Joan of Arc in prison by Paul Delaroche
Catholic leaders, having solved all the world’s problems, turn to more important matters. Now where, damn it, is that stake and hay?
Vatican to punish women priests
The Vatican has issued its most explicit decree so far against the ordination of women priests, punishing them and the bishops who try to ordain them with automatic excommunication.
The decree was written by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and published in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, giving it immediate effect.
A Vatican spokesman said the decree made the Church’s existing ban on women priests more explicit by clarifying that excommunication would follow all such ordinations.
Excommunication forbids those affected from receiving the sacraments or sharing in acts of public worship.
Father Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Centre at Georgetown University, said he thought the decree was meant to send a warning to the growing number of Catholics who favour admitting women to the priesthood.
And that, as well know, would cause locusts to swarm, the sky to fall, and cats would start sleeping with dogs.
The Church said it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles.
Hmmm, and he also never drove a car, never lived in a palace, was poor and Jewish. So were all his disciples. So when is Catholic leadership going to implement those rules for themselves? It would, after all, really change things up if only a poor Jewish men could be Pope or priests. Hey, when it comes to making rules based on the specifics of what Jesus represented two thousand years ago, all I’m asking for is a little consistency.
I hear you, Tammy, and unfortunately, this doesn’t surprise me one bit. It hasn’t been that long (maybe 25 years?) that girls could be “Altar Girls”. I was banned from doing this in the early 70s when it was strictly a boys thing, even though there never seemed to be any boys in attendance for the job.
Hmmmmmmm…if they were stuck in the first century, they’d be poor and Jewish, as you said. More like stuck in the 16th century: the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation are still at root what most define the “modern” Catholic Church.
OTOH, please don’t take this the wrong way, but as a fairly non-observant Jew I’ve always been curious: if one disagrees vehemently with the tenets of one’s religion, isn’t the solution to find another that actually more closely comports to one’s beliefs? The Episcopal Church, the Anglican communion, has female priests and even female bishops, most of the same rituals and at least 90% of the same doctrine, being the most Catholic-like of Protestant denominations.
I absolutely agree with Dave J’s point: “If one disagrees vehemently with the tenets of one’s religion, isn’t the solution to find another that actually more closely comports to one’s beliefs?” I am really sad to see Catholic bashing here!
Tammy,
Isn’t it more than a little ironic that the one essential prerequisite necessary for a man to shepherd a flock, an anatomical accoutrement we know is the envy of every woman, has been the root of nearly all of the Church’s problems of late?
Hey, Tammy. I’m a Catholic and it boils down to this: rules is rules. It’s not really a secret what the Church teaches [it’s a large volume called ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church.’] To allow these malnars [your word] to change the organization is wrong. Truth is, these Bishops who are ‘fauxdaining’ the women are committing a sin called scandal.
Also: I would much rather be a woman who is Catholic than a woman in any of a number of other much more repressive religions. I have freedom in this faith and I choose to stay.
eh, hem, Tammy, Jesus never made a woman an Apostle. And, he did plenty of things out of order for his time; some things we don’t understand just yet. btw, Joan of Arc wasn’t trying to be a priest, just trying to straighten out a few people at the direction of God, people who happened to be men. People in France of that day would have been stunned by a young farm girl instructing a man of any ranking, in this case, a Bishop. I think God knows how to grab our attention based on our “lifestyle”, times.
I don’t agree with Kelly (we have enough jobs in this world without taking on another one for the boys), I agree with Dave in his last paragraph (although the Anglican communion doesn’t have women priests or bishops; American episcopals do), sort of totally agree with NavajoSierra (I do weary of your Catholic misunderstandings but unsure they are “bashing”) and I agree also with RuthAnne except for one point. I wouldn’t be a woman in any sort of repressive religion because I have freedom of Faith. And that is why I am a Latin rite Catholic (that’s the real name for the perjorative, “Roman Catholic”, for the uninformed)!
So let me get this straight… It’s OK to molest little boys. All the priest gets is a ‘transfer,’ but ordaining a woman gets automatic excommunication?
Talk about messed-up priorities.
To suggest that Christ chose only men as his apostles is historically inaccurate.
