moaning (unconvincingly) that the Pope opposes women's ordination. See what company you keep Peter!
It was a great success, wasn't it? I think it was handled well by the 'Establishment' here and the Pope was exemplary in the manner in which he conducted himself. There are many worthy things to say about the visit; the tremendous good it did to put secularists in their place and the support it provided to the Faithful.
I was greatly impressed by the Holy Father. Here is an 83 year old man who, while he has achieved what he wished for, demonstrated that he is inspirational. Catholics are right to be proud of this. However, let me be outspoken, Albert. Sadly, on the other hand, it was evident that the Pope is cosseted and behind him hides a sophisticated organisation developed in the art of promotion and control. Furthermore, if the Catholic Church has a conscience, its policies do not make this apparent. That is sad in many respects but especially for women worldwide.
The Pope did much good coming here and I, for one, thank the Holy Father and those concerned, including you, for that. Thank you.
Thanks Measured - I'm glad you enjoyed it too. I suppose, to pick up on your outspokenness, I don't recognise the idea of the Church as being good at control or promotion. The trip was very badly promoted in the Catholic community, as for control, the Pope can't even get his priests to say Mass properly!
I just wonder therefore, if you could be a little more specific.
1. The role of women in Christianity. It really is not adequate to give them lipservice and say they are recognised as being just important without recognising this. Actions speak louder than words. Think how it would benefit women globally if the Catholic Church recognised women as it would have beneficial repercussions in Africa and in Islam.
2. No sex by its priests. Apparently this has more to do with the inheritance laws to safeguard the Church's property.
3. Condemning the use of condoms.
Promotion:
1. Newman - when has his Saint day been set?
2. To Parliament, it is understandable if you act in an unchristian way. This church understands and lets you sin because we can forgive you. The message should be do not sin, surely?
Many messages were commendable and perhaps this is just the beginning of a little bit of change within the Catholic Church. That would be even more commendable.
1. I'm still not clear on what you are asking for re women. After all, the greatest saint is a woman. What exactly are you arguing for?
2. Celibacy is a prudential judgment. It says that the vocation of the priesthood and the vocation of marriage are both so important and so full-on that they don't usually go well together: no one can serve two masters, as Jesus says.
3. What's wrong with condemning condoms? If it's AIDS you're worrying about, try this article:
1. I am arguing for worthy women to be ordained and allowed to be part of the hierarchy in the Catholic Church. Shaking hands with an Anglican clergywoman may have surprised Pope Benedict.
2. Well, celibacy doesn't work for the majority of men and probably contributes to the difficulty in finding new priests. I accept that it is not for me to tell you how to govern yourselves.
3. Using condoms should not be a sin, but be regarded as a necessary evil (or, in my eyes, a virtue) for the sake of mankind. After all, the Catholic Church is compassionate.
4. Since feast days are on the birthdays of a saint, I presume Cardinal Newman was born on 9th October.
Gosh, I have been shocked by the aggressiveness of atheists. Totally wrong. They need to learn proportionality. People should have their religious beliefs treated with respect. I hope this Government hasn't forgotten that a basic code for morality would be worth drawing up. It is probably too contentious in this environment and prove far too bureaucratic.
1. I don't see that you've argued for that, you've merely expressed a preference. What argument would you advance to persuade the Holy Father to change his mind?
2. No celibacy doesn't work for the majority of men, but then the priesthood is not for the majority of men. Pope John Paul believed the lack of vocations in the West (worldwide, the priesthood is growing) was because of a lack of faith in communities. Rather than collude with that faithlessness, he thought we should strengthen local communities.
3. You say that condoms "should not be a sin" but then say they are a necessary evil. An evil, if committed is a sin, therefore, I can't follow. Which virtue would using a condom be? In any case, the Church does not decide what is or is not a sin. Rather the Church merely announces what is or is not a sin.
4. Feast days are rarely birthdays on earth (only three I think Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist, but they all have other feast days as well). Usually they are birthdays into heaven - i.e. the day of death. 9th October is the day of his conversion as it happens.
Yes, some atheists do lack proportion. I think that vocal atheists tend to manifest the very fundamentalist traits they oppose in the religious.
I can let you get away with most things but I cannot let you get away with number one above. You asked me what I was asking for and I replied I would argue for certain women to be entitled to apply for and to receive the same rights and privileges as men in the Catholic Church.
