- This topic has 1 reply, 7 voices, and was last updated 19 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In today’s newspaper I noticed an article with the title; American Catholics want change. It went on to state; Surveys have shown that 60 percent to 70 percent of American Catholics polled favored allowing priests to marry and the 55 to 62% favores ordaining women.
I ask, who were these Catholics that were polled? Who conducted the poll and how large was it? Are they practicing Catholics? Why is it that the number of priests in Latin America, Asia and Africa have been growing while U.S. Seminaries are ordaining less than 40% necessary to maintain current levels? Would you be able to call a married woman priest, “Father”? Do you believe allowing priests to marry or ordaining women would help or hinder the Catholic faith worldwide?
First of all, the Church is not allowed to change the teaching of only men becoming priest. However they can allow priest to marry in The Latin Rite. That is something they can change. Other rites are allowed to get married.
I have mixed thoughts about priests being able to marry. I think for SOME priests that marry, it may help the church. For others (which I have spoken to) it will only redirect their focus and not give the attention needed to the church. There is countless of pro and con arguments that are fair and understadable. In the end, it appeared to me that it depended on the priest. Some would do just fine being married and others it would be best they shouldnt be married. From my understading most priest would not rather not marry. At some point the Church decided that it would be best for the priest to not marry to better serve the Church. That is their bride.
What I think is odd is all these polls are asking catholics what they want but they don’t bother asking the priest what they want.
~Victor
I have a question, since the conclave of cardinals is set to start, if it hasn’t already…
One of the things that has stopped me from pursuing RCC further is the apparent beliefs of JPII re. ecumenicism. I was startled to hear (on which radio station I can’t recall) a broadcast that contained the Pope and representitives from other religions — African shamans, Buddhists, etc. — praying together. This was apparently a RCC sponsored shindig.
Seriously, I was thinking right in step with J. T. Chick for awhile, there.
Which is in line with my question — suppose the next Pope begins to advocate changes or practices you just can’t reconcile with Christianity as expressed in the RCC tradition?
Heck, I grew up Baptist — we’ll start another church at the drop of a hat! I remember when a minister started reading church members’ palms. Whoa, nelly!
JPII was an interesting fellow, but I didn’t and don’t understand the new-age thinking. That’s why I am somewhat baffled by the “Saint JPII” talk I hear so much of. He was on a course, at least in that one area, that was damaging to the church of Christ, imho. I know, I know, I’m apostate anyway…
Anyhow, I’m curious — what do you do? Is there some sort of discipline in place to remove a Pope that isn’t playing by the rules? Can your Cardinals back-track, say something like, “Oops, we thought we were being guided, our mistake, sorry,” and give the Pope his pink slip?
Elka, that is very legit concern. For me, it was one of those things that took me a while to get over. Only because it takes some honest historical digging to give you some sort of peace. I’m going to attempt to answer your concern by asking the following question.
Can the Pope make mistakes?
He can make mistakes in everything except when he is speaking to the “whole church” in relation to doctrinal matters. Otherwise known as ex-cathedra. He can make mistakes in the following areas:Science
Disciplinary matters
Personal letters
Private conversations
His actionsFor many, it may be difficult to grasp that God would allow the Pope to do such things. But what Protestants and the secular world fail to see or understand is that God only promised to preserve TRUTH for the Church. Everything else is subject to free will. Now I’ve read quite a bit of Dave Hunt, James White, Tim LaHaye, James McCarthy, etc. attempts to prove that the Pope has screwed up in the area we say he can’t. But all I have read has fallen under what I noted above. They were either private letters, science, or something in that realm. The next obvious question is:
Has the Pope ever made a mistake in faith and doctrine when speaking to the whole church?The answer is no. Not only have I not found anything but I don’t believe this can happen. It would be kind of like asking me if I believe that the Word of God in its present form is the same as the early church. Proving this is impossible. But I believe that we still have the Word of God now the same as the early church. If anyone can prove any of these to be false then everything will begin to crumble. I don’t believe God will allow either to fall for the sake of our salvation.
Now I haven’t done any extensive research into why the Pope was praying with African Shamans, Buddhists, and so on. But I can tell you that no changes of the of the Catholic faith occurred in that situation. Not in that situation and not in any situation. Once again he was not addressing the whole of the church.
Hope this helps.
~Victor
Posting here because it was too tangenty on the HABEMVS PAPAM! thread….
I will say, I am a bit disconcerted by the constant “American Catholics Want” thing because there are some Canadian Catholics who want it too. Also some British, Australian, and New Zealand Catholics and probably others from non-English speaking countries, but I don’t have friends there.
