LOG IN | Not a user? Create Account
Mobtown Beat archives
More Stories
Single-Payer-Minded (2/3/2010)
Local health-care practitioners explain why they're willing to go to jail in the name of health-care reform
Health Care Reform Doctors Arrested Outside Obama Speech (2/3/2010)
Equality Maryland license plates available (10/2/2009)
More from Diane Reynolds
Come All Ye Faithful (4/2/2008)
Emerging Church Movement Brings Postmodern Christian Dialogue to Baltimore
There is a church that would allow these women everything they want: Mushy if even existant dogma, prietesses the whole lot ... Episcopalianism. Why not go there? It's unfathomable why these allegedly grown women are acting like a bunch of spoiled kindergartners. Get over it, girls.
Posted 11.21.2007 9:12 AM
What a sad lot these women are. They are nothing more than a coven of disgruntled feminists suffering a mid-life crisis. My guess is that they also are wildly in support of abortion.
The gifts of mustard seeds is both juvenile and silly. It's actually more like mustard gas since their actions poison themselves and anyone involved in this organization. The only accurate statement about these women is that they are indeed females. They are not Catholics and they most certainly are not priests(esses). The claim that the Catholic Church "ordained" women as deacons and priests has been demonstrated to be a complete fraud and is in the same fictional category as the DaVinci Code and the Harry Potter series of books. The claim that Ms.Fresen was ordained in 2005 by three male bishops in good standing with the pope is highly questionable.
Posted 11.21.2007 9:14 AM
"We're not complaining, we're modeling," ---How true. Modeling a fringe garment of beliefs. A garment destined for the dustbin of history.
Posted 11.21.2007 9:28 AM
I think the Church knows her history better than these amateurs. Women have NEVER been priests! Yes, they have been deacons, and yes, the early records speak of "priestesses" -but these were NOT female priests. They were the wives of men who became priests. Since they took vows of celibacy they needed the consent of their wives, since they too would have to be be celibate -hence the name "priestesses". Often -but not always- these women would join an order of nuns, but they were NOT ordained, and they did NOT confect the Eucharist!
Posted 11.21.2007 9:38 AM
For an orthodox treatment of this topic, see: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=857
Posted 11.21.2007 9:43 AM
Have these women priests ever heard of the Mother of God, Mary most Holy? I doubt they even recognize her place in the history of salvation. Mary knew her place. Apparently these women do not.
Posted 11.21.2007 9:44 AM
To grebnet, gaby, unrepentant papist, abe tolmahcs, and Mary W.:
Shame on all of you for your lack of charity, understanding, and compassion!
You don't have to agree but Jesus does demand love & tolerance.
If you folks are the foundation of the church, no wonder it's falling in on itself.
Sadly,
Father Jerry
Posted 11.21.2007 11:17 AM
If you're really a priest Fr. J, you must be a Jesuit.
You know Jesus did not demand tolerance for everything and He particularly did not demand tolerance for heretics and schismatics which these women and those who actively support them clearly are. As far as understanding goes, I absolutely do not lack that as it pertains to this issue.
The inability of women to ever be ordained as priests is an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church.
True charity means that I desire my fellow Christians to spend eternity in heaven and therefore I am obliged to correct them when I see them going astray. If I don't it's a sin of omission, remember that one?
Posted 11.21.2007 11:31 AM
These women are not amateurs in any sense of the word, at least in religious matters.
As a group, their credentials equal or surpass those of many Roman clergy.
On a per capita basis, I suspect that their group is more learned than the Roman clergy as a whole.
For me, their historical facts are more solid and credible than the historical speculation and deductions that are sometimes espoused by their attackers and critics.
Father Jerry
Posted 11.21.2007 11:35 AM
Please find another Church to destroy.
Posted 11.21.2007 11:36 AM
Why don't they just join the Episcopal church? It's the same thing, yet they allow female priest.
Posted 11.21.2007 11:53 AM
I say let these women have their play at being priest wanna bes.. Its just a pretense at getting what they think they have. They will not get any extra ground in regard to being taken seriously. I say for those who follow them..let them. They must be disgrunted so called Catholics as well who are in cahoots. Their women priest cause will die off or splinter as the Protestant Reformation has proven. So, I don't take them seriously and neither should we consider them a threat. Throughout salvation histroy little schisms have surfaced and died off from lack of having certain keys to the kingdom. I just pray for God to let them see how pride has corrupted their vision of the Church.
Father Jerry ...you are no Catholic priest.
Posted 11.21.2007 11:58 AM
The articel stated that the so called bishop who performed this "ordination" had been ordained by three male bishops in good standing with the Pope. Any bishop who would attempt such a sacralige would not be in good standing with the Holy Roman Catholic Church or the Holy Father.
May God have mercy on them and on these misguided women.
Posted 11.21.2007 12:10 PM
First of all, I was brought up to respect Priest's, if you have a complaint about a Priest, tell Jesus. So please lay off Fr Jerry.
If Jesus had wanted women priests he would have had them as Apostles.
I have no doubt that these women, know theology well. they are not idiot's.
But all the same women priest's are very wrong,and will never be accepted.
Jesus, would tell them gently and would treat them with respect. Pray for them, don't be nasty. you know, the saying "do unto others"
Posted 11.21.2007 12:21 PM
I respect the office of the priest in persona Christi but I/we are under no obligation to respect crackpot, heterodox or dangerous "opinions" from a priest or anyone else for that matter.
Now, assuming that Fr J is a priest, his comments about these women are his own personal opinion and not based on any theological or historical facts and that includes his opinion that they are more informed than the Roman clergy as a whole.
If these women knew theology well they would not have started this facade of pretending to be priests so therefore it is reasonable to conclude that they are indeed riding the theological short school bus.
Posted 11.21.2007 12:49 PM
Is this Fr. Jerry a Catholic priest? If so, some refresher courses on Church history and practice are strongly recommended. More likely, (s)he is merely another misguided soul unwilling to accept the received Tradition of the Church. "Abe" said it well enough with regards to true charity. What true christian would employ a strategy of manipulation to coerce others to conform to an ideology that promotes a sense of entitlement (to the priesthood)? Clearly, (1) such a methodology of coercion for personal gain is hardly tenable given the nature of ordained ministry; and (2) such an argument is diametrically opposed to the model Christ gave us: humility, service, sacrifice. No, these women are conspicuous in their bad behavior: pride, deceit and malice toward God’s legitimate ministers. Their simulated ordination would be laughable were it not accompanied by attempts to justify an agenda at the expense of other people’s character. The bishops, exercising their legitimate authority by censuring the women in question, have anticipated the consequences of the women’s provocative actions. While the women are not willing to listen to the mind of the Church, the women in question will, in due course, have to justify their actions before the face of the living God (Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2).
Posted 11.21.2007 1:56 PM
I appreciate this article -- it says many of the points I would say in response to many of the comments so far.
Thank you, Fr. Jerry, for your comments as well.
According to the most reputable and most recent research (published in American Catholics Today by William D'Antonio, Dean Hoge, Mary Gautier and James Davidson, 2007), 63% of U.S. Catholics support women's ordination.
Scholarship provides evidence that the women named as priets and bishops were not the wives of priests and bishops, but they held those offices themselves. This is based on archaeological evidence from centuries ago, so we will never know for sure.
