Women/ordination

[Credo in Deum]

But the whole point of the priesthood is that he is in persona christe. A man is a man (I think lol) and Jesus was a man. That is all it literally means, it has nothing to do with surpressing women. Men can't become consecrated virgins either because they cannot be brides of Christ; what is the big freaking deal? It's not holding women back. I can't even.

 

Hey, stop with all of that common sense. :)

 

As one person put it, A women could no more act in persona Christe, than a man could be the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

[Basilisa Marie]

But the whole point of the priesthood is that he is in persona christe. A man is a man (I think lol) and Jesus was a man. That is all it literally means, it has nothing to do with surpressing women. Men can't become consecrated virgins either because they cannot be brides of Christ; what is the big freaking deal? It's not holding women back. I can't even.

 

The biggest problem I hear about from women who want women in the priesthood has to do with the "power structure" in the Church. Only clergy have most authority, only clergy can have certain kinds of authority, and many times women are left completely out of any real discussion. It wouldn't be a problem for them if they felt their needs were being met or if they felt even listened to. So from their standpoint, the "men can't be moms or consecrated virgins" argument isn't a good comparison, because it doesn't get to the heart of the problem. Getting more women involved in the Curia in appropriate ways would really annihilate the strongest practical arguments against a male priesthood (and exploring what about masculinity allows itself for men acting in persona Christi and not women would be a strong theological argument). 

 

And as a side note, I should point out that loads of women are involved in the Church at the diocesan level, "downwards," in all sorts of positions, and they're often the majority on a parish's staff, so to say that women have no voice in the Church is 1) disingenuous and 2) belittles the worth of the groups at the "bottom" of the Church's hierarchy pyramid, something that Pope Francis cautions us against when he talks about people getting too wrapped up in "clericalism." 

Edited May 16, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[Selah]

well, would be kinda nice if we could reestablish the position of deaconess...just sayin'

[Basilisa Marie]

well, would be kinda nice if we could reestablish the position of deaconess...just sayin'

 

:whistle: :) 

[Credo in Deum]

I think if people realized the type of responsibility that comes with the authority, they would think twice about being envious.  The clergy have to answer on the day of Judgment for the souls that were in their charge, in the same way parents will have to answer for their children.   Just think of how difficult it is to keep a house in order, and then multiply that by a couple hundred in the case of priests, thousands in the case of Bishops, and then millions and billions in the case of the Pope.  Then think about the charge these men have to evangelize the world, and that they will have to answer for the souls they did not bring into the fold because of they're laziness or refusal to work with the graces God provided them.   Oh, we should pray very hard for our clergy.  

 

 

Edited May 16, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Perigrina]

Dont do that. Dont dehumanize people just because you dont agree with their lifestyle. 

Thats not very 'catholic' of you. 

 

I'm a newbie (it's official now) so I don't know it that was sarcasm or sincere.  Did you mean that?

[Perigrina]

well, would be kinda nice if we could reestablish the position of deaconess...just sayin'

 

In the current situation, it would be seen as a step towards women priests, so it would probably be harmful.  Besides, the ancient deaconesses were not ordained, so the position was not really parallel to a deacon.

[Nihil Obstat]

Besides that, dioceses would have to hire full time tailors to custom fit all the deaconesses' pantsuits, and I simply do not think we can bear that kind of expense right now. :|

[NotreDame]

The biggest problem I hear about from women who want women in the priesthood has to do with the "power structure" in the Church. Only clergy have most authority, only clergy can have certain kinds of authority, and many times women are left completely out of any real discussion. It wouldn't be a problem for them if they felt their needs were being met or if they felt even listened to. So from their standpoint, the "men can't be moms or consecrated virgins" argument isn't a good comparison, because it doesn't get to the heart of the problem. Getting more women involved in the Curia in appropriate ways would really annihilate the strongest practical arguments against a male priesthood (and exploring what about masculinity allows itself for men acting in persona Christi and not women would be a strong theological argument). 

 

You hit the nail on the head.  There are groups whose only motivation for pushing female clergy is power.  For those groups there is no concession, up to and including female clergy, that will satiate that thirst for power.  In fact, any slight concession would just embolden them in their efforts.
 

[Perigrina]

Besides that, dioceses would have to hire full time tailors to custom fit all the deaconesses' pantsuits, and I simply do not think we can bear that kind of expense right now. :|

 

WOMEN IN P A N T S !! :covereyes:

Edited May 16, 2014 by Perigrina

[Selah]

In the current situation, it would be seen as a step towards women priests, so it would probably be harmful.  Besides, the ancient deaconesses were not ordained, so the position was not really parallel to a deacon.

 

Yes, but they were historical, and were not priests. The radtrads shrieking about it would make no sense.

 

Heh. Though, I also think we should go back to baptizing the old fashioned way, i.e. water poured over the head and nekkid, but eh. It's not that big of an issue to me. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, but they were historical, and were not priests. The radtrads shrieking about it would make no sense.

 

Heh. Though, I also think we should go back to baptizing the old fashioned way, i.e. water poured over the head and nekkid, but eh. It's not that big of an issue to me. 

You are mistaking archaeologism and traditionalism.

[Selah]

You are mistaking archaeologism and traditionalism.

 

Probably. 

[Perigrina]

Yes, but they were historical, and were not priests. The radtrads shrieking about it would make no sense.

 

Heh. Though, I also think we should go back to baptizing the old fashioned way, i.e. water poured over the head and nekkid, but eh. It's not that big of an issue to me. 

 

In my experience, the argument for deaconesses is based on the historical precedent.  It is not a good argument because those deaconesses were nothing like what is envisioned for the proposed modern deaconesses.  I might not shriek, but I would object to such deaconesses.

 

I was baptized by immersion as an adult.  I wore a white robe.  It was a public ceremony which would not have been practical  if I were naked.  It was important to me that I make a public profession, so I think the robe was a good idea.

[CrossCuT]

It wasn't very Catholic of the Priest to break his vows.

Two wrongs dont make a right.

 

It is not dehumanizing to expect a priest to be faithful to his vocation and to Church teachings.

No its not. But its dehumanizing to use the terms "gay" or "partner" to reduce their importance in a conversation. 

[Perigrina]

 But its dehumanizing to use the terms "gay" or "partner" to reduce their importance in a conversation. 

 

I do not see how that sentence was dehumanizing. How do you think it should have been phrased?

[KnightofChrist]

Two wrongs dont make a right.

 

No its not. But its dehumanizing to use the terms "gay" or "partner" to reduce their importance in a conversation. 

 

There was only one wrong, and it belongs to you. This is another case of you seeing things that aren't there.

[Nihil Obstat]

Two wrongs dont make a right.

 

No its not. But its dehumanizing to use the terms "gay" or "partner" to reduce their importance in a conversation. 

How about 'homo-romantic life companion'?

It was a fairly simple sentence, and it is not like he used any slurs to describe this guy. It seems more like you take issue with the fact that we are not ok with priests flaunting their faithlessness. 

[Perigrina]

It was a fairly simple sentence, and it is not like he used any slurs to describe this guy. It seems more like you take issue with the fact that we are not ok with priests flaunting their faithlessness. 

 

In my experience, the words "gay" and "partner" are preferred terms in self-description.  I have only seen objections to "gay" from people who believe that homosexual behaviour is a sin.

[Nihil Obstat]

In my experience, the words "gay" and "partner" are preferred terms in self-description.  I have only seen objections to "gay" from people who believe that homosexual behaviour is a sin.

That was my thought as well.