This is based on the premise that men and women are equal. We are all humans. We are the same species. I doubt you can deny or justify the discrimination against women that currently occurs (but I perhaps I will watch you try!). :-)
I am in my forties and as I get older, I now recognise the way most societies treat women. Having been brought up by both my parents (!) to accept that men are superior (admittedly men were the ones who gave their lives in WWI and WWII), I was slow to appreciate that men are not superior nor different in many ways to women. I now believe that the roles of men and women are flexible and it is wrong that many privileges are retained solely by men. Both should be entitled to equal recognition, access to power, control and fulfilment. It is unnecessary for me to be strident or become a feminist because the rights women should be entitled to are becoming self evident.
This movement for women to qualify for the same rights as men comes from the people, not our leaders. It is being heard and it is so fundamentally sound, it cannot be denied (akin to the abolition of the slave trade). I am not asking for women to receive preferential treatment, just the same.
I hope the Holy Father sees it in his heart to recognise this and allows women as well as men to fulfil their true vocation in the Catholic Church. Think of the message this would send to so many women around the world. The repercussions of allowing women in, especially on those currently in power since relinquishing control is uncomfortable, need to be evaluated, and this is possibly where the difficulties lie. More so than anything the Scriptures say on the subject.
Thanks measured. Okay, I admit, I was being slightly mischievous - but not entirely. While I could guess that's what you meant, it seemed appropriate to give you the chance to put your point into words.
This is based on the premise that men and women are equal.
Which we agree on. Is it your assumption then that the reason the Catholic Church is opposed to the ordination of women is that we think women are unequal to men? Similarly, is it your view that ordination is a privilege or a right?
I hope the Holy Father sees it in his heart
So presumably, the ordination of women is in the Holy Father's gift?
More so than anything the Scriptures say on the subject.
Is that an attempt to prevent me from appealing to revelation? Why would there be a priesthood without revelation?
Briefly, as I have wasted so much time today, Yes, it is my belief that the Catholic Church believes that women are subservient to men. This is evidenced in its actions, so I am not sure you should call it an assumption. Ordination is a privilege but for those worthy to be chosen, it is their right and this right should not be limited to only males.
The Holy Father interpretes the Word of God Scriptures and is the Leader of the Church. I have no doubt his advisers advise him as he is an old man and must rely on what others tell him. I am never seen it cited from the Gospels banning the ordination of women. It is therefore within the Holy Father and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to ordinate women.
A revelation would assist matters greatly.
Why not, Albert? This intransigence loses the Catholic Church followers. I look at it from a pragmatic point of view and fail to see how it can be justified. The effect this will have on the well-being of Catholic faith concerns me.
Thanks for your reply. I'm a little short of time measured, so I'll be clear and less tactful even than usual (is such a thing possible? ;-) )
Yes, it is my belief that the Catholic Church believes that women are subservient to men.
Well that's simply wrong. The Catholic faith teaches the natural equality of men and women, and the supernatural superiority of the Blessed Virgin Mary to everyone except Christ. In other words, it is the Catholic faith that if ordination were anything to do with worthiness, the Virgin Mary should be a priest. But the priesthood has nothing to do with worthiness (God forbid!).
Ordination is a privilege but for those worthy to be chosen, it is their right and this right should not be limited to only males
This is just circular isn't it? Presumably by "chosen" you mean "by Christ". So women only have a right if they are chosen by him. Why should I accept that they are (btw, even if they were, it wouldn't follow that someone chosen has a right to ordination).
I have no doubt his advisers advise him as he is an old man and must rely on what others tell him.
I think he has a sharper intellect than those around him.
I am never seen it cited from the Gospels banning the ordination of women.
But then the teaching of the Catholic Church is not that women are banned (which would imply a prima facie right), only that the Church has no authority to ordain women.
A revelation would assist matters greatly.
We have a revelation, He's called Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, full of grace and truth. We're just following him.
This intransigence loses the Catholic Church followers.
Being crucified cost Jesus followers. We're interested in proclaiming the true faith not a popularity contest. (No Pope Idol here!)
Back briefly. (It is a weakness of Blogger that messages can't be saved and then posted later, after they have been reread and tidied up. I know I could copy and paste into Word but that would make the process longer and this is my antidote to Word!...not The Word, Microsoft Word).