What we do know is that Jesus empowered women as leaders in his ministry at a time when most women were not taught theology and women and men worshipped separately. Jesus broke cultural tradition by even talking to women in public. However, he went far beyond that when He commissioned Mary Magdalene to tell his disciples that he had risen from the dead -- and the Church calls her the Apostle to the Apostles.
In 1976, the Pontifical Biblical Commission determined that there is no biblical reason to prohibit women’s ordination.
Finally, the teaching on women's ordination is not infallible. Pope John Paul II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994, and then-Cardinal Ratzinger issued Responsum ad Dubium in 1995, in response to the many criticisms from theologians and organizations of priests and religious on the faulty theology of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis -- the letter that stated the church has not authority to ordain women. The interpretation of infallibility presented in the 1995 Responsum ad Dubium caused global confusion among Roman Catholics. However, the teaching that it was defending was not infallible for two reasons:
1. The world's bishops were not consulted
2. JPII could have claimed infallibility using his ex cathedra authority (making it unnecessary to consult the world's bishops), but he did not.
Therefore, the teaching is not infallible. In fact, then-Cardinal Ratzinger also issued a clarification of his '95 document saying that the teaching does not belong to the deposit of the faith (the sum of revelation and apostolic tradition) but rather PERTAINED to the deposit of the faith. This clarification was not widely published, but it can be found here http://www.womenpriests.org/church/ratz_95b.asp in paragraph 3
For more theological information about women's ordination, visit www.womenpriests.org, which was founded by a Roman Catholic priest who left the priesthood over the injustice of women's exclusion from ordination. For information on how U.S. Catholics are advocating women's ordination, visit www.womensordination.org, the site of the Women's Ordination Conference, founded in 1975.
Jesus' example of having both male and female leaders in his ministry should be upheld within the Roman Catholic Church. Galatians 3:27:28 says it perfectly: "For as many of you were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. All are one in Christ Jesus."
Posted 11.21.2007 2:10 PM
Male only ordination to the priesthood and Christs' divinity are part of the ordinary magisterium, NOT the extraordinary magisterium and has no need to be defined ex cathedra and does not require the worlds bishops rto be consulted.
The Blessed Mothers Immaculate Conception was pronounced ex cathedra and is an example of the extraordinary magisterium.
If Jesus really wanted women to be priests He certainly would have ordained His Blessed Mother or Mary Magdalene but He did not.
Visiting the womenpriests.org website looking for facts related to female ordination in the Catholic Church is the same thing as going to a flat earth society website looking for facts related to a flat vs round earth. Gimme a break!
Posted 11.21.2007 2:35 PM
Thanks so much for this article. It gives me hope that people are willing to live out Jesus' teachings and not just talk about them. Can't wait for a woman priest to begin a community in my town. I know that all would be welcome in this community. May all those who commented on this article be filled with peace and a willingness to be civil in this discussion that touches many hot points.
Posted 11.21.2007 2:57 PM
I suppose that I could "ordain" a dog but it would still be a pooch that wags it's tail and goes 'arf' 'arf'. I have nothing against these gals dressing up and having psuedo ceremonies with grape juice & gluten-free bread. But please... don't insult Roman Catholics by implying that this is a legitimate mass or these are gals are 'priests'. Let them start their own cult. Fine!!! That doesn't bother me at all. It's a free country to be a Mormon, Luthern, Hindu... whatever. But don't identify this halloween dress-up as Roman Catholic. For starters, these persons have already incurred latae sentencia excommunication; they are not members anymore, if they ever were, of the Roman Catholic Church.
Posted 11.21.2007 3:39 PM
Christ cannot be mocked. Pray for these women for they are ensnared by a pernicious invention of Satan.
God alone. Forever.
Posted 11.21.2007 3:40 PM
I am a (woman) convert to the Catholic faith and my heart is sad by the disobedience of these women. One of the reasons I converted is because after reading abpit the saints lives and how they were ALWAYS obedient. And because of their obedience miracles were performed. "Advocate of Christ" says, 63% of the US Catholics support women's ordination, I am not one of them. There seems to be a lot of new age creeping into the Catholic church and a lot of it is through nuns, need I say more.
Posted 11.21.2007 3:49 PM
Let us pray for their conversion. We need people with leadership abilities and motivation to Build the church, not tear her apart.
Posted 11.21.2007 4:00 PM
It is the end times, folks. Look around you and notice alot of other guffy things going on. These things have to be right out of hell to be happening. And Satan always goes after the Church that Jesus built. Altho any Christian denomination is his prey. Get use to it. Its always been this way. Pray alot. Stay close to the Sacraments and you got to laugh at some of this stuff.
Posted 11.21.2007 4:06 PM
Some nice background from Catholic answers:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp
Council of Nicaea I
"Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity" (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).
Council of Laodicea
"[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church" (Canon 11 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] ... In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony ... ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit" (Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).
"It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess" (ibid.).
"From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses" (ibid.).
"If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good" (ibid., 79:3).
John Chrysostom
"[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature" (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
"A virgin is not ordained, for we have no such command from the Lord, for this is a state of voluntary trial, not for the reproach of marriage, but on account of leisure for piety" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:24 [A.D. 400]).
"Appoint, [O Bishop], a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them" (ibid., 3:16).
"[T]he ‘man is the head of the woman’ [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, ‘He shall rule over you’ [Gen. 3:16]. For the first part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ" (ibid., 3:9).
"A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and has lived soberly and unblamably and has taken extraordinary care of her family, as Judith and Anna—those women of great reputation—let her be chosen into the order of widows" (ibid., 8:25).
"A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women" (ibid., 8:28).
Augustine
"[The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman" (Heresies 1:17 [A.D. 428]).
Posted 11.21.2007 4:55 PM
A few thoughts...
1) I think it is less important to examine whether or not there have been women priests in the past, but rather why they have or haven't been recognized at various times. The Catholic church is and has never been exempt from sociocultural influences, and I think this element is under-recognized in the conversation about why women have been largely kept out of leadership roles in the church.
2) The Catholic church while divinely inspired still has a human element. It is therefore not perfect at any given point in history but always in a process of trying to respond more appropriately to the questions of human existence. While I can understand the Catholic church taking a stance in conversations about various things to the best of its ability, the imperfect human nature of the church means that the Church must keep asking questions and revisiting ideas. The church may come to a same conclusion upon revisiting ideas, but by its human nature must at least give ideas such as women's ordination true cosideration rather than refusing to revisit the ideas at all.
3) Reading some of the comments about this article reminds me of some of the racist ideas that were written in this country before the civil rights movement. Today I read them with incredulity that the authors could actually believe such divisive and hateful ideas. The people who wrote them may have been good people. There were even, no doubt, some Catholics among them. But even some people with the best of intentions, using their best judgment, and who tried to follow the teachings of the Catholic church to the best of their ability, came to some horrifying conclusions based on their lived experience in a culture where those ideas were acceptable and normal. Even my own Grandfather who is for the most part incredibly loving and respectful will once in a great while stun me by making a racist comment. Getting back to the conversation about women priests, I honestly believe that if I saved the comments from this page and handed them to the grandchildren I may have in 40 years, I think their shock would be similar to mine today when my Grandfather makes racist comments. I don't mean to make this sound condescending because that is not my intention. While I do not respect the opinion that women cannot be priestly leaders in the Catholic church, I do respect that each of us is limited by our own lived experience. I just think it is important to remember that our own set of lived experiences is not necessarily the only legitimate set of lived experiences. The constant ideological shift thoughout history is a clear demonstration of this point.