I do believe that women should be allowed to be ordained priests because one of the glorious things about Catholocism is that all doctrines can be reached through a variety of methods, including Reason, and somehow “It’s that way because it’s the way we’ve always done it. Sorry, but you’re just a bystander in our church and can never, ever be one of its leaders” doesn’t seem either logical or fair to me.
[quote:148qjic5]”Sorry, but you’re just a bystander in our church and can never, ever be one of its leaders”[/quote:148qjic5]
I’m going to make a bold statement, but I think it’s worth an honest discussion.How are women bystanders in the Church simply because they cannot be leaders? <bold statement>Personally, I think many American women have a mindset that they want it all or it’s not good enough.</bold statement>
There are many, many women’s issues the Church is dealing with right now like poverty, genital mutilation, abortion, AIDS, etc. and we’ve got all these American women complaining about priesthood. Give me a break. Is it really that important? Shouldn’t we work to further the gospel no matter what our position in life is?
Almost every Catholic parish I’ve been to is run by women anyway. Most parish staffs are mostly women. I don’t see how women don’t have power in the Church simply because they cannot be ordained.
Sorry if I offended anyone, but I really need to get this out and discuss it.
[quote:k8863xaj]<bold statement>Personally, I think many American women have a mindset that they want it all or it’s not good enough.</bold statement> [/quote:k8863xaj]
I’m leaving the “bold statement” tags on for this whole thing.
And what about Canadian women? Honestly, I’m just saying, this isn’t just an American thing. It’s a *worldwide* thing. As long as you can say it’s an American problem, then you can blame American values and ignore the fact that there are causes other than cultural greed and ambition.
[quote:k8863xaj]There are many, many women’s issues the Church is dealing with right now like poverty, genital mutilation, abortion, AIDS, etc.[/quote:k8863xaj]
Yes, and how are they dealing with it? I haven’t seen the Church deal with genital mutilation, but the response to abortion: no change in doctrine, not possible. I’m not disagreeing with the doctrine; this is just how it looks to some women. AIDS: No condoms, no change in doctrine, don’t have sex. Same as it’s always been. Despite the logic and rationality behind this approach, it offers nothing new to women.It feels to me like the Church is telling me that it can’t stop me from being locally active, but it would really rather I get back in the kitchen and be a good little Catholic woman.
My friend Jane was part of the RCIA group I was in. She studies theology at her local seminary. All of her male classmates are becoming priests. She can’t, not because her dedication to God is any less, because she is any less able to fulfill the roles, but because she is a woman. On a basic level, the inability of women to become priests says that somehow, somewhere, we’re lacking something that men aren’t.
Yes, women are active on the parish level. Yes, we still have our essential vocation as baptised persons and can be in some positions, like youth ministers. But then, shouldn’t men be content with working on a parish level? Why do they need to be priests or deacons at all? After all, there are so many men’s issues, like violence, gun control, wars, and matters of everyday life that are being dealt with. Why would they ever want anything more, like becoming a priest?
Why should a woman’s religious call be different than a man’s?
Just to clarify:
I’m not digging a trench just for the sake of argument. I was raised to be vocal and contentious and question authority until I was satisfied with the answer. Right now, I’m not satisfied with the answers I’ve gotten from the priests and bishop I’ve asked. I wish I knew what it was about me and my gender that made us unable to participate in the sacrament and if I knew, maybe I’d accept it. But I haven’t found any answer yet that I’ll assent to.
[quote:1qwv2e35]Just to clarify:
I’m not digging a trench just for the sake of argument. I was raised to be vocal and contentious and question authority until I was satisfied with the answer. Right now, I’m not satisfied with the answers I’ve gotten from the priests and bishop I’ve asked. I wish I knew what it was about me and my gender that made us unable to participate in the sacrament and if I knew, maybe I’d accept it. But I haven’t found any answer yet that I’ll assent to.[/quote:1qwv2e35]
Assenting is not a matter of choice. This is part of the problem I address constantly. You have to now matter what when it is matters of faith and morality. I wish I could give you the magic answer to your question simply put there is not a definitive answer that will satisfy you. It is tradition and theology.
I take this from another thread I have written in:
[quote:1qwv2e35]Further, your wants and desires are not that of Gods always. If we accept the Church as ours and the faith as ours then it must dictate to us everything concerning faith, this has been learned by thousands of years and many councils, and men and women far greater then any of us. To presume we know better because [b:1qwv2e35]”we feel”[/b:1qwv2e35] it should be that way or that it is more fair that way is moot!