Let us start bottom up. No, it is not a popularity contest but I have no doubt the failure to recognise women undermines the authority of any Church, including the Anglican Church in a society that treats women fairly. Opinions about fairness change and society is no longer as patriarchal that it was, which makes the Holy Father's position unusual. While this empowers single mothers to control their children, it also means institutions will adapt to meet the needs, and possibly desires, of the people in order to survive.
Yes, Jesus Christ is a revelation and I have no doubt he existed. The Disciples were those individuals who could have authority. He not only recognised that women had an important role in raising children, but also in caring and nurturing. Men can also perform these functions but it is significant now that it is recognised women should also hold authority and power.
Sadly, Jesus was not definitive on the subject of the ordination of women to the best of my limited knowledge. I suspect he would have ordained women if this had been feasible. It appears another revelation would need to be definitive about the Catholic Church's recognition of women, if only to satisfy the media.
the Church has no authority to ordain women Do not hide behind words. Show me this authority and I will show you it can be amended, if it is not the Word of God.
The Holy Father has a sharp intellect because he has wisdom on his side derived from experience and the ability to read people's signals. He must rely on those around him and his own life experiences. He must be exceedingly careful in his decisions. A wise Leader never acts in a cavalier manner. This does not forbid the ordination of women.
I badly worded the difference between privilege and right but I wanted to differentiate between the two. Ordination must be regarded as a privilege. A privilege that should no longer be denied to women who wish to follow this path. I am simply reflecting the view of fair society. There must be frustrated women out there who have thwarted ambition that deserve this opportunity, and they would contribute greatly to the life of the Church. Suspicion will grow as to why the Catholic Church will not ordain women.
If the priesthood is not to do with worthiness, what is it to do with? Power? Control? If the Catholic Church does not endorse the view that women are subservient to men, why does it not ordain them?
I appreciate that the Catholic Church holds a position that is founded on tradition and change should never be hurried, but is the Church going to mark itself out as the one institution that doesn't accept women? It lays itself open to being full of misogynists. Do you think women should be ordained?
the failure to recognise women undermines the authority of any Church, including the Anglican Church in a society that treats women fairly
Firstly, I don't recognise the Catholic Church here. If you mean that in order for women to be recognised they need to be ordained, then I can only point to the visit of the relics of St Therese last year, or the fact that we love Mary as Mother of the Church. Under these circumstances how can you say women are not recognised? The Protestants accuse us of recognising these women too much!
In any case, I can't really see what fairness has to do with ordination, to be honest.
Similarly, what do you mean "undermining the authority of the Church"? Our authority comes not from the world, but from Jesus Christ - that is why we have no authority to ordain women. In contrast the CofE which has ordained women is hardly flourishing is it? People attack the Catholic Church because she has retained her authority. No one attacks the CofE because she has no authority.
I suspect he would have ordained women if this had been feasible.
How do you know this? I assume you mean he couldn't include women because of his culture, but this is flawed:
(i) Women priests were common in Jesus' time. (ii) Jesus didn't choose people who were worthy, but those who were lowly.
Consequently, by what I take to be your argument, Jesus' times meant it was more likely that Jesus should include women among the apostles: they were more lowly than men, and they were common enough.
So why didn't he? If we really believe Jesus Christ is God made Man, we cannot accept that he got this wrong. He chose only men because that was God's will.
We do not need to know why it should be God's will - what do I know of the mind of God? Can I really know better than Jesus Christ? If I answer yes to the latter point, I would not be a Christian. If I answer no, then surely I will stick with what he gave us.
But as it happens, even setting aside our Lord's example, I think not ordaining women is right. The priest is an alter Christus. Requiring men only to be priests is no more unjust or odd than Franco Zeffirelli excluding women from the title role of Jesus of Nazareth is unjust or odd. Having male only priests is no different from having male only figures on our crucifixes.
To love Mary as Mother of the Church gives her her sacred role but it is not a role model to pin on all women. In addition, nuns have contributed greatly to the Roman Catholic Church and their skills should be more readily accessible to the community. They should be able to earn the same respect as priests if that is what you wish. To deny them ordination is making them second class citizens.