Posted 11.21.2007 7:00 PM
Pray for these women and their souls for they have fallen to the most dangerious sins of pride and disobedience.
Posted 11.21.2007 10:12 PM
"While I do not respect the opinion that women cannot be priestly leaders in the Catholic church..." -Amanda
It's not an opinion, Amanda. It's called doctrine. And doctrines don't change in the Catholic Church. But do not despair -- all is not lost. I hear the ECUSA is looking for new members.
"I just think it is important to remember that our own set of lived experiences is not necessarily the only legitimate set of lived experiences." -Amanda
Papa Benny's got some good stuff on relativism. You should check it out some time.
"63% of U.S. Catholics support women's ordination." -Advocate for Christ
Yeah, and 90% of Catholics contracept. What's your point? We're familiar with all that stuff about the road being broad, the gate wide and the many who go that way. We prefer the narrow gate, that's all.
"Truth is not determined by a majority vote." -Pope Benedict XVI
Posted 11.22.2007 12:25 AM
To Tobias who said these women fell to the sins of pride and disobedience.
They may have disobeyed church rules but that doesn't mean they are guilty of pride. Perhaps they are very sincere and devout in their beliefs and feel "called" to use "civil disobedience" as a tool. Read chapter 10 of Acts.
Our first pope ( Peter) who had observed the dietary restrictions from his youth was being told in a vision to eat pork. Further, then God instructed him to ignore another Jewish prohibition and enter the home of a Roman soldier. Does this reading not show clearly that God is not bound by any human norms, even those he himself inspired. Peter was curageous and humble enough to listen to God and "didn't follow the rules."
Posted 11.22.2007 12:25 AM
To Ilovemychurch who said the women who became priests should "find another church to destroy." It could be that these women love the Catholic Church and therefore dare to bring about change.
Posted 11.22.2007 12:37 AM
Hilary will become president and women will rule again...Sorry guys.
Posted 11.22.2007 12:45 AM
"It could be that these women love the Catholic Church and therefore dare to bring about change." -leroy
Oh, c'mon Leroy. Haven't you heard the joke, "How many Vatican officials does it take to change a light bulb?"
...Change?
(The reason the joke is funny is because there's some truth to it.)
Posted 11.22.2007 12:51 AM
"Does this reading not show clearly that God is not bound by any human norms, even those he himself inspired. Peter was curageous and humble enough to listen to God and "didn't follow the rules."" -leroy
Concerning the relaxing of ristrictions on various meat products, I don't recall Peter ever saying:
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance…I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to allow for the eating of pork and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
Something to that effect, however, was said by Peter with regard to women's ordination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Roman_Catholic_Church
Posted 11.22.2007 12:59 AM
It's disgusting how many (male) priests have offended and stolen the innocence of children. Jesus said if something causes you to sin...cut it off. Loretta had the right idea. Castrate them.
Posted 11.22.2007 1:07 AM
"It's disgusting how many (male) priests have offended and stolen the innocence of children." -womenarethereason
Yes, it is a sad, sad thing.
But have you ever wondered why the vast majority of cases involve post-pubescent boys? That is, we aren't talking about a severe problem of priests abusing little girls, or even boys around age 5.
The problem -- almost without exception -- is a priest who has abused a boy in his teens.
Curious.
So the issue is not pedophilia, so much as ephebophilia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
More specifically, *homosexual* ephebophilia.
How did so many homosexual men end up as ordained priests, I wonder? Oh, yes, now I remember. Liberalism.
Posted 11.22.2007 1:40 AM
Christ founded a Heirarchy form of governing the Church NOT a Democracy,
All this is going to bring about is another Protestant church run by woman ministers and nothing more. I wish them luck.
Posted 11.22.2007 7:49 AM
Yup ! Let's have those women hearing confessions ! If you think your sins will be a safe secret guess again.
Posted 11.22.2007 8:17 AM
" Sexual sins" of women/females should be confessed to a woman priest or at least a women "ordained" to hear the confessions of womed, would it not make sense for a women who is shy of confessing such sins to a male more readily confess to a female "confessor" ,
Posted 11.22.2007 8:24 AM
Faleel - give us a break!!!! Most radical men and women don't use the confessional anymore. Like I said earlier - this is a new form of Protestantism - it is NOT part of the Roman Catholic Church and never will be.
Posted 11.22.2007 8:34 AM
Advocate for Christ:
I find your scholarship to be wanting in this matter and superficial. You should know that the Holy Father does not need to consult with the bishops to declare anything; moreover, JPII made it very clear in his document released in the mid-90s on the ordination of women that the issue is “closed.” Further, to suggest that this issue must or should be defined via an ex cathedra statement only demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding in the functions of Magisterium, specifically Papal authority.
Fr. J:
Are you kidding me? Tolerance is not a virtue.
I am saddened by this article because it only proves that the real issue is power not service.
If these women and their supporters understood the true essence of Priestly ministry, based on the life of Our Lord, they would understand that ordained ministry has two elements: service (deacon) and sacrifice (priesthood). Thus, the priest is called to sacrifice himself for the Church as Christ did because he and he alone stands in persona Christi (In the Person of Christ).
The role of priest is fundamentally masculine. Read your Old Testament where you are sure to find that the function of "fatherhood" and "priesthood" indistinguishable. See the Liturgy of Pope Pius V (the Old Rite) where all liturgical movement expresses the life giving nature (masculine) nature of God’s work of Salvation that we encounter in the Sacraments. At the same time, note how the rest of the church, everything outside of the sanctuary is “feminine” connoting the receptivity of the Church to her spouse Christ who is being made physically present in the Sacrifice of the Mass through the hands of the priest, who is at that moment Jesus Himself. Thus, at Mass we have the chance to experience exactly what is happening in heaven, what the great Hans Urs von Balthasar described as an “inruption” as heaven enters our world allowing us to witness Christ offering Himself to the Father for us eternally.
The work of these women has nothing to do with reform. Rather it is an attempt to re-create the Church in their own image in stead of being transformed.
In Jesus and Mary!!!
Posted 11.22.2007 11:36 AM
Ladies,
There's always the Anglican church!
Its obvious that for these women its not a matter of living according to the gospel. No, they just have a chip on their shoulder which seems to infect women of the feminist bent.
Ladies, you have a real world example of what will happen if your pouting actually brings about the change your envision: the absolute disarray of the Anglican church. Cheers.
Posted 11.22.2007 12:37 PM
Ladies,
I think you are exhibiting behavior which reflect the first sin...pride. Satan must be lovin' it.
Posted 11.22.2007 12:40 PM
jschmo says that the Anglican church is in disarray. Perhaps the same thing can be said about the Catholic church.
For Example:
1. Bishops in the US disagree on communion for politicians----numerous article on Spirit Daily appealing to Rome to do something to this Bishops.
