Why Exclude Women From The Catholic Church?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Your argument just seems to be an ad hominem against male leadership. Whether or not the women can be legitametly ordained should be true independent of whether a male or a female decides. What I tried to convey is that both male and female roles in the church are restricted. The pope cannot gratuitously declare female ordination as valid, just as women can ...[text shortened]... postle, it can be objected that Paul uses the term apostle in a different way to us.

Just because something is a tradition does not mean it is 'true'.

You yourself acknowledge that terms such as deacon, bishop and apostle did not have the meanings in New Testament times that they have acquired as part of a formal church heirarchy. It therefore puzzles me how it is possible to argue that the current structure is inherently right, and the only right structure. If there isn't a Biblical basis for it, then there is no reason why the structure can't be changed if the membership of the church wants to change it. We should not be restricted by mere tradition. Tradition allowed slavery, for instance.

Clearly, a considerable number of Christians could not identify a reason why a male-only structure was essential, because they have done away with it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Your argument just seems to be an ad hominem against male leadership. Whether or not the women can be legitametly ordained should be true independent of whether a male or a female decides. What I tried to convey is that both male and female roles in the church are restricted. The pope cannot gratuitously declare female ordination as valid, just as women can ...[text shortened]... postle, it can be objected that Paul uses the term apostle in a different way to us.

Your argument just seems to be an ad hominem against male leadership.

My argument is that if one group reserves of itself the power and the right to determine the rights of both groups, that is repressive (all the usual caveats about not talking about minor children, the clinically insane, etc.). It has nothing to do with maleness per se. It has to do with institutions, including but not exclusively, churches being subject at their very foundations to power struggles of all sorts, as well as unexamined acceptance of certain cultural norms in the general society in which a religion arises.

People who gain power, often have power over the symbology of the organization as well. With or without coercive intentions.

...there is a deeply held belief in what is described as a "nuptial mystery" present in the clergy. The Church identifies a nuptial relationship between Christ and his church, where the church is the bride to Jesus.

Now that is a theological—or at least an oikonomaic/liturgical one. (I wanted to say, “At last!” ) It is also a stumbling block to questions of eucharistic “fellowship” with churches, say Protestant, that view the liturgy with different symbolism (hospitality, community—“communion”—etc.; though some still keep the sacramental mystery in the eucharist itself). I have also seen the theological argument that God is always viewed as the male principle vis-à-vis the people, who are always the female principle. (Not a view I take, but I recognize it is there.)

The question is how much the physical presence of the male priest remains important to the symbology. A nuptial relationship can be a fully mutual one; however the male/female principles in would clearly have to be expanded/revised.

Believe me, I understand the depth of meaning that people find in liturgy. Changes are always painful, and sometimes wrenching. The only plea I make (and made in many cases on similar issues in my own church history—Anglican) is that sometimes the people who are currently pained, rather than nurtured, by the symbology are forgotten...

Would they simply inform? (which they already do - there are a number of female theologians in Catholic universities)

Then there is an informing voice. I suspect that the councils and the Pope draw on such, and always have. Presumably these folks are free to search out and advise on church tradition and history as well.

...or make theological declarations? (which is circular, because this would entail investing women with the power to invest themselves with power).

Is/was it circular for men to do it?

If women decided to ordain themselves under a new church, they might not be "repressed" but they couldn't be recognized as true by Catholics.

Granted. Similarly for women who leave the RCC and become, say, Anglican. Again, such changes can sometimes be wrenching for the people who make them (although a Catholic theologian I once knew visited our Anglican (Episcopal) cathedral, and commented afterward that there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two liturgies; and the core theology certainly isn’t different).

With regard to Junia, and the use and meaning of ecclesiastical titles, I’m no sola scripturist. It would be interesting to know how that developed, from the earliest records, etc. The problem is, if there is only late mention of apostolos meaning something different for Paul, people can simply argue it either way, based on their current predilections...

________________________________________

I’ll quit there. I am essentially applying a “hermeneutics of suspicion,” vis-à-vis the simple answers about “the tradition says so,” or the idea that there couldn’t have been any gender issues in the early church, or that acceptance of cultural norms that became built into church symbology cannot be revisited, etc.

________________________________________

With regard to the Eastern Churches, I mean the Greek Orthodox and the other Chalcedonian churches in that communion (such as Russian Orthodox, etc.). You might be interested in taking a look at the long debate lucifershammer and I had on Papal infallibility a while back—we reached impasse, of course, but I argued the Eastern position, and we both did a lot of research on the apostolic tradition, early councils, etc. (not on this issue, of course).