I have never heard of Protestants claiming the Catholic Church recognises women too much. I did not know women priests were common in Jesus' time and comparisons with the Anglican Church are not helpful. For the Catholic Church to ordain women would be an enormous sea change but for the Church not to be marginalised, it is bound to occur.
To justify not ordaining women because all the Apostles were men is just not adequate. I can see where you are coming from for they were to spread the Word. Perhaps women priests would have different skill sets or are given different labels, but women should be entitled to be ordained. I note you do not argue that they are not capable of being priests.
Finally, of course, you should choose a man to portray a specific individual, but this is a example of a particular image. It does not justify the exclusion of women. The situation is unfair, but it is your Church and your right to continue as you have for centuries. I respect that.
We shall have to agree to differ on this. We can pray for each other. :-)
Thanks for your message and for your prayers too! Yes, I will pray for you too!
To love Mary as Mother of the Church gives her her sacred role but it is not a role model to pin on all women.
That's a very fair point, and in fact, I do agree there is a problem here. The Catholic Church, while not being unfair to women by not ordaining them, has not yet put much energy into working out a proper role for women, and getting women involved in the structure of the Church. This Pope has made a start on this (though don't tell the media, the shock might finish them off!) by trying to get more women working in the Vatican. But there's more to do.
What I meant by referring to Mary was simply to show that we do not regard women as inferior. Whatever our reasons for reserving the priesthood to men, it is not because we cannot of conceive of women in exalted religious positions. Protestants sometimes accuse us of worshipping Mary.
for the Church not to be marginalised, it is bound to occur
Well time will tell. It doesn't seem to me that society's view of women is particularly stable, and it is hard to predict where we will be in the future. Feminism has altered greatly over the last few decades as voices have come forward suggesting that the making all women men model of feminism is demeaning to women and has made their lives harder. But if we are marginalised, then we will be with Christ who was marginalised.
To justify not ordaining women because all the Apostles were men is just not adequate...women should be entitled to be ordained
I don't see that you have demonstrated that - but I guess you are wanting to draw this to a close!
I note you do not argue that they are not capable of being priests.
Certainly not! I would argue that viewed simply as a task or skill, priestly ministry is at least as well suited to women as it is to men.
Finally, of course, you should choose a man to portray a specific individual, but this is a example of a particular image. It does not justify the exclusion of women. The situation is unfair
But the priest is precisely the portrayal of a specific individual: Ecce homo! that is the priest before he is anything else. If you agree that is justified, you accept the non-ordination of women.
A priest is suppose to personify Christ? Emulate surely? The priest here does not embody Christ; I cannot stretch my imagination that far. The priest is far older, forgetful and fallible.
A priest is suppose to personify Christ? Emulate surely?
Actually it's both. Emulate in his life, personify when saying Mass. The priest acts "in persona Christi Capitis" to use the official language. He is not simply a follower of Christ, he is ontologically changed, so that in a sense, at the altar he is Christ. That is to say, the priest is himself personalized by Christ.
I refer you to the comment I made on your previous post.
ReplyDeleteWe could talk amongst ourselves, Albert. It will be a memorable week in your calendar. Do tell us next week your impressions of Pope Benedict's visit. I hope it is all that you hope for.
ReplyDeleteAs for P, he has bigger fish to fry. Perhaps this is contributing to global warming. ;-)
Okay, no more red rags. Do return soon.
Well, measured, I think it's been a huge success, more than any of us could have expected. Those of us who have seen the Holy Father in the flesh, already knew that his personal presence would enchant people in ways they had not expected. The media has built him up into this authoritarian rottweiler character, which now looks absurd - and has called into question their whole (mis)reporting of him.
ReplyDeleteHis teaching has been excellent. He has focussed on reason - the very thing that indolent secularists think we Catholics are not interested in. He has indicated that the lack of reason, if there is one is on the secular side.
And then there are the protests. For all that we are always being told what to do and what to believe by an intolerant and unself-critical secularist voice, they were not able to muster many people - compared with the crowds who turned out to welcome the Holy Father (the protestors would have been even fewer in number, if the individuals concerned had bothered to check the claims of the Protest the Pope group, though evidence based believing is not really a strength of contemporary secularism - at least not in matters of religion).