To sell short any part of the faith nullifies it. We cannot and must most make changes because of whims, personal feeling, or contemporary mindsets. We are Roman Catholics, Universal in faith, centered in Christ, authority give to the apostles and pasted through time to our Popes, who are the authority of our faith. Forget this modernistic, American, Canadian, whomever mindset that this isn’t fair! This is the faith assent accept and continue to pray for your salvation and those of your brothers and sister.
Christ work first, Gods will above all others, do this and you will know happiness and peace! If this offends, I make no apology, but we need to hear, listen and understand this![/quote:1qwv2e35]
2000 years and the faith is still here. No other Christian can claim that. The fountain the all of these Christian faiths sprung from is ours. We must be doing something right. If a Priest is allowed to marry, as in Orthodox Churches or in out early church history, only divides his responsibilities to the community. He his to live by Christ’s example. Christ moved to where he was need, no limitations, do we really want to tie down our Priests in that manner?? I do not. They need to move around and tend to us all as a [b:1qwv2e35][u:1qwv2e35]Father[/u:1qwv2e35][/b:1qwv2e35] would tend to his family!
I know that assenting isn’t a matter of choice. I have to accept it anyway–but the thing I’ve come to love about Catholicism is that I can attack every part of it with as much questioning and zeal and doubt as I do with this, and I get an answer that satisfies me. I don’t mean to be rebellious and I don’t think that my role is always to sit down and sht up, so I question things regularily because I want to understand everything I can.
To put it one way: The answer to “Why can’t gays marry?” is not “Because the Church has [i:2p0edx5t]always[/i:2p0edx5t] married men and women, silly!” it’s “The purpose of gender and marriage is procreation” and I can accept that so I do. I want to know why God has us do one thing and not another, why He has arranged the world one way and not another. Perhaps my failing is that when I can’t do that, I get upset and over-wrought and, but the thing is, I [i:2p0edx5t]just don’t get it[/i:2p0edx5t]. And I can nod and go along and smile politely if I don’t get it, but I don’t just want a faith where I follow blindly with no deeper appreciation of what I’m believeing. I’ve been trying to reconcile the dogma that women aren’t meant to be priests, and made some strides, and you won’t see my picketing my basilica anytime soon, but I want to understand this and I can’t.
Why is God always masculine? What is the purpose of woman? It seems illogical to me that He would create a human being with a soul and the same longing for Him, but with a lesser function. If the sole purpose of women was to bear children and nothing else, it would be kinder for us to reproduce by splitting in half like amoebas. Therefore, the function of women is not just to reproduce and nothing else. The Church teaches that the function of women is not to be priests or deacons or altar-servers.
So what [i:2p0edx5t]is[/i:2p0edx5t] the purpose of women? Why don’t we reproduce like amoebas do? There’s an official Vatican document that says, “the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.” What [i:2p0edx5t]is[/i:2p0edx5t] that role? What is appropriate for a woman to do in the Church?
I guess, if I did want anything changed in the Church and it is (as I’ve been told) absolutely totally 100% not on that women should be priests, I’d want the Church to clarify just what the spiritual purpose and vocation of women [i:2p0edx5t]is[/i:2p0edx5t].
[quote:1fvs46j9]I know that assenting isn’t a matter of choice. I have to accept it anyway–but the thing I’ve come to love about Catholicism is that I can attack every part of it with as much questioning and zeal and doubt as I do with this, and I get an answer that satisfies me. I don’t mean to be rebellious and I don’t think that my role is always to sit down and sht up, so I question things regularily because I want to understand everything I can. [/quote:1fvs46j9]
It is not okay to question everything about the Faith. Dogmatic teachings and Canon are the rule and are not to be questioned. They are the rock upon which Peter and the Apostles defined our Faith by. If we are to question our Faith, or any part of it, I would suggest only after prayer, reading of the Gospels and Scripture should one question the faith and do so of competent authority, ie Priests, Deacons, etc…
[quote:1fvs46j9]To put it one way: The answer to “Why can’t gays marry?” is not “Because the Church has always married men and women, silly!” it’s “The purpose of gender and marriage is procreation” and I can accept that so I do. I want to know why God has us do one thing and not another, why He has arranged the world one way and not another.[/quote:1fvs46j9]
This is a perfect example of God providence! And why we cannot always figure out or guess what his will is. We except it on faith. Why women cannot be Priest maybe of the same nature. We understand about gender and why sexes exists now due to our mental growth and what our sciences have helped us to understand. We may not be there yet concerning women and Priests. But does that invalidate a fact we just don’t know the reasons for yet?
The same holds true that we may learn in our growth that it is Gods will for women to enter into the Priesthood. But until that time we should not “guess” or “debate” God’s will on this or any other issue. Prayer, again, is what prepares the mind to hear and listen to the Holy Spirit, this is what is most important.