2. Abuse scandal and cover ups.
3. Women getting ordained.
4. Widespread disagreement among American Catholics about Abortion, Homesexuality, and women priests
5. Significant numbers of Catholics not using the confessional or attending Sunday Mass or following Church directives on birth control
6.. Estimates of a large number of homosexual priests and homosexuality in the seminaries
7. And how many people are disgruntled about Catholic Post Secondary Education.
Posted 11.22.2007 9:09 PM
I started reading the comments submitted about this article and after a while began to feel that these women may be in danger of more than verbal attacks. Finally I came upon Amanda who said:"Reading some of the comments about this article reminds me of some of the racist ideas that were written in this country before the civil rights movement. Today I read them with incredulity that the authors could actually believe such divisive and hateful ideas."
The depth of fear from which these vitriolic critics write must be greater than can be imagined. They are all so frightened and insecure that one can only pray for them, that they may find some glimmer of hope for their lives and are able to embrace the true teachings of Jesus.
Posted 11.23.2007 11:57 AM
Ponder thisid in the Scriptures "I and the Father are One". Jesus did perfectly the will of the Father. This is key. Before all worlds God the Father in eternity knew that on this (created) world 60 generations of women would be denied any aspiration to the priesthood because Jesus did not appoint a woman as an apostle.
Jesus, who did perfectly the will of the Father, did not appoint a woman. Therefore, it was not the will of the Father that He should.
One of two things must be true if woman can actualy now become priestesses: Either God the Father made a mistake and has now changed His mind. Or Jesus who was God incarnate did not do the will of the Father.
The first is nonsense. The second amounts to a denial that Jesus was the incarnate God.
Any argument for hte priesting of women that is based on the Holy Spirit leading the Church into new truth must also account for old error--the 60 wronged generations of women.
I submit that it cannot be done without denying the Incarnation.
I am a convert to the Catholic faitth (through Anglicanism) and a woman. I say the spirit of the age and feminism movement and NOT the Holy Spirit are leading women to believe they are entitled to ordination.
Posted 11.23.2007 3:51 PM
One more thing--The summary outlined above can be found in Sheldon Vanauken's book Under The Mercy, the story of his conversion from Anglicanism to the RC Church.
Posted 11.23.2007 4:08 PM
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi
Praise God for the healing ministry of these women. As Advocate for Christ said, the Church itself has found no scriptural reason to bar women from ordination, and there is ample evidence that women served in official capacities in the early church.
The level of latent and internalized sexism in these comments shocks me, not to mention the (tired) anti-feminist rhetoric. Clearly the Church needs to reopen dialogue on this issue because there is a lot of anger, resentment, and fear that needs to be worked on. Until then, I remain grateful for the prophetic witness of the Roman Catholic Women Priest movement.
Posted 11.23.2007 6:16 PM
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you join the Anglicans - Me
Posted 11.23.2007 6:50 PM
DC Seminarian:
Why must you seek to interpret the workings of the Church and the interplay of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterial teaching with a hermeneutic of suspicion?
What is “tired” is the spiritual and intellectual disease that emanates from a Catholic who propounds a Protestant view of the Bride of Christ, his Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
If you are indeed a seminarian in God’s Holy Church I pray that you seek to serve Him first and man second. I urge you to put on Christ and see the world through the eyes of the Church who calls us to perfection rather than the eyes of the world which seeks to lure you in, so as to corrupt countless others through your example. This is not an issue of power or hate. This is an issue of service and love. Simply put, women cannot become ordained because priesthood is inherently masculine. I did not create it this way. God did from the foundations of the world when he placed man over woman not to lord it over her but to die for her.
St. Paul beautifully writes of this is Ephesians 5:22ff. Where he declares that “woman is to be submissive to her husband,” and that husbands are to love their wives as Christ has loved the Church. Thus, man is called to demonstrate at every moment the sacrificial love of Christ for his bride by offering himself up for her and her purity. If a priest is another Christ (In the Person of Christ), what does it say when a woman is acting as Christ in the intimate union of Christ and His Church in the Eucharist? It says that God’s love is an abomination and unfruitful. This ultimately is not an issue that we can change but one that is offered to us as a challenge to embrace for the good of our souls.
As a “seminarian” you most certainly know that the Church does not require that truths of the Faith be found explicitly in the Canon of Sacred Scripture. For example where are the words Trinity or Purgatory found? Further, where is the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in Scripture? The answer is simple; such Truths are implicit in the text. Here is the Catholic view of the union of Scripture and Tradition, please consult the CCC Section I, Chapter 2 “God Comes to Meet Man.” There is a real theological problem when one seeks to pit Revelation, Tradition and the Magisterium against one another.
For the “sexism” that you see in this issue, I ask you a question. What demonstrates a greater hatred for the dignity of woman: to deny what is truly feminine and seek what is masculine in a vain attempt at equality or to state the true fact of the matter and affirm what is truly beautiful in the nature of woman? Here is my point. I find womanhood to be beautiful in what it offers to humanity both today and in history. Our Lady’s yes transformed history and salvation because she was receptive in her heart and in her body to the Word of God. That is a femininity that transforms because she seeks to participate in God’s creative work.
In Jesus and Mary
Posted 11.23.2007 8:32 PM
Scriptural Evidence of no female priests
Actually, there once was a disciple of Jesus, who was a woman. Her name was Annette. But she did something one day -- we're not told exactly what she did -- that must have just irked the daylights out of Jesus and the boys. You can read about it for yourselves. We read that Jesus was walking along, by the Sea of Galilee, when he saw Peter and Andrew, and then James and John. Annette must have been there too, although she is not mentioned quite yet. At any rate, Jesus said to them, "Follow me!" That's when Annette must have done whatever it was that she did, because the next thing we read is that
the men "Threw Annette into the lake!" That's why there are no female priests.
Posted 11.24.2007 3:18 PM
From: http://catholicinsight.com/online/feminism/article_643.shtml
The Church should restore the diaconate to women as was the practice in the early Church.
Answer:
There were deaconesses in the early Church, but they were not the female equivalent of deacons. The term comes from the Greek word meaning one who serves or helps. Women deaconesses brought Holy Communion to houses where a priest might not be admitted during the times of persecution. They also helped to anoint the naked bodies of women prior to baptism. Obviously the priest could not do this. When the persecutions were over and adult converts had become rare, the need for these women died away.
In the first Council of Nicea, 315, it was stated that women deacons were not ordained and were to be counted among the laity
Posted 11.24.2007 3:36 PM
Ministers in all churches are called to adapt the language used in the liturgy to reflect both the female and male images of God, which will create sexual equality.
Answer:
The campaign for feminist language in scripture translations and in the liturgy has turned out to be a grave attack on the substance of the faith. Such alterations become awkward, unnatural, inconsistent and not inclusive. Father and Son are neutered to parent and child, and the Holy Spirit becomes feminine. However, Satan always remains masculine. Feminist language angers most people, and it even drives some from the Church. It turns the Sacrifice of the Mass into a political statement. Its worst effect is that it distorts revealed dogmas and it redefines Jesus’ loving Father, our personal God, into an abstraction even more removed from us, until He, our God, becomes an impersonal, universal energy. The purpose of these language changes is to alter the meaning of the scriptures and the message of the liturgy to make them compatible with feminist thinking.