In fact, who were the protestors? Well, it is difficult to protest against a man of such reason as the Pope without sounding unreasonable yourself. Hence, those opposed to the Pope were an interesting coalition: Ian Paisley & Co., groups of Islamist fundamentalists praising the Taliban and Al Qaeda and protesting the Pope's opposition to religious violence, and then Peter Tatchell's mob moaning (unconvincingly) that the Pope opposes women's ordination. See what company you keep Peter!
It was a great success, wasn't it? I think it was handled well by the 'Establishment' here and the Pope was exemplary in the manner in which he conducted himself. There are many worthy things to say about the visit; the tremendous good it did to put secularists in their place and the support it provided to the Faithful.
ReplyDeleteI was greatly impressed by the Holy Father. Here is an 83 year old man who, while he has achieved what he wished for, demonstrated that he is inspirational. Catholics are right to be proud of this. However, let me be outspoken, Albert. Sadly, on the other hand, it was evident that the Pope is cosseted and behind him hides a sophisticated organisation developed in the art of promotion and control. Furthermore, if the Catholic Church has a conscience, its policies do not make this apparent. That is sad in many respects but especially for women worldwide.
The Pope did much good coming here and I, for one, thank the Holy Father and those concerned, including you, for that. Thank you.
Thanks Measured - I'm glad you enjoyed it too. I suppose, to pick up on your outspokenness, I don't recognise the idea of the Church as being good at control or promotion. The trip was very badly promoted in the Catholic community, as for control, the Pope can't even get his priests to say Mass properly!
ReplyDeleteI just wonder therefore, if you could be a little more specific.
Dear Albert
ReplyDeleteWhere do I begin?
Control:
1. The role of women in Christianity. It really is not adequate to give them lipservice and say they are recognised as being just important without recognising this. Actions speak louder than words. Think how it would benefit women globally if the Catholic Church recognised women as it would have beneficial repercussions in Africa and in Islam.
2. No sex by its priests. Apparently this has more to do with the inheritance laws to safeguard the Church's property.
3. Condemning the use of condoms.
Promotion:
1. Newman - when has his Saint day been set?
2. To Parliament, it is understandable if you act in an unchristian way. This church understands and lets you sin because we can forgive you. The message should be do not sin, surely?
Many messages were commendable and perhaps this is just the beginning of a little bit of change within the Catholic Church. That would be even more commendable.
Measured,
ReplyDeleteThanks.
1. I'm still not clear on what you are asking for re women. After all, the greatest saint is a woman. What exactly are you arguing for?
2. Celibacy is a prudential judgment. It says that the vocation of the priesthood and the vocation of marriage are both so important and so full-on that they don't usually go well together: no one can serve two masters, as Jesus says.
3. What's wrong with condemning condoms? If it's AIDS you're worrying about, try this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html
Cardinal Newman's feast day is 9th October.
I think the message has to be both - don't sin, but if you do sin, "we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." I Jn.2.1
Hello Albert
ReplyDeleteApologies for the delay in my response.
Briefly:
1. I am arguing for worthy women to be ordained and allowed to be part of the hierarchy in the Catholic Church. Shaking hands with an Anglican clergywoman may have surprised Pope Benedict.
2. Well, celibacy doesn't work for the majority of men and probably contributes to the difficulty in finding new priests. I accept that it is not for me to tell you how to govern yourselves.
3. Using condoms should not be a sin, but be regarded as a necessary evil (or, in my eyes, a virtue) for the sake of mankind. After all, the Catholic Church is compassionate.
4. Since feast days are on the birthdays of a saint, I presume Cardinal Newman was born on 9th October.
Gosh, I have been shocked by the aggressiveness of atheists. Totally wrong. They need to learn proportionality. People should have their religious beliefs treated with respect. I hope this Government hasn't forgotten that a basic code for morality would be worth drawing up. It is probably too contentious in this environment and prove far too bureaucratic.
Hello measured, thanks for your reply.
ReplyDelete1. I don't see that you've argued for that, you've merely expressed a preference. What argument would you advance to persuade the Holy Father to change his mind?
2. No celibacy doesn't work for the majority of men, but then the priesthood is not for the majority of men. Pope John Paul believed the lack of vocations in the West (worldwide, the priesthood is growing) was because of a lack of faith in communities. Rather than collude with that faithlessness, he thought we should strengthen local communities.
