Why Exclude Women From The Catholic Church?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[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, infal houldn't be ordained. But I suspect that the Catholic Church is right to be cautious.[/b]

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.

Thank you for the correction.

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

Maybe, in light of the above, I stand to be corrected again—but I was thinking that if the priest is the “stand-in” for Christ in a liturgy of nuptial imagery, in relational imagery between priest and members (Christ and community) might have to be revised—perhaps some language non-gendered...

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.

In my experience (U.S. Episcopal), the Anglican church has kept more of the “Mystery” of the Eucharist than most of the other Protestant denominations, and next to them the Lutherans. As far as I know, the Anglicans are the only Protestant church to keep the regular Eucharist (once a week, anyway; I think the local Cathedral at least might have weekday options as well); Lutherans are generally twice a month (though not that frequent when I was growing up), and the others less. Basically what happened, I think, is that the “service of the word” slowly began to take precedence over the “service of the Eucharist.”

You might be right about the high/low distinction. The “lower” the liturgy, the more the service of the word seems to take precedence. I like high liturgy myself; at the cathedral where my wife and I attended for years, it seemed to fluctuate from “middle” to high. I preferred that mix of celebration and contemplation. ‘Nuff said about that....

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.

And I can’t really argue the issue further without adopting some alternative position, or have the question stated more broadly—such as should churches ordain women? I’m obviously “pro” on the issue, but then, if we’re going to go to scriptural exegesis and analysis of the tradition, it might take a lot more work than I want to expend right now...

Be well.

Originally posted by vistesd
And I can’t really argue the issue further without adopting some alternative position, or have the question stated more broadly—such as should churches ordain women? I’m obviously “pro” on the issue, but then, if we’re going to go to scriptural exegesis and analysis of the tradition, it might take a lot more work than I want to expend right now...

Be well.

Fair enough. I personally do not understand why the exclusion of a woman from the celebration of the Eucharist is such a concern. But you have caused me to reflect on other things. I would be interested to hear why the position of the bishop must be an extension of the priest's and not a separate one in which females can be admitted. Thankyou.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Fair enough. I personally do not understand why the exclusion of a woman from the celebration of the Eucharist is such a concern. But you have caused me to reflect on other things. I would be interested to hear why the position of the bishop must be an extension of the priest's and not a separate one in which females can be admitted. Thankyou.

Interesting thoughts. I have just reached the edge of my "comfort zone" for arguing what Catholics ought to do; my "chutzpah" only goes so far...

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Is this repression of women?

If only the men get to decide, yes.

There is no "it." People, men and/or women, decide these questions. If one sex denies the other a role in those decisions, it is repressive.

There are men and women on both sides of the ordination issue. As a non-Catholic, I have no right to tell people who are Catholi ...[text shortened]... men to reserve for themselves the right to determine what the gender roles are or ought to be.[/b]

The men of the Church haven't reserved anything for themselves -- if you have a grudge in the matter you should take it up with Jesus Christ. After all, it was His decision to be Incarnated as a male; and it was His decision to call only male Apostles.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The men of the Church haven't reserved anything for themselves -- if you have a grudge in the matter you should take it up with Jesus Christ. After all, it was His decision to be Incarnated as a male; and it was His decision to call only male Apostles.

I will take the liberty of re-posting an excellent point made by the good Dr. Scribbles in the thread "Femal Catholic Priests" which addresses your argument.


Ridiculous. "For this reason" -- what reason? That Jesus chose men, and those men continued to choose men?

How many white men did Jesus choose? How many white men are priests today?

How many Chinese people did Jesus choose? How many Chinese are priests today?

How many speakers of German did Jesus choose? How many speakers of German are priests today?

How many people named Robert did Jesus choose? How many people named Robert are priests today?

How many child molesters did Jesus choose?

If there are now whites, Chinese, Germans, Roberts, and child molesters in the priesthoood, none of which were part of the original makeup, why not women? The cited argument obviously can't be the real reason, for under it, there could be none of the sorts of priests mentioned above.


What happens if an ordained priest gets a sex change?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I will take the liberty of re-posting an excellent point made by the good Dr. Scribbles in the thread "Femal Catholic Priests" which addresses your argument.


Ridiculous. "For this reason" -- what reason? That Jesus chose men, and those men continued to choose men?

How many white men did Jesus choose? How many white men are priests today?

How ...[text shortened]... rts of priests mentioned above.


What happens if an ordained priest gets a sex change?

The good questions tend to not get answered and thus become lost. Thanks for saving this one. I would like some answers for these questions.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The men of the Church haven't reserved anything for themselves -- if you have a grudge in the matter you should take it up with Jesus Christ. After all, it was His decision to be Incarnated as a male; and it was His decision to call only male Apostles.

Well, I’ve already indicated to Conrau that I’ve reached the edge of my comfort zone with regard to suggesting what the RCC “ought” to do. However—

(1) Your statements inherently entail some assumptions about the intentionality behind such events, and whether and how that intentionality extends to theological and Christological symbolism, etc.—as opposed to, say, cultural and societal considerations of the period.

I saw an interview some time ago with Orthodox Archbishop Kallistos Ware, in which he suggested that these were just the kinds of questions that it might be time for the Orthodox to review.

(2) As I have pointed out elsewhere, the Greek texts show that Junia was a woman, and probably identified as an apostle, which is acknowledge in at least one prominent translation (the NJB) and strongly implied in others. (Nevertheless, I say “probably” because I do recognize that counter-arguments can be made.)

(3) You and I both know that church tradition evolved through much inquiry and dispute. I don’t know what the records show about any discussions of female ordination among the fathers. I don’t know if any of the fathers argued in what today would be considered misogynist terms; perhaps none did. (And I sigh at the thought right now of the kind of research you and I were doing way back on the East/West infallibility debate.)