I think that the Bible was written as a way to live our lives. It wasn’t meant so we could mess around with the rules whenever we feel left out. If you don’t like the rules, then don’t be a Catholic. I’m sure God is livid to hear us complain about the “rules”. We are not the one’s in charge here. We tend to think of ourselves, and our wants, as being the most important thing. I would think twice about questioning the Bible. Either you live by the rules, or you don’t, but don’t start bashing or complaining about the rules that were set for us. I don’t follow the rules all the time, but I sure don’t blame anyone else but me for it. If we all actually followed all the rules, we would be a perfect society. But nope, everyone does whatever the heck they feel like, and look around! Where has it gotten us??
I am concerned about the language of punishment here. I don’t know why there is not explanation instead, to start with at least, especially since religious education in American Catholic circles is largely in shambles. But the Church has tremendous reason for its stand that women cannot rightly be priests. It boils down to the preservation of identity. I’m sorry–okay I’m not sorry–There is a difference between men and women. As a heterosexual man, I say Thank God for that on several levels. But anyway . . . A woman cannot be a “priest” because she cannot physically represent Christ as groom to His bride the Church. There is a whole mystical theology intertwined here and another unfortunate thing is that many priests leave the representation there–in the mystical–not in the concrete and everyday. But the Church’s belief in the sacrament of holy orders means that when officiating at the sacraments it is not only the priest who is present, but Jesus. It is His action which validates the sacraments and not the priest’s. This is why an unholy priest can still officiate at the sacraments, because it is Christ by the anointing the priest receives at holy orders who really acts in sacraments. This applies only to the sacraments and not to when the priest does wrong. Jesus did not ever molest anyone.
There is a real problem in the American Catholic Church with the recognition of the gifts women have to offer, and above that the gift women themselves are. The Church needs serious work here still. But the Church cannot let go of the distinction of male and female as groom and bride or its very identity is threatened if not destroyed.
I’m reading the comments, enjoying the discussion, but I’m puzzled by those suggesting that if we dislike the Catholic church’s rules about ordination, we just leave it. Whatever happened to vigorous debate? Whatever happened to examination? What are we afraid of? I think it’s perfectly okay to question this practice and to examine why church leaders think this is “God’s law” for the church. If the reason is that Christ never had a female disciple, then we can examine that. The discourse has to be fair. If the reason comes from the Bible, we can test the context to see if it stands up under scrutiny.
I see numerous examples in scripture of female leadership, not the least of which was Deborah, a judge in Israel, Huldah a prophetess, and numerous prophetesses in the New Testament church. Further, when the “gifts of the spirit” are listed, including prophecy and teaching, there is no gender division there at all. There’s no list of gifts for boys, gifts for girls. I think too, that while Christ had many female followers (who ended up being the most faithful and courageous around the time of his death), he might not have chosen any to be his disciples because of the way He knew they would die for being his followers. Every single disciple was tortured and executed in hideous ways except for John, who was exiled. I think his decision had more to do with his tenderness toward women rather than his exclusion of them.
Appletown: there’s a difference in disciple [follower] and Apostle [one of the 12, one who is sent, all who were men]. If you take the Blessed Mother as the most excellent example, she was present at every significant event in the life of Christ [Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity, Circumcision, Presentation in the Temple, Flight into Egypt, Finding in the Temple, First Miracle at the Wedding in Caana, Preaching, teaching and Healings, Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Resurrection, Ascencion and Pentecost] save one. She was NOT at the Last Supper. Catholics see this as not only the institution of the New Covenant, but also as the Ordination of his followers into the priesthood. Mary’s absence there is most telling.
You’re right that John was spared a martyr’s death; his martyrdom came at the foot of the Cross with Mary.
As to debate: The Holy Father closed the debate on this issue a pontiff ago. To raise this settled issue now is disobedient.
I believe this was mentioned by earlier posters, but women actually preached and held high positions within the early Christian Church. Particularly in Greece, Ephesus being a prime example. So the Catholic Church isn’t stuck in the first century, rather it’s stuck in the fifth.
Also, it’s been a while since I cracked open my Bible, but I don’t seem to recall Christ placing gender restriction on who could or couldn’t preach His Word. I believe he instructed ALL of his diciples to go forth and spread His Word.
Ah well, he also preached the virtues of a spartan lifestyle and humility, but the Catholic Church, post Nicene Council has had much use for any of that either.
“although the Anglican communion doesn’t have women priests or bishops; American episcopals do”
My mistake: I should’ve clarified. It’s not the entire Anglican communion, but some provinces of it. It’s more than the Episcopal Church in America, though: I know there are female priests in the Church of England (see generally the British sit-com The Vicar of Dibley), though not bishops. The Anglican Churches of both Canada and Australia have female bishops.