3. You say that condoms "should not be a sin" but then say they are a necessary evil. An evil, if committed is a sin, therefore, I can't follow. Which virtue would using a condom be? In any case, the Church does not decide what is or is not a sin. Rather the Church merely announces what is or is not a sin.
4. Feast days are rarely birthdays on earth (only three I think Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist, but they all have other feast days as well). Usually they are birthdays into heaven - i.e. the day of death. 9th October is the day of his conversion as it happens.
Yes, some atheists do lack proportion. I think that vocal atheists tend to manifest the very fundamentalist traits they oppose in the religious.
::[in a totally calm and reasoned voice]::
ReplyDeleteAlbert,
I can let you get away with most things but I cannot let you get away with number one above. You asked me what I was asking for and I replied I would argue for certain women to be entitled to apply for and to receive the same rights and privileges as men in the Catholic Church.
This is based on the premise that men and women are equal. We are all humans. We are the same species. I doubt you can deny or justify the discrimination against women that currently occurs (but I perhaps I will watch you try!). :-)
I am in my forties and as I get older, I now recognise the way most societies treat women. Having been brought up by both my parents (!) to accept that men are superior (admittedly men were the ones who gave their lives in WWI and WWII), I was slow to appreciate that men are not superior nor different in many ways to women. I now believe that the roles of men and women are flexible and it is wrong that many privileges are retained solely by men. Both should be entitled to equal recognition, access to power, control and fulfilment. It is unnecessary for me to be strident or become a feminist because the rights women should be entitled to are becoming self evident.
This movement for women to qualify for the same rights as men comes from the people, not our leaders. It is being heard and it is so fundamentally sound, it cannot be denied (akin to the abolition of the slave trade). I am not asking for women to receive preferential treatment, just the same.
I hope the Holy Father sees it in his heart to recognise this and allows women as well as men to fulfil their true vocation in the Catholic Church. Think of the message this would send to so many women around the world. The repercussions of allowing women in, especially on those currently in power since relinquishing control is uncomfortable, need to be evaluated, and this is possibly where the difficulties lie. More so than anything the Scriptures say on the subject.
Thanks measured. Okay, I admit, I was being slightly mischievous - but not entirely. While I could guess that's what you meant, it seemed appropriate to give you the chance to put your point into words.
ReplyDeleteThis is based on the premise that men and women are equal.
Which we agree on. Is it your assumption then that the reason the Catholic Church is opposed to the ordination of women is that we think women are unequal to men? Similarly, is it your view that ordination is a privilege or a right?
I hope the Holy Father sees it in his heart
So presumably, the ordination of women is in the Holy Father's gift?
More so than anything the Scriptures say on the subject.
Is that an attempt to prevent me from appealing to revelation? Why would there be a priesthood without revelation?
Briefly, as I have wasted so much time today, Yes, it is my belief that the Catholic Church believes that women are subservient to men. This is evidenced in its actions, so I am not sure you should call it an assumption. Ordination is a privilege but for those worthy to be chosen, it is their right and this right should not be limited to only males.
ReplyDeleteThe Holy Father interpretes the Word of God Scriptures and is the Leader of the Church. I have no doubt his advisers advise him as he is an old man and must rely on what others tell him. I am never seen it cited from the Gospels banning the ordination of women. It is therefore within the Holy Father and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to ordinate women.
A revelation would assist matters greatly.
Why not, Albert? This intransigence loses the Catholic Church followers. I look at it from a pragmatic point of view and fail to see how it can be justified. The effect this will have on the well-being of Catholic faith concerns me.
Have to go. Someone wants to use my printer.
Thanks for your reply. I'm a little short of time measured, so I'll be clear and less tactful even than usual (is such a thing possible? ;-) )
ReplyDeleteYes, it is my belief that the Catholic Church believes that women are subservient to men.
Well that's simply wrong. The Catholic faith teaches the natural equality of men and women, and the supernatural superiority of the Blessed Virgin Mary to everyone except Christ. In other words, it is the Catholic faith that if ordination were anything to do with worthiness, the Virgin Mary should be a priest. But the priesthood has nothing to do with worthiness (God forbid!).