Originally posted by orfeo
Just because something is a tradition does not mean it is 'true'.

You yourself acknowledge that terms such as deacon, bishop and apostle did not have the meanings in New Testament times that they have acquired as part of a formal church heirarchy. It therefore puzzles me how it is possible to argue that the current structure is inherently right, and the on ...[text shortened]... ntify a reason why a male-only structure was essential, because they have done away with it.

Yes, and I agree with that, obviously. However, in all fairness, a lot of Christians haven’t—such as the RCC, the Orthodox and some Protestant groups—and not all women in those churches favor ordination.

It’s an issue that, frankly, I see the Orthodox revisiting before some of the others (imagined howls of protest from Orthodox who would oppose that, castigating me for even the suggestion...). However, what we sometimes see are just the surface arguments, and howls of protest, of those who are committed to no-change, or change for that matter. “This is the way it is, is this is the way it is, is...” And you can replace the “is” with an “ought to be” if you wish.

Whether or not we agree with any argument, we need to recognize that there are bright people on both sides, committed to their faith, who are capable of making articulate arguments within the parameters of that faith and tradition. The “nuptial” theology that Conrau mentions can be easily dismissed by people who don’t get it, and don’t want to—but it has been and is, part of a “mystical” aesthetic that people find powerful and profound. I can’t scoff at it. And so, having attempted to force the question of the whole thing being a “slam dunk” on one side, I have reached my limit, in terms of arguing from the outside...

Originally posted by Conrau K
They are not excluded from the Church. Women can become nuns and religious sisters, some have been recognized as saints and others have reached the highest level and been acknolwedged as doctors of the Church. Women run global religious orders. So in a number of ways they can be religious leaders. And in my state it is a religious sister group which oversee ...[text shortened]... not allow women to participate on the front of military conflicts. Is this repression of women?

But if you look at feast days of saints, men are honored as bishop or pope or doctor of the church, etc. Women are honored as ... virgin. Really. And the message there is ... ?

Religious orders that are not papal are diocesan. That means that many religious orders are under the thumb of the local bishop. He may take away their property or do whatever he wants. When sisters from a convent to go a mission somewhere outside his diocese, he can decide that they are no longer a part of that community. Women may run their religious orders, but they are still not totally in charge. Also, for a long time all religious orders were cloistered that had previously been active in ministry. Nuns could suddenly no longer teach, nurse the sick, or do any other sort of ministry if it meant leaving their compound. Additionally, many priests still consider nuns to be their servants and subordinates.

Women may do many things, but they have neither power nor a voice within their church.

Originally posted by orfeo
Just because something is a tradition does not mean it is 'true'.

You yourself acknowledge that terms such as deacon, bishop and apostle did not have the meanings in New Testament times that they have acquired as part of a formal church heirarchy. It therefore puzzles me how it is possible to argue that the current structure is inherently right, and the on ...[text shortened]... ntify a reason why a male-only structure was essential, because they have done away with it.

Just because something is a tradition does not mean it is 'true'.

Agreed, but in context I was explaining Catholic beliefs which emphasise tradition in support for theological truthes.

You yourself acknowledge that terms such as deacon, bishop and apostle did not have the meanings in New Testament times that they have acquired as part of a formal church heirarchy.

No, I do not. In the passage being discussed Paul mentions two people who are "apostles". Obviously Paul is not referring to the "Twelve Apostles" but to a separate office. What I was arguing is that the language being employed by Paul is not the same as ours. If Paul refers to a deaconess that should not be interpreted as a female equivalent of a deacon, for example.

therefore puzzles me how it is possible to argue that the current structure is inherently right, and the only right structure. If there isn't a Biblical basis for it, then there is no reason why the structure can't be changed if the membership of the church wants to change it.

Catholics place a lot of importance on tradition as well as the scripture. Obviously the church teachings must be consistent with scripture, but the Catholic Church will also refer to the writings of its Church Fathers, and the decrees of the councils as a guideline.

Clearly, a considerable number of Christians could not identify a reason why a male-only structure was essential, because they have done away with it.

All this "male-only structure" means is that women cannot exercise the role of a bishop, or confer the sacrament of the Eucharist or penance. Women can still head religious orders, can still run charities, be principals for schools, preside over Catholic universities and so on.

Originally posted by reader1107
But if you look at feast days of saints, men are honored as bishop or pope or doctor of the church, etc. Women are honored as ... virgin. Really. And the message there is ... ?