[quote:1fvs46j9]Why is God always masculine? What is the purpose of woman? It seems illogical to me that He would create a human being with a soul and the same longing for Him, but with a lesser function. If the sole purpose of women was to bear children and nothing else, it would be kinder for us to reproduce by splitting in half like amoebas. Therefore, the function of women is not just to reproduce and nothing else. The Church teaches that the function of women is not to be priests or deacons or altar-servers.
[/quote:1fvs46j9]You just wont like this, lol. God created women [b:1fvs46j9][u:1fvs46j9]for[/u:1fvs46j9][/b:1fvs46j9] man, because God saw that man was alone and that he needed a “suitable partner”.
[quote:1fvs46j9]18 The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.”
[i:1fvs46j9]Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees, Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, & United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board. (1996, c1986). The New American Bible : Translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources and the revised New Testament ( Ge 2:18 ) Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.[/i:1fvs46j9] [/quote:1fvs46j9]Further,
[quote:1fvs46j9]22 The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, 23 the man said:
“This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.” 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.
[i:1fvs46j9]Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees, Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, & United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board. (1996, c1986). The New American Bible : Translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources and the revised New Testament (Ge 2:22) Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. [/i:1fvs46j9][/quote:1fvs46j9]Women was created for man and when joined or married they become one. Women can be servers and in the early Church they were Deaconesses. I really am not sure why they cannot be now, but they were in the beginning and due to some counsel it was changed I figure.
[quote:1fvs46j9]So what is the purpose of women? Why don’t we reproduce like amoebas do? There’s an official Vatican document that says, “the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.” What is that role? What is appropriate for a woman to do in the Church? [/quote:1fvs46j9]
To support the Church, their husband, and they have the greatest gift of all they can bare children. This in it’s self is a gift above any man has. As a father I can attest to that! Consider the gift of bring life into this world!
[quote:1fvs46j9]I guess, if I did want anything changed in the Church and it is (as I’ve been told) absolutely totally 100% not on that women should be priests, I’d want the Church to clarify just what the spiritual purpose and vocation of women is.[/quote:1fvs46j9]
All will be revealed in time. God lets us know what we need to know and when we need to know it. God’s time isn’t ours and very often our time is rarely God’s.
” title=”Smile” />
[quote:2eyxkz7p]First of all, the Church is not allowed to change the teaching of only men becoming priest. However they can allow priest to marry in The Latin Rite. That is something they can change. Other rites are allowed to get married.
I have mixed thoughts about priests being able to marry. I think for SOME priests that marry, it may help the church. For others (which I have spoken to) it will only redirect their focus and not give the attention needed to the church. There is countless of pro and con arguments that are fair and understadable. In the end, it appeared to me that it depended on the priest. Some would do just fine being married and others it would be best they shouldnt be married. From my understading most priest would not rather not marry. At some point the Church decided that it would be best for the priest to not marry to better serve the Church. That is their bride.
What I think is odd is all these polls are asking catholics what they want but they don’t bother asking the priest what they want.
~Victor[/quote:2eyxkz7p]
I’ll throw my two cents into this discussion. I admit though that is all it will be worth.
” title=”Smile” />As Victor wrote, there already are married priests. The Church must feel that marriage in and of itself is not a detriment to the duties of a priest. Perhaps married priests may be able to counsel married couples better in some situations than an unmarried priest. But I wonder if married priests should be allowed the opportunity to advance up the Church’s hierarchy. Can they do so now? I believe that in many priests would not get married if they could do so.
As to women priests and gay marriage….. I just trust the judgement of the Church on these issues. In the past I have made decisions that have gone against the teachings of the Church. I thought I knew better than the Church. Every time I have lived to regret them.
” title=”Sad” /> Call me a wimp if you like, but it is comforting to know that greater minds (and hearts) than mine are making such discisions.I really wonder if many of those who are calling for radical changes in the Church would bother to show up for mass two Sundays after they were to be put into place. No offense intended to those here who disagree with me. I know that many sincere Catholics have different opinions than mine. Still, I also truly believe that many only want to push their agenda and do not have the best interest of the Church at heart.
Just my $.02 worth.
[quote:e81ndia8]But I wonder if married priests should be allowed the opportunity to advance up the Church’s hierarchy. Can they do so now?[/quote:e81ndia8]
No, the married Eastern Rite priests are not allowed to be consecrated bishops.
Peace be with you Jon and Victor,
I had heard that there had been Eastern Rite converts to the Latin Rite and they were allowed to remain as Priest and be married. I have nothing to support that, just a rumor I had heard here in my Archdiocese.
