The Ordination of Women

[Thomas]

On May 29 the Vatican affirmed that the Church’s teaching on the male-only priesthood is "infallible".

In the May 30 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Archbishop Luis Ladaria SJ said the reservation of the ordained priesthood to men is part of the deposit of faith, and the Catholic Church, in obedience to her Lord, cannot change this tradition.

Ladaria reaffirmed Pope JPII’s teaching that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful." (Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)

In April, Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schönborn (a likely papal candidate), said in an interview: "The question of the ordination [of women] is a question which clearly can only be clarified by a council. That cannot be decided upon by a pope alone. That is a question too big to be decided from the desk of a pope."

When the reporter asked if Schönborn was referring to ordination of women as priests, Schönborn replied, "as deacons, priests, bishops."

Pope Francis agrees with the ruling. On a return flight from Sweden in 2016 he said: "As for the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, the last clear word was given by Saint John Paul II, and this holds."

So no change there, then ... pity ...

 

[wil]

A couple more good popes and I see a change a coming...

 

[Thomas]

A couple more good popes and I see a change a coming...

Hmmm... both JPII, Benedict XVI and now Francis are against it. Cardinal Schönborn is open to discussion ...

The issue is, if it is said the matter is infallibly declared, which is very close to what has been said, then the Church won't go back on it, because that'll open the doors for people like your good self to argue that what has been infallibly declared is not infallible — the entire deposit of faith — and everything is up for grabs.

Personally I wish the Church had never got into this 'infallible' thing ever It was a doctrine declared at the First Vatican Council in 1870, and there was, ah, a certain political climate in the air at the time...

JPII's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on reserving priestly ordination to men alone has been said to be an infallible teaching, but a prior encyclical, Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII states that Letters and even Encyclicals are not infallible!

The wording as ever is nuanced, the kind of thing lawyers have a field day with, and the kind of thing I've a sneaky suspicion Jesus would have no truck with! My strongest feeling is that if you push the Church, it will dig in its heels, as it always does ...

 

[wil]

The church has made many changes over the years... I hear the infallibility argument... And both people and institutions don't like to have egg on their face. Bit just like the fact.that many Catholics use birth control and have abortions and get divorces and get remarried and stay in the church despite ...because they have deeper connections and are willing to forgo.... Plenty of others leave for these reasons...and as society continues to move forward and the church does not..the percentage of people born into the church which leave the church will only increase...and the tide will change.

To me the fact that it is seriously discussed is indicative of a movement. Just my opinion, I have no perverbial dog in this fight.

 

[RJM]

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the Catholic Church. Here may be place to clear up a bit if it. Jesus condemned divorce. It was not a judgement made by Paul.

In St Mark (considered the first gospel) that's it. No divorce. No conditions. Matthew and Luke add the condition: except in case of adultery. But the issue is the church may not rule against the words of Jesus.

But remarried divorcees are not denied the right to enter the church or attend the Mass. Nobody is. They're not excommunicated! They are not supposed to take communion. No-one is supposed to take communion in a state of what the Church considers grevious sin.

A Catholic is supposed to confess and receive absolution before taking communion. It is here the Church has modified and softened a bit. It becomes a personal moral decision. It turns the blind eye, out of compassion.

Of course the Church cannot allow 'society' to decide. Society does not decide. The Catholic Church does change, but slowly, to enable it to be part of the century. The earth now goes round the sun. Evolution may have happened, although the spark of life is still divine. Women no longer cover their heads. Mostly Old Testament and Pauline stuff.

Regardless of statements made by Paul: the fact is Christ himself made no negative statement about the ordination of women.

 

[Thomas]

Jesus condemned divorce. It was not a judgement made by Paul.

A very good point. And a very tough rule.

If I were pope (!) I would separate Sacramental Marriage from a simple wedding ceremony. The latter could even be a civil partnership, and would suffice even for Catholic couples. In days of yore, only the aristocracy got married at the altar. Everyone else got married in the porch. Marriage focussed on the church for religious reasons, but also for legal ones, as churches kept records in the absence of a civil administration.

So couples could enter a marriage, and leave it, if its fails. They could have the marriage blessed ... but a sacramental marriage is something else altogether, it's an oath, made before and to God, as as such should be approached with fear and trepidation, and be irrevocable. I'd say it's the kind of thing a couple couldn't undertake without, say, 40 years under their collective belt? Something significant, anyway.

Regardless of statements made by Paul: the fact is Christ himself made no negative statement about the ordination of women.

It strikes me odd that:
God chose a woman to announce the Incarnation.
Mary is visited by the archangel Gabriel / Joseph is informed 'anonymously' in a dream.
Mary's cousin Elizabeth conceives miraculously / Zachary is informed so by the archangel Gabriel, but struck dumb because of his doubt.
Anna, a prophetess, recognises the infant Jesus at the presentation at the Temple / Simeon is moved by the Holy Ghost.

Christ performs the first of His 'signs' at the wedding at Cana, at be behest of His mother.