Ordination is a privilege but for those worthy to be chosen, it is their right and this right should not be limited to only males
This is just circular isn't it? Presumably by "chosen" you mean "by Christ". So women only have a right if they are chosen by him. Why should I accept that they are (btw, even if they were, it wouldn't follow that someone chosen has a right to ordination).
I have no doubt his advisers advise him as he is an old man and must rely on what others tell him.
I think he has a sharper intellect than those around him.
I am never seen it cited from the Gospels banning the ordination of women.
But then the teaching of the Catholic Church is not that women are banned (which would imply a prima facie right), only that the Church has no authority to ordain women.
A revelation would assist matters greatly.
We have a revelation, He's called Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, full of grace and truth. We're just following him.
This intransigence loses the Catholic Church followers.
Being crucified cost Jesus followers. We're interested in proclaiming the true faith not a popularity contest. (No Pope Idol here!)
Hi Albert
ReplyDeleteBack briefly. (It is a weakness of Blogger that messages can't be saved and then posted later, after they have been reread and tidied up. I know I could copy and paste into Word but that would make the process longer and this is my antidote to Word!...not The Word, Microsoft Word).
Let us start bottom up. No, it is not a popularity contest but I have no doubt the failure to recognise women undermines the authority of any Church, including the Anglican Church in a society that treats women fairly. Opinions about fairness change and society is no longer as patriarchal that it was, which makes the Holy Father's position unusual. While this empowers single mothers to control their children, it also means institutions will adapt to meet the needs, and possibly desires, of the people in order to survive.
Yes, Jesus Christ is a revelation and I have no doubt he existed. The Disciples were those individuals who could have authority. He not only recognised that women had an important role in raising children, but also in caring and nurturing. Men can also perform these functions but it is significant now that it is recognised women should also hold authority and power.
Sadly, Jesus was not definitive on the subject of the ordination of women to the best of my limited knowledge. I suspect he would have ordained women if this had been feasible. It appears another revelation would need to be definitive about the Catholic Church's recognition of women, if only to satisfy the media.
the Church has no authority to ordain women Do not hide behind words. Show me this authority and I will show you it can be amended, if it is not the Word of God.
The Holy Father has a sharp intellect because he has wisdom on his side derived from experience and the ability to read people's signals. He must rely on those around him and his own life experiences. He must be exceedingly careful in his decisions. A wise Leader never acts in a cavalier manner. This does not forbid the ordination of women.
I badly worded the difference between privilege and right but I wanted to differentiate between the two. Ordination must be regarded as a privilege. A privilege that should no longer be denied to women who wish to follow this path. I am simply reflecting the view of fair society. There must be frustrated women out there who have thwarted ambition that deserve this opportunity, and they would contribute greatly to the life of the Church. Suspicion will grow as to why the Catholic Church will not ordain women.
If the priesthood is not to do with worthiness, what is it to do with? Power? Control? If the Catholic Church does not endorse the view that women are subservient to men, why does it not ordain them?
I appreciate that the Catholic Church holds a position that is founded on tradition and change should never be hurried, but is the Church going to mark itself out as the one institution that doesn't accept women? It lays itself open to being full of misogynists. Do you think women should be ordained?
Measured,
ReplyDeletethe failure to recognise women undermines the authority of any Church, including the Anglican Church in a society that treats women fairly
Firstly, I don't recognise the Catholic Church here. If you mean that in order for women to be recognised they need to be ordained, then I can only point to the visit of the relics of St Therese last year, or the fact that we love Mary as Mother of the Church. Under these circumstances how can you say women are not recognised? The Protestants accuse us of recognising these women too much!
In any case, I can't really see what fairness has to do with ordination, to be honest.
Similarly, what do you mean "undermining the authority of the Church"? Our authority comes not from the world, but from Jesus Christ - that is why we have no authority to ordain women. In contrast the CofE which has ordained women is hardly flourishing is it? People attack the Catholic Church because she has retained her authority. No one attacks the CofE because she has no authority.
I suspect he would have ordained women if this had been feasible.
How do you know this? I assume you mean he couldn't include women because of his culture, but this is flawed:
(i) Women priests were common in Jesus' time.
(ii) Jesus didn't choose people who were worthy, but those who were lowly.
Consequently, by what I take to be your argument, Jesus' times meant it was more likely that Jesus should include women among the apostles: they were more lowly than men, and they were common enough.