Posted 11.24.2007 3:37 PM
Yikes! It would seem that, judging from the content of many of the articles herein presented, there is much work to be done to convince the historical revisionists that women were not counted among the ordained in the early Church nor should they be counted among the ordained today or tomorrow. Concerning Amanda's comments, predicated as-it-were on the "straw man" of some future enlightened state of being (of her daughter) with which she, too, equates or associates herself in the present. Her arguments only serve to reinforce the notion that the Church is a democracy when, thanks be to God, it most certainly is not. When Peter tried to barter with Christ about certain realities (e.g., the reason for Christ washing his feet, the inevitability of Jesus’ Crucifixion), Christ in no uncertain terms contradicted Peter for wanting to assert his, i.e., Peter’s agenda versus conforming to the agenda set by God. When the disciples argued over who wanted to be first among them, Christ again was unequivocal: see Gospel of Saint Mark 12:33-35. Furthermore, it is neither misogynistic nor the sign of some fear induced maniacal mind to suggest that men and women are equal in dignity but different, complementary but distinct in their roles in the Church. So, no, if her daughter on some future occasion wants a view beyond what her mother presents (Wouldn’t any enlightened parent want their child to build on a parent’s knowledge?), Amanda should, unless her own views have changed by then, counsel her daughter thus: “Sweetheart, mommy believes... but perhaps you should look at and understand what the early Church had to say, look at the example that Christ set and that Church doctrine has remained constant throughout the ages. And, we’ll have a chat with Fr. “Faithful-to-the-Magisterium” after Mass sometime. I understand his mom is a convert to Catholicism from a protestant group that no longer exists because it became so indistinguishable from contemporary culture and fragmented along party lines...”.
Posted 11.24.2007 7:07 PM
Thanks for your comments. If any of you would like to write letters to the editor that would appear in the paper, you'd be welcome to, as long as they're 500 words or less. You can send them to letters[at]citypaper[dot]com, and you must include your name, the city you're writing from, and a daytime phone through which we can confirm your authorship.
Posted 11.26.2007 11:01 AM
A friend of mine wanted me to post her comment, so here it is:
Fr. Jerry, I want to thank you for your prophetic voice and courage to affirm women's baptismal call to priestly ministry in the Roman Catholic church.
Personally, I know many priests within my family and as friends who would like to advocate women's right to ordination yet fear the repercussions of this opinion by the magesterial church.
My personal observation is that at present our church (little "c"), which is supposed to be a "universal" church, is very wounded.
A year ago I was blessed to participate in a gathering of Roman Catholic individuals from all walks of life, including gender, race, sexual orientation, to reflect on the theme of "Who is invited (or in this case of this issue are Not invited) to the Eucharistic table." The underlining question being addressed was: Did not Jesus come to welcome ALL to the Eucharistic table?
For me it was both a painful and inspirational moment to be among individuals who are also faithful catholics and yet feel marginalized by the church because of the reality of being divorced, homosexual, a woman, in my case, who feels calls to ordination herself, among many other individuals.
The most painful part for many of us there was the contradiction between being welcomed at the table while at the same time being a priest involved in the sex abuse scandals.
My personal feeling is that our church at present is more in need of healing than regulations that inhibit women from ministering fully to our church and world. To the contrary of many of the statements listed above, Jesus was NOT SEXIST or RACIST.
His life mission was not about building an exclusivist hierarchical clerical church but about building the Kingdom of God on earth. His mission was to model Justice, Love, Compassion, Integrity and most importantly to defend the dignity of all human persons, male and female.
If Jesus were here I do not think that he would deny women to the ordained priesthood. The sexism in the comments above are at heart very human, not divine.
Rather, Jesus proclaimed by his life and mission that, unlike the first century world in which he lived, there will be No masters and servants among you, but rather we are all called to be Friends.
My prayer for our church and world is that we can all be Friends in all our beauty, diversity and difference.
Posted 11.26.2007 3:32 PM
ORDINATION--Jesus was never ordained. He was from the wrong “family line”. Neither did he ordain his apostles. If you want to use his choice of apostles as representation of whom Jesus would want ordained, then we can only ordain Jewish men.
HEIRARCHY--Who did Jesus confront while he was here? The hierarchy!!!!! I wish people would stop demonizing other Christians for following the example of their Savior.
DESTROYING THE CHURCH--And who is really scandalizing the church? Those clergy and religious involved in sexual abuse and assault. THAT is scandal. Why aren’t the faithful in an uproar about the sexual abuse? Rather than accosting these women? Its because people’s faiths have been shattered by the clergy misconduct and we are too afraid to grieve. And two, because women are an easy target; hating them is more comfortable to the psyche, always has been. But it is a gross injustice. It is called male domination, oppression and superiority. We need to examine ourselves, our compulsions.
SPIRITUAL STAGES—I want to help, truly, so I am just going to say this. What I see in these posts are people stuck in a late adolescent spiritual stage of needing to belong, and needing others to agree with them. The threatening and scary feelings of not being in the ‘right’ group are so strong, they are willing to bully, ridicule and cut down others in order to convert them to their way of thinking.
REPENTANCE--These aren’t just issues and theories; these are people with real lives who are being violated by their own church members. Our church has been wrong about many things in the past and has had to repent (slavery, Galileo, Judaism). Why let this hurt go on in the meantime about something that will inevitably change? These women are taking a lot of abuse upon their own shoulders.
And why? Because they LOVE our church. I have met many of them (have any of you who oppose them? My conscience would not let me say the things I’ve read hear without having met the people I’m talking about. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but that is ignorant and indicative of blind cult-like following of an issue, just to be in a certain camp, tote a certain line). They are women of faith, not prideful or greedy, not wanting to ‘be men’. They embrace their femininity and want to share it with the Church. They are talking about a whole new priesthood. And they are certainly not uneducated. They have more degrees than probably all of us combined who have posted here.
TO MARY W--Just a note -You seem to me to have what we call in the counseling field internalized sexism and self-hatred. I hope and pray you get some help and spend some time reflecting on this. You were made in the glorious image and likeness of God, and are God’s beloved. If you don’t believe this about yourself, no wonder you can’t believe it about others (especially someone you oppose).
I am saddened by these responses. And so I must respond. I must defend these women. And if someone needs defending, they must be being abused in some form. That is NOT Christian. God help us.
Posted 11.26.2007 7:14 PM
LOLO:
"Rome has spoken; the case is closed." St. Augustine
"Rome is not loved because she is lovely; she is lovely because she is loved." GK Chesterton
From your opening salvo your hand was shown: emotionally invested and logically and theologically weak and misguided. Make no mistake, I don't think you have bad intentions, just a lack of discernment and a certain theological ignorance that is common with this present era.
Your comments display a misunderstanding about the nature of the Church. Your beliefs only hold up when one does not see the Church of Rome in the Light of Christ. There is a divine element to the Church. She somehow is the one who is made holy and at the same moment draws others to holiness.
I am hurt that you believe that those of us who are loyal to Rome are making personal character attacks on these women. I am most certainly not. However, they are missing the greater issue, as stated in earlier posts. Moreover, I believe that it is equallly as irresponsible of you to "defend" these women, noble as it may seem, by making a personal attack, as noted in your post (ie: Repentence and to Mary W). After all, we know from the very basics of rhetoric that a personal attack is one of the weakest forms of argumentation.