Women play a significant part in supporting Christ's ministry.

Apart from John, only the women are present at the crucifixion.

At the Resurrection, Christ reveals Himself to a woman before He appears to the twelve.

Women played a significant, if not equal part, in the Pauline missions.

Women, we are told, were one of the drivers behind the expansion of the Early Church.

Visit any Catholic church today, and it's the women who keep the place going.

+++

In my view, the old patriarchal patterns established themselves once the Christian communities began to grow, but we need to careful about confusing patriarchy with misogyny.

Biological gender distinction is found in Genesis, in which Eve is very much a second class citizen, created after Adam, for his comfort and companionship. That is woman's role — to serve the male. But I doubt this viewpoint was specific to the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, looking at the wider world, it seems a generic opinion.

The Gentile world, Greek and Roman, saw the function of womanhood in their bringing forth and raising children. Women lacked the male's physical strength, his moral self-control and his mental capacity. Her lesser nature thus confirms her subjugation to the male as conforming to the natural order. Women could perform the duties of men in the civic sphere, but it was not an ideal circumstance, and was required by necessity, being against their nature.

In Plato's theory of metempsychosis, women return to earth as men to perfect themselves. Curiously this idea is reflected in Buddhism, in which women must at some point reincarnate as men on their path to enlightenment, as one of the markers by which one can recognise a Buddha is the male genitalia.

The Latin and the Greek church fathers' writings reflect the times and conditions within which they lived. It finds expression in their dualistic view of the soul and body: God and nature, and male and female. It wasn't misogyny, is was based on contemporary 'scientific' understanding that led them to do their theology based on an a priori biological understanding — one that continues, in modified form, culturally even today.

Perhaps the equality of women was just one of those 'over the horizon' things which His audience never got. Certainly there seems evidence of the erasing of women's positive role in the early church as cultural patriarchal patterns asserted themselves.

 

[Thomas]

Bit just like the fact that many Catholics use birth control and have abortions and get divorces and get remarried and stay in the church despite...

Well that's grounds for debate, but I'm not sure for determination. The fact that many people break the speed limit does not mean we should abandon speed limits?

because they have deeper connections and are willing to forgo...

That sounds like an assumptive and somewhat partisan statement, LOL.

... and as society continues to move forward and the church does not..

Well that rather assumes society is moving in the right direction ... whereas there are a plethora of reasons to suggest not.

There will always be a rubbing between the two, but to assume that one is right and the other wrong is, I would suggest, a naive over-simplification. Church leaders around the world speak out strongly against the abuses of human rights, against the environment, against the future ... Religions in general call for charity, altruism and a certain asceticism, whereas western society, which sees itself as the vanguard of 'progress', calls for increasing consumption, self-gratification, self-validation ... The church looks for education in the Third World according to its own sometimes questionable beliefs and values, but society calls for the utilisation of the Third World as a means of sustaining its consumer demand ...

One could say the Church is, and will always be, behind the curve, and that can be a good thing, acting as a necessary brake (where its voice is head) on societal excesses. The question of artificial insemination (the assumed 'right' to have a child, which is not a right), and what to do with tens of thousands of unwanted human embryos in cold storage (other than for experimentation) is a huge moral dilemma that's been avoided so far.

Nor does the Church spring out of a void. As you have advertised at length, the 'American church' reflects the national character as much as society likes to reflect all that's good in religion.

So it's neither one nor t'other ...

 

[RJM]

Yes, exactly: yin/yang: nature and Spirit. The Kaballah: chokma/binah: wisdom and understanding. Krisna/Radha.

The Catholic Church venerates the holy mother. The 'Mother of God'. Now that's one of the mysteries preserved by the Catholic Church.

Also the concept of original sin: that from the moment we are born into nature, we have to consume other life to preserve our own.

Perhaps we're not the superstitious medieval idiots that many take us for, lol.

Sorry: going a bit off topic there ...

 

[wil]

Yes I agree the church is behind the curve...but just like any org, they will catchup...or.go by the wayside...

And yes, their rules do hold up the patriarchy and have kept and keep many a woman under the thumb if their husband due to the interpretation of the good book.

 

[Thomas]

Yes I agree the church is behind the curve...but just like any org, they will catchup...or.go by the wayside...

Or ... the society ahead of the curve has gone off the rails ... ... and the church arrives to pick up the pieces.

And yes, their rules do hold up the patriarchy and have kept and keep many a woman under the thumb if their husband due to the interpretation of the good book.

I rather think you're trying to pin a universal to a particular, as one can equally say:
Atheists/Agnostics/the Enlightenment/New Thought/ Liberals / Free Thinkers / CEOs / (reader choice) / have written their rules to hold up the patriarchy and have kept and keep many a woman under the thumb of their husband due to their interpretation of science and nature ...

I'm sure feminists will happily point out that everything they have got they have fought for and won in the face of male opposition, either active or passive. When men slap themselves on the back for their contribution, it's really just the old patriarchy rewarding itself ...

 

[wil]

That is hilarious.