I also do not know the nature and content of the debate when it was going on in the Anglican and Lutheran churches. That may not be relevant to the RCC, but it would be relevant to the broader issue of female ordination. And that broader level is the only place I’d be willing to debate further—I’m not uncomfortable saying that I think the RCC’s position one something is “wrong,” but I will only argue the issue itself (as we did before, wading through scripture and tradition and interpretations thereof...). (Sigh, again...)

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The good questions tend to not get answered and thus become lost. Thanks for saving this one. I would like some answers for these questions.

Don't hold your breath. LH's post is too easily refuted by such logical points.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, I’ve already indicated to Conrau that I’ve reached the edge of my comfort zone with regard to suggesting what the RCC “ought” to do. However—

(1) Your statements inherently entail some assumptions about the intentionality behind such events, and whether and how that intentionality extends to theological and Christological symbolism, etc.—as oppose ...[text shortened]... efore, wading through scripture and tradition and interpretations thereof...). (Sigh, again...)

(1a) It's quite clear from the Gospel accounts (even the parts the Jesus Seminar accepts as probably authentic) that Jesus wasn't a stickler for cultural and societal considerations -- be it dining with tax collectors and prostitutes, having female disciples, observing the Levitical laws etc. I admit it's not proof that he was free of contemporary assumptions, but it certainly weakens the case.

(1b) When considering socio-cultural considerations of the period, it's important to remember that most cultures the Jews (and early Christians) came in contact with did have priestesses. If anything, it would've been the all-male priesthood that was the novelty to their converts.

(2a) (I was about to respond to this in a separate post...) A scan of Paul's use of the word "apostle" shows that he generally tends to use it in a broad sense of "messenger". For instance, some chapters before your citation of "Pauline hierarchy", he speaks more generally of all Christians having an apostolic (which is a better way of understanding his general use of the word) vocation (1 Cor 4:9, 1 Thess 2:6). Which is not to say he does not use it in the sense of Apostle (uppercase 'A'😉 -- he probably uses it in that sense when referring to himself; but he generally uses something like "chief apostles" or "the Twelve" when talking about the Apostles.

(2b) When speaking of the priestly hierarchy, however, Paul uses the terms bishop (episkopos) and elder/presbyter (presbuteros).

(3) We probably don't want to do that right now 😉 But the Catholic view of how Tradition "evolved" through inquiry and dispute would probably be a little different from what you're hinting at. From the Catholic perspective, it would be more about clarification through a kind of Socratic dialogue with the culture than about coming up with something new in response to that culture.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
(1a) It's quite clear from the Gospel accounts (even the parts the Jesus Seminar accepts as probably authentic) that Jesus wasn't a stickler for cultural and societal considerations -- be it dining with tax collectors and prostitutes, having female disciples, observing the Levitical laws etc. I admit it's not proof that he was free of contemporary ass lture than about coming up with something new in response to that culture.

Those are points well-taken. Yeah, I don’t want to do it right now either...

I did find the following, but I only have time to glance at a few; I don’t know how they gather their material, or whether the lists in the pro/con columns are representative...

This site, and the articles listed, show at least that the discussion continues within the RCC. The list includes pro- and con- writers. There appear to be some “big names” on both sides (not all of whom are Catholic). Here are a few I found interesting on the “pro” side:

http://www.womenpriests.org/scholars.asp

http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/burns.asp

http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/thiel.asp

http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/bonner.asp

http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/ferrara.asp

On Junia as Apostle:

http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.asp

EDIT: Just a correction--some of the articles do not go to the issue per se, but to the question of closure, and some to principles that are not restricted just to this issue.

Originally posted by vistesd
Those are points well-taken. Yeah, I don’t want to do it right now either...

I did find the following, but I only have time to glance at a few; I don’t know how they gather their material, or whether the lists in the pro/con columns are representative...

This site, and the articles listed, show at least that the discussion continues within the ...[text shortened]... t to the question of closure, and some to principles that are not restricted just to this issue.

Thanks for the links. Just scrolling down the con- list:

- Raymond Brown's article deals with women in John's Gospel. The point he makes is that, in John, [intentional] discipleship to Jesus was accorded primary status and that is certainly not restricted to men. He doesn't, however, talk about the ministerial priesthood.

- Umberto Eco's article is a commentary on Aquinas's argument for an all-male priesthood (which, as Eco correctly points out, was at least partially based on a flawed anthropology).

I can't say I recognised too many other names there.

I'm surprised to see that Karol Wojtyla isn't on the pro- list. 🙁 But, then again, if you have von Balthasar there, that does pack one heck of a punch 😉

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Thanks for the links. Just scrolling down the con- list:

- Raymond Brown's article deals with women in John's Gospel. The point he makes is that, in John, [intentional] discipleship to Jesus was accorded primary status and that is certainly not restricted to men. He doesn't, however, talk about the ministerial priesthood.

- Umberto Eco's article ...[text shortened]... But, then again, if you have von Balthasar there, that does pack one heck of a punch 😉

Yeah, I saw von Balthasar. 🙂 I have to read him because I’m interested in his “aesthetic” approach to theology—I’m wondering if it is at all similar to Heschel (and is where thinking currently is going...). Schussler-Fiorenza is a well-known and regarded American feminist theologian; I am pretty sure she is Catholic. Mary Radford Reuther also, but I think she’ Protestant. Thiel and Bonner seemed to have good credentials.

The only point that Rahner was making that seemed relevant was that we shouldn’t assume that the early fathers had more “charisma” than today...