Religious orders that are not papal are diocesan. That means that many religious orders are under the thumb of the local bishop. He may take away their property or do whate ...[text shortened]... tes.

Women may do many things, but they have neither power nor a voice within their church.

But if you look at feast days of saints, men are honored as bishop or pope or doctor of the church, etc. Women are honored as ... virgin. Really. And the message there is ...

Nope, women are also recognized as saints and doctors of the church - just not popes or bishops. (it is also important to notice that the demand for celibacy is not the equivalent to virginity, and that celicacy is regarded as more sacred in both Eastern and Roman churches of the Catholic Church).

Religious orders that are not papal are diocesan

What? The papal diocese is Rome, he is the bishop of Rome. I don't understand how you arrived at the conclusion that religious orders are somehow "diocesan" (or what that means). For example there are religious orders under papal order such as the Society of Jesuits, and religious orders which, under any of the possible meaning, could be identified as "diocesan", such as which not confined to a diocese, it is a personal prelature.

That means that many religious orders are under the thumb of the local bishop

No. A number of religious orders operate separate to the bishop (some orders have been incorporated into bishoprics) and are headed by a "provincial general".

He may take away their property or do whatever he wants. [./b]

Not in most cases. Generally, property is owned by the religious order, unless sponsored by the bishop. I'm not familiar with canonical law, but, to my understanding, when the bishop sells of property given to a religious order, it must be returned to the community.

[B]When sisters from a convent to go a mission somewhere outside his diocese, he can decide that they are no longer a part of that community.

Yes, from a convent. A woman in a convent has chosen a contemplative life where she is instructed by her abbess or prioress and the bishop. This not the case of religious sisters who do not live in convents.

Women may run their religious orders, but they are still not totally in charge.

Women do run religious orders, and I suspect you have not researched this. Also females can run lay congregations, or secular ranks of orders. Some old orders were established only with the consent of the local bishop, however, a number of orders are not overseen by the bishop.

Also, for a long time all religious orders were cloistered that had previously been active in ministry. Nuns could suddenly no longer teach, nurse the sick, or do any other sort of ministry if it meant leaving their compound.

We are not discussing whether females were repressed, but if they are repressed. It is correct that nuns (not religious sisters) require permission from a bishop. However, Boniface VII (1294-1309) by his constitution "Periculoso" allowed them to educate young girls.

Though, around this time some orders decided only to observe simple vows or tertiary vows which allowed them to engage with missionary work outside enclosures such as Order of Mercy by St. Mary of Cervellione.

Additionally, many priests still consider nuns to be their servants and subordinates.

I have only ever met one priest of such termperament. I don't think that it is "many" at all.

Women may do many things, but they have neither power nor a voice within their church.

I don't think you have a coherent definition of "church". While women cannot become bishops or are invested with the powers of infallibility, they do have a voice.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Your argument just seems to be an ad hominem against male leadership.

My argument is that if one group reserves of itself the power and the right to determine the rights of both groups, that is repressive (all the usual caveats about not talking about minor children, the clinically insane, etc.). It has nothing to do with maleness per se. It has f research on the apostolic tradition, early councils, etc. (not on this issue, of course).[/b]

My argument is that if one group reserves of itself the power and the right to determine the rights of both groups, that is repressive (all the usual caveats about not talking about minor children, the clinically insane, etc.).

Well, in Catholic faith, the teaching of the pope in consonance with the college of bishops constitutes a binding, infallible teaching to be observed by all Catholics. If this college rejects female ordination, Catholics are bound to accept it. While the Church's decision-making process might seem repressive, such a seemliness is subordinate to the issue of whether it is true.

Now that is a theological—or at least an oikonomaic/liturgical one. (I wanted to say, “At last!” ) It is also a stumbling block to questions of eucharistic “fellowship” with churches, say Protestant, that view the liturgy with different symbolism (hospitality, community—“communion”—etc.; though some still keep the sacramental mystery in the eucharist itself).

This idea of fellowship is still present in the celebration of the Eucharist to Catholics. It is wrong to elevate the priest in importance above the congregation, it is still intended to be a fellowship.

The question is how much the physical presence of the male priest remains important to the symbology. A nuptial relationship can be a fully mutual one; however the male/female principles in would clearly have to be expanded/revised.

I'm not sure why it has to be expanded/revised.