[quote:3dtw9uj5]I had heard that there had been Eastern Rite converts to the Latin Rite and they were allowed to remain as Priest and be married. I have nothing to support that, just a rumor I had heard here in my Archdiocese.[/quote:3dtw9uj5]
Similar topic here: http://www.aboutcatholics.com/community … .php?t=538
[quote:33dr1ckg]Women can be servers and in the early Church they were Deaconesses.[/quote:33dr1ckg]
I found the following at [url:33dr1ckg]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp[/url:33dr1ckg]
Here let me paste the relevant section:
[b:33dr1ckg]Proposition:[/b:33dr1ckg] [i:33dr1ckg]”Historically there is evidence of female ordination in the early Church, as seen in the gnostic sects that were discredited by the so-called ‘orthodox’ groups.” [/i:33dr1ckg]
It is certainly true that some early gnostic (meaning “special knowledge”) groups favored a more active role for women. Feminist theologians such as Rosemary Radford Ruether point to these groups and proclaim that they offered women greater status before “patriarchal” orthodoxy discredited the gnostic believers.
But two important points must be noted. First, the questionable beliefs of gnostic groups also included dangerous Christological errors (such as a “Jesus” who never had a physical body. Second, while Ruether points to gnostic texts which seem to support feminist causes, she ignores other gnostic texts which state that “women are not worthy of life” and “must become male” in order to reach heaven (the Gospel of Thomas). Overall, the gnostic texts are recognized as a mixed bag of speculative theological teachings and damaging heresies, the latter being rooted out by early Church leaders.
[quote:34bty3bl]All will be revealed in time. God lets us know what we need to know and when we need to know it. God’s time isn’t ours and very often our time is rarely God’s. [/quote:34bty3bl]
Is this like doctrinal development Fred?
Perhaps you can start another post where we can discuss this. I want to get your thoughts on your understanding of this.Sorry for going off topic everyone.
~Victor
[quote:sjn17i9x]Is this like doctrinal development Fred?
Perhaps you can start another post where we can discuss this. I want to get your thoughts on your understanding of this.[/quote:sjn17i9x]
Or you can just continue here: http://www.aboutcatholics.com/community … .php?t=541
Thanks Jon. I remember now.
~Victor
[quote:1zlh8kl6]It is not okay to question everything about the Faith. Dogmatic teachings and Canon are the rule and are not to be questioned. They are the rock upon which Peter and the Apostles defined our Faith by. If we are to question our Faith, or any part of it, I would suggest only after prayer, reading of the Gospels and Scripture should one question the faith and do so of competent authority, ie Priests, Deacons, etc… [/quote:1zlh8kl6]
Yet that seems to contradict the Not forming your consciousness a sin?[/url:1zlh8kl6] thread. If I can work this out for myself so I’m content, I will. You can bet that I’ll be asking everyone who knows anything about it, including my priest and local seminarians, but of all my personal qualities, serenity is the one I need to cultivate most. I can’t stop asking questions and I don’t question Church teachings as much in the “This sucks! Convince me it’s not” tone that I might have taken on here. It’s more in the, “What is it? Why? When was it brought in? Who believes it? Who doesn’t? What would happen if we believed differently?” manner. What can I say? Insatiable curiosity.I’ve been alternating reading the bible and The Book of the City of Three Ladies by Christine de Pizan while I wasn’t studying, and I think it ought to be read more often when asking questions about Christian feminism. Its author, a woman writer of the middle ages, systematically defends women against attacks claiming that they are naturally more sinful than men and altogether useless, but the positive image she paints of women, being virtuous, doing good whenever possible, and loving God and her husband steadfastly, is probably what I needed to read in alternation with the Bible, since she has a habit of picking up biblical teachings, passages, or people, and examining how they can be applied to real women.
If I’m annoying any of you, I apologise and I can quiet down.
…But not yet. Just a minute.
[quote:1zlh8kl6]First, the questionable beliefs of gnostic groups also included dangerous Christological errors (such as a “Jesus” who never had a physical body.[/quote:1zlh8kl6]
I’ve read something very similar to this nowadays. In a magazine my brother subscribes to about theological issues, the author explained that it didn’t matter at all whether or not there was a real, living, breathing Jesus and in all probability Jesus didn’t exist at all, but the emotional significance of the myth was enough to stand on its own.It made me surly for quite some time. The Bible isn’t a book of fairytales.
” title=”Smile” />
” title=”Sad” /> Call me a wimp if you like, but it is comforting to know that greater minds (and hearts) than mine are making such discisions.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.