Ruth Anne, playing Devil’s Advocate here in tacking opposite my prior post, but my understanding is that any pontifical statements on this subject are ordinary encycicals: they are propagation of and interpretation of doctrine and canon law. They are not ex cathedra promulgations of dogma vested with infallibility. Since Vatican I established the concept in 1870, infallibility has been invoked only once: by Pius XII declaring the bodily Assumption of Mary in 1950. Therefore, other papal statements are strong contributions to theological debate, but not closure of it.
Dave J: He was pretty authoritative here. In his teaching role and under the Magisterium [the teaching authority of the Church], the Pope ended the discussion. This is but one example.
The Church’s position on women (missionary?) has at least some historical support. Why is there no summary excommunication for haters like Pfleger who vomit poison against honest, innocent groups of co-religionists in every church in which he appears?
St. Thor, Pfleger also appears to be a near-constant presence preaching in a Protestant church, something else that one would think the Archdiocese of Chicago would regard as at least odd.
i am most struck by the fact that no one commented on the picture used on this post- that of the founder of the country i am from- jeanne d’arc. the very holy ROMAN church that burnt her alive in collusion with the english in 1431 for the crime of wearing men’s clothing( she was found not guilty of the original charge of, of course, witchcraft. the clothing was considered heretical and against biblical instruction) took until 1920 to canonize and make a saint of her. thus the role of women in the Church- whores holy men saved or dead virgins they themselves tortured and killed. the hypocrisy and hatred is blinding. you know the church not by the number of the saved but by the trail of it’s murder victims. the near hysterical hatred of women is equally astounding considering that the parts of the bible some have noted as containing ‘ strong women’ were actually relics from a matrilineal, female ruled pre-male god goddess worshiping hebrew people who in turn borrowed most of the psalms and the flood and the book of judges and the book of ishtar/esther from other goddess worshipers in the area.
none of the bible as we know it is older than the 4th century and there are glaring mistranslations of greek( the apocalypse of john is particularly poorly written let alone translated-the writer’s greek sucked). all the oldest known sources are mere fragments. the earliest christian church had no written gospels to go on- none of it was written in the jesus called christ’s alleged lifetime nor by any of his so called ‘ apostles’ . the roman catholic church has picked and chosen and removed and rewritten as pleased themselves and made rules that merely consolidated their own earthly power rather then spreading the teachings of their beloved founder( how popes that buggered the staff, begat children on their own relatives, murdered, and ran whore houses out of st. peter’s can be ‘ infallible’ interests me a great deal) . texts of equally ancient origins suggest that mary magdalen was the main apostle of jesus. it certainly would explain why christ chose to reveal his resurrection to her while the male apostles hid like a bunch of scared school girls and then refused to believe her.
the jew hating, female despising tone of the new testament is the work of men and the consequences are the wholesale murder of jews, women, homosexuals, women who wore men’s clothes or midwives and ‘ heretics’ for centuries- killings that usually benefited the state and the church in terms of influence or for land/money. how women in particular can expect some of us not to ‘ bash’ it is so beyond me. john paul finally sort of half assedly apologized for- whoops- killing so many pesky jews only a thousand or so years after the fact- but what of the peasants and women or those who merely worshipped god in a different way? when are you apologizing to us because i for one am frankly sick of your apologists defending the slave class of half the world and upholding priests who for centuries lived like kings and screwed like rock stars representing their lord who lived as a despised pauper and outcast.( he was supported along with the male apostles, by the way, according to the gospels, by women).
and while western’ modern’ christians pig pile on islam and demand that the ‘ moderates’ reign in it’s excesses there are those of use who see in the more radical woman hating, jew killing, worship allah or die by the sword psychos nothing more than the history of the roman catholic church-same methods same objectives, same holy book based, divinely sanctioned blood soaked power grab over the dead bodies of those who refuse to submit with an emphasis on making males gods on earth as above.
the ultimate irony is that jeanne d’arc might well have been a pagan- who were rife in the area of france she was from- fairy faith celts. her original claim was she heard voices from the ‘tree of the fairy ladies’ ‘( trees are scared in most pagan celt religions). the church sided with england in part to crush the aura of pagan folk worship jeanne inspired. so they murdered her and the pagan celts of france still won and the country a woman founded still stands.
in some of the older texts of books of the bible the original word ‘ goddesses’ was replaced with ‘god’ by later translators. perhaps if one opts to read the earliest hebrew and greek fragments one will find the strongest woman in the bible just might be god.