Believe me, I understand the depth of meaning that people find in liturgy

This is beyond liturgy though. While the liturgy of mass has changed significantly over centuries, the Eucharist is supposed to have undergone no alteration. The Eucharist has always been viewed as the centre of Catholic faith and the nuptial mystery is integral to it. This is not so important (not to sound condescending!) in the Anglican Church, where the disparatoty between high and low (in my opinion) obscured the meaning of the Eucharist. Those of a tractarian persuasion I would imagine, would see the nuptial mystery as more obvious.

Then there is an informing voice. I suspect that the councils and the Pope draw on such, and always have. Presumably these folks are free to search out and advise on church tradition and history as well.

I doubt women have as much influence over theological deliberations. If an ecumenical council was convened this year I doubt female theologians would be represented equally to males. What I am disputing is that the built in machinery of the church precludes them entirely.

Is/was it circular for men to do it?

Well, Catholics believe that Christ invested such powers, and not that men invested themselves with such power.

Granted. Similarly for women who leave the RCC and become, say, Anglican. Again, such changes can sometimes be wrenching for the people who make them (although a Catholic theologian I once knew visited our Anglican (Episcopal) cathedral, and commented afterward that there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two liturgies; and the core theology certainly isn’t different).

It depends. I have attended Anglican services and noted very little discepancy between liturgies, and the beliefs seemed parallel. However, in a place such as Sydney (I live in Melbourne) where the Archbishop is very hostile to Catholic dogma, the liturgy is very different (he wears different regalia, even to other bishops) and he is unashamedly low church.

With regard to Junia, and the use and meaning of ecclesiastical titles, I’m no sola scripturist. It would be interesting to know how that developed, from the earliest records, etc. The problem is, if there is only late mention of apostolos meaning something different for Paul, people can simply argue it either way, based on their current predilections...

I have heard the argument that Junias was referred to as an apostle because "she" was married to a man of that office. But even so I think that Paul must mean the term "apostle" outside of the "twelve apostles", though.

I am essentially applying a “hermeneutics of suspicion,” vis-à-vis the simple answers about “the tradition says so,” or the idea that there couldn’t have been any gender issues in the early church, or that acceptance of cultural norms that became built into church symbology cannot be revisited, etc.

I don't think they can't be revisited or that women shouldn't be ordained. But I suspect that the Catholic Church is right to be cautious.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]But if you look at feast days of saints, men are honored as bishop or pope or doctor of the church, etc. Women are honored as ... virgin. Really. And the message there is ...

Nope, women are also recognized as saints and doctors of the church - just not popes or bishops. (it is also important to notice that the demand for celibacy is not the eq ...[text shortened]... bishops or are invested with the powers of infallibility, they do have a voice.[/b]

1. If you look at the Office books (Liturgy of the Hours) it includes the feast days of saints. While for a man it may say "Nicholas of Myra -- Bishop" it will say "Clare of Assisi -- virgin." And yes, I'm quite aware of the difference between celibacy and virginity.

2. There are religious orders that only answer to the Pope. There are some that answer to the local bishop. I will find you links to examples.

3. While many operate separately, as you state, some do not.

4. quote: This not the case of religious sisters who do not live in convents. end quote. That is truly utter nonsense. I am not sure where you get your information from. Let me assure you: Franciscan women live in convents. Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet live in convents. Both are religious sisters. They are not cloistered, but they do indeed live in convents.

5. I did far more than research it. I lived it for eight years. I was educated in the history of women's religous congregations as part of my formation. I know that they are in charge in some areas and not others. I know that there are things which require papal approval for reasons that are a mystery to me, including the merging of communities that had once been a single community until a local bishop cut them off.

6. point granted

7. As you were not a religious sister around priests, I believe my experience outweighs yours.

8. I'm willing to learn. At what point did women have a voice? A rare few were invited to observe Vatican II as long as they kept their mouths shut. But if you can give me an example of women's voices being heard, I'd be most interested.

Originally posted by reader1107
1. If you look at the Office books (Liturgy of the Hours) it includes the feast days of saints. While for a man it may say "Nicholas of Myra -- Bishop" it will say "Clare of Assisi -- virgin." And yes, I'm quite aware of the difference between celibacy and virginity.

2. There are religious orders that only answer to the Pope. There are some that ut if you can give me an example of women's voices being heard, I'd be most interested.

1. To my understanding, you may correct me, the title of "virgin" is conferred on women who are considered to be of particular purity and to have had an affinity with the Blessed Virgin Mary. This title usually appears on the Calendar of Saints. I'm not sure by what process this title is obtained - but I hardly think it repressive. You will find male virginity also extolled in religious orders. The Carmelite Order in particular stresses the virginity of Elijah in its male ranks.