My recommendation to you is to study this issue from the heart of the Church. (Please read Pope Benedict's Catechesis on the Church and the Apostles and THE SPLENDOR OF THE CHURCH by Cardinal de Lubac to learn what this means .)
Posted 11.26.2007 11:51 PM
Knight,
I have an MDiv, so no "theological ignorance" here and work as a pastoral counselor, spiritual director and grief counselor. So, now that you know my credentials let me say I certainly did not mean to make a personal attack on anyone and still dont think that I have; this is the indelicate part about saying what one thinks. And so I apologize for speaking in a way that would be perceived that way. After all, perception is reality.
I believe I AM being loyal to "rome". And I dont think that you are not. It is just a difference of perspective. The thing is that your proof for your logic seems to be rooted in intellectual ideals, while mine is rooted in experiences. Neither is right or wrong, its just different and creates problems understanding each other.
I pray we find a way to move together. I dont know how it will happen, but God will intervene.
Posted 11.27.2007 3:45 PM
I had the privilege of attending the ordination of one of the deacons in July and the Liturgy on November 12. I've never attended a more spirit-filled, welcoming Eucharist than I did on those two days. I can't wait for more such liturgies!
Posted 11.28.2007 11:23 AM
I have also personally met some of these women. They are humble and charitable human beings. Pride is NOT what drives them-the love of God and their fellow humans is what does. It's ironic that the very Church that taught me about Jesus and the Catholic church told me that Jesus was viewed as "dangerous"- He broke the rules!!! He healed on the Sabbath, ate with sinners, mingled with the lepers and tax collectors. It also taught me that I should do the same. And oh, by the way, He treated women with dignity, respect, and as equals even though the society at that time did not. Did I miss the lesson on how to be mean spirited, misogynistic, and hateful? It seems that all of you "good Catholics" learned that lesson really well.
Posted 11.28.2007 8:17 PM
You obviously have no clue about the beauty of the Church’s tradition in this matter, and you are hardened by a myopic world view.
I find this to be sad.
Those who find the current status of an all male clergy are not misogynist or hateful, but it is so refreshing to find that those who are “open minded” are willing to accept the Truth when they hear it. Frankly, it is typical. When orthodox Catholics find value in the Church’s teachings, we are shunned and told that we are close-minded. While at the same time, we are force-fed a mindless, purely emotional, and agenda driven vision of the Church that has proven to be fruitless and vapid.
I am tired of your accusations and dispersions. How dare you quote scripture! Even the enemy from the beginning is capable of that. What you lack is a spirit of obedience and sacrifice.
Moreover, your hatred of men is reflected in every one of your comments. Did your father hug you as child?
Posted 11.28.2007 10:31 PM
To Knight of Immaculata Please give me an example of how my "hatered of men" is reflected in what I wrote.
Posted 11.29.2007 11:19 AM
Someone suggested that they become Episcopalian ministers. Why is turning their backs on the faith they live and breathe a preferable course of action to following God's call?
If you had heard the sponsors speak about these women at the ordination in July, you would understand that they have been serving God in many ways all their lives. Why does their wanting to serve God more fully in the way God calls them to make everyone here so fearful?
Posted 11.29.2007 12:40 PM
Christ founded a Heirarchy form of governing the Church NOT a Democracy, - jaybird274
Actually, jaybird274, much of the hierarchy part was done by the Emporer Constantine. Jesus the Christ taught - or tried to, anyway - a way to live that would bring us into communion with God. Love one another as He loves us.
Posted 11.29.2007 12:51 PM
Wow. Some of you folks are a scary bunch, aren't you? After reading these comments, I can not understand how anyone would find this fundamentalist belief system appealing. You even attack your own priests and devout Catholic women who want to lead church? I would pray for you if I was religious.
There is nothing wrong with having faith. It is just the underliying negativity and anger that is very apparent to an outside (non-religious) reader. Everyone posting here will dismiss me as an ignorant atheist. That's fine. I am just calling it as I see it. I will just continue to be a compassionate, loving, ethical and moral (non-religious) person.
Posted 11.30.2007 11:11 AM
Nwiseman, thank you. Sometimes the best person to identify problems in a group looks at it from outside with a more objective view.
I am amazed at some of the things written here-calling these women agents of Satan. Again, where have you been during the sexual abuse scandals? How can this issue of ordaining women be that extreme in your mind in comparison with other things we have seen people do in the name of Church? I just dont get it. I never hear those who say they love our church speak poorly about the clergy who rape, molest, steal, have affairs, gamble, oppress their staff, etc. Is it because they are men and only women have to bear the sin of sexuality?? Or because we have so much invested in our priests being 'perfect' or something? I just dont understand us.
>>>"How did so many homosexual men end up as ordained priests, I wonder? Oh, yes, now I remember. Liberalism.">>>
What makes one think that homosexuality is a new thing (or a bad thing?!)? Before we just had even more repression. And besides, I believe that psychiatrists in these cases find that it does not matter neccesarily what a priests' sexual orientation is-who they choose to abuse has to do with power, whose available, and who is able to be oppressed easily.
And Knight-I want you to consider that just because someone sees something differently than you does not make them wrong and misguided. You say:
"You obviously have no clue about the beauty of the Church’s tradition in this matter, and you are hardened by a myopic world view."
I find the way you speak insulting because you speak in absolutes, and you demean others' intellects for having a differing understanding than your own. What makes you such an authority? Everyone chooses different authorities. You have chosen yours, and your choice makes them an authority to you alone.
Posted 11.30.2007 5:43 PM
My authority is the Church of Christ guided by the Holy Spirit that interprets the Scripture and Holy Tradition, the same Church that you and your elk insult with your relativism. Yes, I speak in absolutes because I still believe that there is an absolute Truth. We both indeed have our authorities sadly you have established your own feelings as yours and I have accepted mine to be the Church of Rome. I am a Papist! I will not accept your watered down version of theology that is rooted in pure emotion.
What makes me an authority? Good question. I have withheld this fact because it was unnecessary, until this moment. I happen to hold two advanced degrees in theology, philosophy, and history. I also taught morality, sacraments, and Church history for a good number of years. So, I guess I too have "practical experience."
If you find my words insulting that is an issue that you are going to have to overcome in your own time. I take nothing back. I apologize for nothing. You are the one who is going to have to make an account for your pro-homosexual, pro-heretical statements. You are the one who is going to have to make an account before the Lord for your statements. You are a scandal. How dare you stand on your M.Div and promote such causes. You are a disgrace to the institution that granted that piece of paper. I stand firmly on the Rock of St. Peter.
What I find amusing is that these women are excommunicate as of three years ago. They are schismatic. No different than the Society of Pius X. They are effectively establishing their own counter-Church.
God bless you. "For to whom much is given much is required."
Posted 11.30.2007 7:06 PM
I don't understand what all the excitement about women priest (pysdo-priest) is all about? It will NEVER happen---ever. Not one day, not next year, not in the future...NEVER. Sorry. Saying that it is unjust that women cannot be priest is like saying it is unjust that men can't have babies. This is an INFALLABLE TEACHNG FROM THE UNIVERSAL MAGISTRUIM. To say that the Church can teach this teaching is like saying the Church will teaching it teaching on the Divinity of Christ or the True Presence of the Eucharist. This is a doctrine of the Church that can’t and won't change. Those who propose this have a sophomoric understanding the Mystical Body of Christ.