So why didn't he? If we really believe Jesus Christ is God made Man, we cannot accept that he got this wrong. He chose only men because that was God's will.
We do not need to know why it should be God's will - what do I know of the mind of God? Can I really know better than Jesus Christ? If I answer yes to the latter point, I would not be a Christian. If I answer no, then surely I will stick with what he gave us.
But as it happens, even setting aside our Lord's example, I think not ordaining women is right. The priest is an alter Christus. Requiring men only to be priests is no more unjust or odd than Franco Zeffirelli excluding women from the title role of Jesus of Nazareth is unjust or odd. Having male only priests is no different from having male only figures on our crucifixes.
Well, Albert, I have given this some thought.
ReplyDeleteTo love Mary as Mother of the Church gives her her sacred role but it is not a role model to pin on all women. In addition, nuns have contributed greatly to the Roman Catholic Church and their skills should be more readily accessible to the community. They should be able to earn the same respect as priests if that is what you wish. To deny them ordination is making them second class citizens.
I have never heard of Protestants claiming the Catholic Church recognises women too much. I did not know women priests were common in Jesus' time and comparisons with the Anglican Church are not helpful. For the Catholic Church to ordain women would be an enormous sea change but for the Church not to be marginalised, it is bound to occur.
To justify not ordaining women because all the Apostles were men is just not adequate. I can see where you are coming from for they were to spread the Word. Perhaps women priests would have different skill sets or are given different labels, but women should be entitled to be ordained. I note you do not argue that they are not capable of being priests.
Finally, of course, you should choose a man to portray a specific individual, but this is a example of a particular image. It does not justify the exclusion of women. The situation is unfair, but it is your Church and your right to continue as you have for centuries. I respect that.
We shall have to agree to differ on this. We can pray for each other. :-)
Thanks for your message and for your prayers too! Yes, I will pray for you too!
ReplyDeleteTo love Mary as Mother of the Church gives her her sacred role but it is not a role model to pin on all women.
That's a very fair point, and in fact, I do agree there is a problem here. The Catholic Church, while not being unfair to women by not ordaining them, has not yet put much energy into working out a proper role for women, and getting women involved in the structure of the Church. This Pope has made a start on this (though don't tell the media, the shock might finish them off!) by trying to get more women working in the Vatican. But there's more to do.
What I meant by referring to Mary was simply to show that we do not regard women as inferior. Whatever our reasons for reserving the priesthood to men, it is not because we cannot of conceive of women in exalted religious positions. Protestants sometimes accuse us of worshipping Mary.
for the Church not to be marginalised, it is bound to occur
Well time will tell. It doesn't seem to me that society's view of women is particularly stable, and it is hard to predict where we will be in the future. Feminism has altered greatly over the last few decades as voices have come forward suggesting that the making all women men model of feminism is demeaning to women and has made their lives harder. But if we are marginalised, then we will be with Christ who was marginalised.
To justify not ordaining women because all the Apostles were men is just not adequate...women should be entitled to be ordained
I don't see that you have demonstrated that - but I guess you are wanting to draw this to a close!
I note you do not argue that they are not capable of being priests.
Certainly not! I would argue that viewed simply as a task or skill, priestly ministry is at least as well suited to women as it is to men.
Finally, of course, you should choose a man to portray a specific individual, but this is a example of a particular image. It does not justify the exclusion of women. The situation is unfair
But the priest is precisely the portrayal of a specific individual: Ecce homo! that is the priest before he is anything else. If you agree that is justified, you accept the non-ordination of women.
Albert,
ReplyDeleteA priest is suppose to personify Christ? Emulate surely? The priest here does not embody Christ; I cannot stretch my imagination that far. The priest is far older, forgetful and fallible.
Homo = homo sapiens = our species
'Man' frequently does not just refer to males.
Wishing you a good weekend.
Measured,
ReplyDeleteA priest is suppose to personify Christ? Emulate surely?
Actually it's both. Emulate in his life, personify when saying Mass. The priest acts "in persona Christi Capitis" to use the official language. He is not simply a follower of Christ, he is ontologically changed, so that in a sense, at the altar he is Christ. That is to say, the priest is himself personalized by Christ.
Wishing you a good weekend.
Et cum spirito tuo!