2. Yes, I already gave you an example. The Jesuits answer only to the pope, I also meant to mention Opus Dei as well. While, yes, some orders (and in such cases, only the community) are subject to the rule of the bishop.

3. While *some* orders do run separately and others under the authority of the bishops, I am aware of some communities exercising capacity to reverse the authority of the bishop. Some communities have been able to align themselves with another bishop, appeal above the bishop.

Personally, I do not believe a bishop should have such powers. But it is important to realize that these powers are not conferred theologically (by belief) but ecclessiastically (as in by the law and structure of the church). So it is not inherently repressive.

4. quote: This not the case of religious sisters who do not live in convents. end quote. That is truly utter nonsense. I am not sure where you get your information from. Let me assure you: Franciscan women live in convents. Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet live in convents.

My mistake. What I originally wrote:
“Yes, from a convent. A woman in a convent has chosen a contemplative life where she is instructed by her abbess or prioress and the bishop. This not the case of religious sisters who do not live in convents.”

As in a cloistered convent. Religious sisters do not live in cloistered convents, is what I intended to convey. If a sister had to leave a religious community on a mission, the bishop’s consent would only be required if it were a cloistered community. I wouldn’t consider it repressive otherwise. If a women leaves that diocese on a mission it is important that there is no ambiguity of which community she belongs to.

5. I did far more than research it. I lived it for eight years. I was educated in the history of women's religous congregations as part of my formation. I know that they are in charge in some areas and not others. I know that there are things which require papal approval for reasons that are a mystery to me, including the merging of communities that had once been a single community until a local bishop cut them off.

I’m not sure what you mean. Were you a student at a school attached to a convent or did you enter a Did you live In a community?

Certain orders have less powers than others. Some cannot change the rule of their order without papal authority. This might be because the rule was created during a time when measures on religious orders were tight, and it would require papal authority to rescind the rule endorsed under that pope. In the above example, I really have no idea. I don’t have a copy of canon law. But I can image why such an arrangement would be practical for the future. With papal approval the community’s identity would be established and there could be no disputes over ownership of property and so on.

7. I do not think I need to be a religious sister to be able to assess the attitude of priests to religious sisters. At the moment, the lack of religious sisters seems to be very despairing to the religious.

8. I wasn’t saying women’s voices are being heard. What I intended to convey was that there is no machinery in the church that prevents them having a voice. There is nothing to prevent a woman heading a theological faculty at a Catholic university.

Also, women have been recognized as doctors of the church, in which their writings are said to have had significant learning. Surely this would be an example of their voices being heard?

EDIT: It's also noticeable that the number of prominent theologians were male because of a lack of ability for females to be read, at the time of the Vatican II. The issue that women could not participate in the Vatican Council reflects a larger cultural paradigm of the time.

Originally posted by Conrau K


Well, in Catholic faith, the teaching of the pope in consonance with the college of bishops constitutes a binding, infallible teaching to be observed by all Catholics. If this college rejects female ordination, Catholics are bound to accept it.

If the Pope makes an infallible declaration that all first-born daughters ought to be murdered, will you accept it?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If the Pope makes an infallible declaration that all first-born daughters ought to be murdered, will you accept it?

The Pope wouldn't say it, though.

And neither does any pope exercise the power to infallibly declare that firt-born daughters ought to be murdered.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The Pope wouldn't say it, though.

What makes you say that? And what would you do if he did?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Help me understand why the Catholic Church, among others, do not ordain women as priests/religious leaders? From what I've read, women played a significant role in founding the church and at some point they were excluded. Anyone know why this is the case?

Are you sure you really want to know? And if I tell you, will you believe it?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What makes you say that? And what would you do if he did?

The infallibility of the pope is restricted to matters of faith and in regards to that, only the definition of things already implicitly believed. Catholicism is a closed religion which means that the pope cannot contribute his own personal revelations.
Therefore, the pope cannot declare such things.

The doctrine of infalliblity also dictates that the pope declares such things true because they are true, not that they are true because the pope declares so. This originates from the assumption that God would not deceive His church.

But I suppose you have more anti-Catholic vitriol and will probably thrown in some drivel about priests' abuse of children.
Therefore the pope will not declare such things.

Originally posted by josephw
Are you sure you really want to know? And if I tell you, will you believe it?

I suspect the question was asked in order to be answered. And if you support your claims with sifficient evidence, everyone will be obliged to believe you.