Not only do I encourage you to see what the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger states about this issue but also what the Second Vatican Council calls us to do in faithful submission to the Magisterial authority of Church the Christ (who he himself guides through the ages):
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (LUMEN GENTIUM 25)”
COVER LETTER TO BISHOPS' CONFERENCE PRESIDENTS
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
________________________________________
November 8, 1995
The publication in May 1994 of the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was followed by a number of problematic and negative statements by certain theologians, organizations of priests and religious, as well as some associations of lay people. These reactions attempted to cast doubt on the definitive character of the letter's teaching on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood and also questioned whether this teaching belonged to the deposit of the faith.
This congregation therefore has judged it necessary to dispel the doubts and reservations that have arisen by issuing a responsum ad dubium, which the Holy Father has approved and ordered to be published (cf. enclosure).
In asking you to bring this responsum to the attention of the bishops of your episcopal conference before its official publication, this dicastery is confident that the conference itself, as well as the individual bishops, will do everything possible to ensure its distribution and favorable reception, taking particular care that, above all on the part of theologians, pastors of souls and religious, ambiguous and contrary positions will not again be proposed.
The text of the responsum is to remain confidential until the date of its publication in L'Osservatore Romano, which is expected to be the 18th of November.
With gratitude for your assistance and with prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
________________________________________
CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 28, 1995
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
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.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
________________________________________
Posted 11.30.2007 7:30 PM
Knight>>>>
Yes, I will have to learn how to deal with how insulting and arrogant people are. My problem is not that I merely see you in this light, it is that you are what it appears. There, I believe in one absolute.
Make no mistake that your beliefs are also emotional choices. Study some psychology along side your other pursuits and you may see this, if you're open that is. Our emotions are apart of each part of our lives and every motivation we have, regqardless if we are willing to se that or not.
I'm done. This can only get uglier and I will not do so. So goes my first experience of "dialogue" on a posting thread. I think people can be extremely thoughtless because its so anonymous. Either we dont remember that we are actually talking to other human beings, or we dont care and we like being able to get our anger out. Seems terribly unhealthy to me so I'm done, unless I find a place of true interest in dialogue. This is just snippy responses of which I am guilty of as well.
Its too bad, because I think people here could have learned a lot from each other, had they any interest in hearing another's point of view and want to ask questions respectfully; if we had a dialogue rather than simultaneous monologues. I enjoy learning from other people, as long as twe both respect that the other has a different opinion/perspective/worldview. Otherwise this is futile and dangerous.
Posted 12.1.2007 2:24 PM
Iolo said "Make no mistake that your beliefs are also emotional choices."
I don't know, Iolo, about this. I was raised in an atheist/agnostic/fairly hostile to religion environment. While away at school in the 70s, I was invited to attended Solemn HIgh Mass at a high church Anglo-Catholic parish and was dramatically converted at age 18. I went through the inquirer's class, was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church, though we called ourselves "Anglo-Catholic". We believed everything but the authority of the pope.
This parish became the first in the country to secede from the PECUSA due to the decision to ordain women to the priesthood in the mid-70s. I too voted against it. Somewhere in my "conversion", I don't think it was learned, I had the notion that there was something intrinsically wrong about women's ordination. I always took this to be from the Holy Spirit and still do.
I have since become a Roman Catholic (for the past 20 years) and have never wavered in my belief that ordination of women is intrinsically wrong.
On the other topic, that of charity in putting forth views, it is regrettable that some forms of dogmatism or even believe something passionately with the essence of one's being result in lapsing easily into being uncharitable. May we all pray that we be more charitable in expressing our views and not resort to pounding each other over the head, remembering the greatest of the commandments to love thy neighbor as ourselves.
God bless you, Iolo, in your future endeavors to dialogue with others, and may we all learn something from your comments and continue to follow our own consciences in these matters.
Posted 12.1.2007 9:56 PM
Thank you True. Praying for charity, ability to respect others at all times (which does not mean one has to abandon their beliefs at all), and follow the greatest commandment. I hve great respect for people who follow their conscience, even if I disagree. I appreciate the authenticity and conviction. But not when someone has to 'beat you over the head' as you say. Well put, thank you. See, two people conversing civily who have opposite views!
There is something wrong when someone cant assert their own opinion without degrading anothers' to do so. Let us be about the work of building up the city of God, not tearing it down by trying to desecreate each other's dignity.
So, I'm still done with this dialogue, but just with Knight. There is no point.
Posted 12.2.2007 8:09 PM
Iolo--
I think it's called the "ad hominem" attack. Attack the man instead of the idea.
I myself have not always been able to remain charitable in my own ongoing debates wtih a Presbyterian friend, and, believe me, we have really gotten into it regarding all kinds of theological issues. If the idea is to "convert" someone, losing one's temper is not exactly going to attract them to the Church, where the sacraments are supposed to transform us into being more Christ-like. So it's a difficult balance to maintain.
Therein lies our test and difficulty, as I alluded to above, upholding the second commandment to love one another. I am ashamed to say that I myself have not always done this.
I think we are supposed to uphold one another in the faith and not be a stumbling block, hard as that may be for some of us.
Thanks for your comments, Iolo.
Posted 12.2.2007 9:56 PM
You know, it's not just about women becoming not being allowed to become priest that these "woment priests" object to. Look at their website, which I won't promote". But you will find a number of Caholic Teachings that these so-called priests disagree with, such as Homosexuality, pronography, etc.
I have desires and whats that are contrary to the Catholic Church's Teachings, but it is I that should realize that the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit and if anything needs to change it is my desires. Through prayer and the assistance of the sacraments I am able to curb these desires..
I find it very arrogant for these women to believe that the Catholic Church is wrong, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that their own inappropriate desires are leading them astray.
Posted 12.3.2007 4:22 PM
You know, it's not just about women not being allowed to become priest that these "woment priests" object to. Look at their website, which I won't promote". But you will find a number of Caholic Teachings that these so-called priests disagree with, such as Homosexuality, pronography, etc.
I have desires and wants that are contrary to the Catholic Church's Teachings, but it is I that should realize that the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit and if anything needs to change it is my desires. Through prayer and the assistance of the sacraments I am able to curb these desires..
I find it very arrogant for these women to believe that the Catholic Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is wrong.
It is their own inappropriate desires are leading them astray.
Posted 12.3.2007 4:26 PM
Thank you True--I appreciate having the terminology for what I was thinking about (ad hominem) and to share a common concern and confession of our own shorcomings, where we find ourselves guilty of what we are opposed to. This is why I dont like debating-it just does not seem to have a Godly spirit to it sometimes, and especially in issues of Church, I'm very leary.
I must always look at myself before I point a finger elsewhere-and maybe by doing so, I wont be so quick to point a finger!
Thank you. I hope you're well.
Posted 12.4.2007 3:44 PM
lolo,
What do the sexual scandals have to do with women becoming priests? I believe there have been a number of cases in the past few year where women teachers have become pregnant by their students. Does this mean that women should not be teachers? I don't think so. Would "women priest " be free from error and perversion? I don't think so. So your Sex Scandel reasoning doesn't make sense.
Posted 12.4.2007 4:24 PM
Thanks Iolo. Hope you're well also.
I think, unfortunately, when one feels passionately about something, as we obviously all do on this topic, anger is frequently lurking just under the surface. The cool headed nonangry response is frequently hard to come by, though I think the apolgists of our time are pretty good at it, i.e., Karl Keating, who has my great respect and admiration for his orthodoxy and defense of the Faith.
I feel as most of the above responders about women priests, fundamentally, historically, theologically--dead set against it. In the world, though, one frequently finds oneself at odds with many others on numerous theological points (heck, most of the people I know aren't even believers, let alone orthodox, hardline Catholics). Since I don't want to alienate people right off the bat, I tend to try the diplomatic/charitable approach, but certainly do not want to compromise the Faith.
People seem to have a mindset that is reticent to see the other side's view, otherwise the argument woudl be persuasive, but it's not. I do believe that the Lord sent His Holy Spirit to safeguard the Church in matters of faith/morals/doctrine. The fact that the Church has not caved in to the Spirit of the Age, the Zeitgeist, and every whim and fancy that's blowing about is a sign to me that the Holy Spirit is still working in the Church and will continue to do so, as promised by Our Lord.
Another thing about the Catholic Church and the Popes is that they are in dialogue with other groups, Protestant/Orthodox. In the Orthodox Church, most of their practices and doctrines are a closed matter. We would not even be dialoguing. They are so strict and so closed, we Roman Catholics are not allowed to receive at their altars until we have been chriismated. I admit that I admire them, and should the RC Church ever decide to ordain women (and I don't think they will), I wll be making the sojourn to Orthodoxy. God willing, it will never come to this.
As for the sex scandals? Well, Jesus chose 12 apostles, and one of them was a devil who betrayed Him, but, grievous as his action was, ultimately, it gained us the possibility of salvation.
Peace Iolo.
Posted 12.4.2007 5:36 PM
PC- I live in a city that has had the highest gas prices in the country for the past year. And one day on the news a woman was interviewed at the pumps and she said, "this is the worst thing that has ever happened". I was just appauled, thinking, Oh really? What about war, famine, Katrina, Tsunami, sex slaves,etc.?
When I think about these 60-70 women who the Vatican doesnt even seem to care about anyway and who people on this board were calling a "scandal" I just couldnt help but think about what I think is a TRUE scandal in comparison to this. Even if I didnt already agree with the Roman Catholic WomenPriests movement, how is it anything in comparison to the 20% of our clergy and religious who have abused children, not to mention adults?
I wasnt thinking of any correlation of gender and propensity for molestation. I just want us to keep things in perspective. And it is heartbreaking that people would get so upset about an issue like these women (or insert any issue of the day here) and not say boo about the sexual abusers. When I'm in conservative Catholic circles, people dont even mention it. They seem afraid/reluctant to talk about it. The only people speaking seem to be those on the margins or those already out of the Church anyway. So, where are the 'faithful'/'orthodox', etc. in these discussions?? And I'm not even a survivor of clergy abuse, I can't imagine what those who are are feeling.
Posted 12.4.2007 11:10 PM
lolo,
Let me begin by shocking you. Rather than wasting time discussing issues that are beyond the Church's authority to change, let us consider a matter of equality in the Church that we can impact. Why don't we see female cardinals? There is nothing in the very nature of the cardinal office that states such a person must be ordained or male. In fact, JPII raised this very point in the late 90's.
Now I have shown my feminist hand!!!
I am saddened that I hurt your feelings, yet I do not retract any word that is written above. At no time was I uncharitable, unless the great sin of our era is confronting dissenters.
It seems that I must remind you that it was you who first got into the fray by issuing sweeping condemnations about those who disagree with you by speculating about their physiological, spiritual, and intellectual well being.
I stand by the fact that these women are a scandal and, as stated above, so are those who support them, especially those who should know better. It does not matter if you recognize it or not, but you are blocking the way for a genuine discussion on gender and sexuality in the Church as you cast dispersions on the Church's teachings.
I agree that the priest scandal must not be understated, nor can we allow it to be misrepresented for something other than what it is: a crisis of homosexual priests primarily and child predators to a much smaller degree. If you don't believe me, read the John Jay report on this matter.
Unlike many in the world, it is our calling to see the Church in her totality, the temporal and eternal elements. She is the one who is making holy while at the same time being made holy. So in some strange way, I am personally invigorated by the scandals because it only further illustrates the point that the Holy Spirit is indeed leading us in Truth, not in spite of our frailty but because of it. Yes, in a deeply mystical sense the Church has at times been a whore who as sold herself to countless generations of men, beginning with Adam right down to you and me. However, at the celebration of each sacrament the Church is made virginal again by her Bride-Groom. Here is one of the ultimate reasons for an all male priesthood, but I digress.
In closing, there is no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" Catholic; it is a misnomer. Since these are political terms that are not appropriate when speaking of one's theological bent. The only terms that fit are orthodox and heterodox but I am sure you know that already.
Posted 12.5.2007 12:18 AM
lolo,
I am upset because I am a Catholic, and these women priests are attacking the faith. If you do not believe in the authority of Scriptures, Tradition, and the Teaching Office of the Church, and you are actively teaching against these three authorities, you are being heretical. If that hurts, I guess the truth hurts.
Posted 12.5.2007 9:45 AM
Amen brother!
Posted 12.5.2007 4:13 PM
Wow, o.k. I have taken the bait to respond again, only to say this:
I do not consider what I said about spiritual stages and psychological health to be a condemnation as Knight sees them. I would have liked to use a different strategy and revealed bits as the person was ready for them, but there is a lack of relationship here and a small window of opportunity. I was speaking from a professional's standpoint (my MDiv. isn't my only degree) with a motivation to help. I dont want to see people suffering from self hatred and bullies.
Posted 12.5.2007 10:42 PM
lolo,
I don't see where anything Mary W said was filled with self hatred.
John 14:16-17 And I will ask the Father, and he will send you another Advocate to be with you always, 17 the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be with you.
John 14:26 The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.
John 16: 13-14 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
The Holy Spirit is what guides the Church, and it's Teaching Office. If you do not believe what the Teaching Office of the Church says then you don't believe that the Holy Spirit is it's guide.
Posted 12.6.2007 11:27 AM
|
Events Restaurants |
Bars+Clubs Local Music |
TECH EXPO CAREER FAIR: Tues., Feb. 9th
TESST COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY: Train for a career!
EDDIE'S OF ROLAND PARK: Where taste meets tradition.
GET CONNECTED WITH A NEW CAREER: All-State Career
View all TOP JOB ads
EditorialBlogsBest of Baltimore |
The ArtsFilmMusic |
EventsEatClubs |
Web StuffArticle Archives |
ClassifiedAutomotiveReal Estate |
Contact UsCity Paper StuffRSS Feeds |
|---|
Latest MP3s© 2010 Baltimore City Paper
grebnet
3 comments.
Member since 11/21/2007
I just took the oath of office to be President of the Unted States. Hail to the Chief! Oh, there is an accepted and legitimate process? Really? You mean I really am not the president? Hmmmm.