The Catholic Church is Patriarchal, what about the Laity?

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, in the past here on WP there have been Catholic's who've defended Catholicism by saying that Catholics ≠ The Church of Rome. This was especially apparent during the revelations of a vast cover up of sex abuse in the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church. Well, this seemed odd - a distinctive feature of Catholicism, after all, is the centralization of Church authority - this distinguishes it from the more individualistic faith of certain Protestants and even the Anglicans (to an extent). Well, anyways, I've chanced upon this statement:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3677870 ... t=#3677870

So, I'm asking lay Catholics on WP this question: is the Church's stance on the ordination of women priests the same as God's stance?

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 26 May 2011, 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

A woman could be a Priest, the Church cannot go further than the power given to it by Christ, whilst he lived (thank you St. Thomas More for that one).

I declare 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 of John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, On Reserving Priestly Ordination To Men Alone, May 22, 1994, n. 4.)

As to the charge of misogyny, stating that men and women have different roles does not make on a hater of women.

The logical consequence of basing an institution on more or less pure fiction dashed with blind allegiance to meritless authority. Of course I suppose the lack of any evidence that Christ demanded the Catholic Church never to ordain doesn't matter, does it?



You're right, with sufficent mental gymnastics stating that women aren't worthy of top-ranking spiritual leadership positions and must largely confine themselves to the less (in institutional terms) powerful private sphere isn't necessarily misogynist. I hereby rechristen this thread on Catholic Patriarchy rather than Catholic misogyny!

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 26 May 2011, 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

If you want to see the full argument, then read the full statement I quoted. I would not do quite so good of a job at explaining the theology as John Paul II.



Yeah i know picking up a dictionary is just so difficult. Perhaps if you did, you would also know how to spell gymnastics (interesting, some feminists might call that particular spelling a Freudian slip... it would be just about as charitable as your accusation).

As to the charge that the Catholic Church is Patriarchal, I would also disagree. Who says that the role of Pope is the top job for a Catholic. The reality is that the 'top ranking' job for all Catholics is not that of the papacy, but rather that of sainthood. The last time I checked sainthood what an equal opportunity job.

I am not a professed Catholic, but I would still concur.


Considering the above from within so-called "laity", I do not see how a woman could serve in said capacity. However, that is far more a matter of simple role assignment than of even the slightest bit of inferiority.

In fact, a society or organization or any body of humans in which the men and women do not sort themselves into distinct roles, in which the natural warriors and the natural clerks and the natural scientists do not sort into different niches, in which the gregarious and the solitary are not distinguishable is a highly unnatural construct and can be sustained only by bonsai methods, vigorously repressing human nature and sacrificing comfortg and efficiency for agherence to an abstract stupidity.

Certainly, a particular woman may be as well or better qualified for a specific job as / than a particular man. But some jobs bring in features other than efficiency. I was once a candidate for a teaching job. It went to someone who did not know the language at all well, who was a historian busy teachig courses in his own field, not a linguist. He got it because his ethnicity matched - and was important to those hiring.

The real question is, if the members of a given church seriously doubt the intelligence, the intentions, and the theological discernment of the clergy, why in heaven's name would they stay? Christ does not even insist on a formal organization.

It is fine and even accurate to say that an organization whose terrestrial CEO is by statute male is a patriarchy [arguably a patriarchate?]. But one DOES hope that saying this does not get construed as implying a mean-spirited power grabbing, that one is not so much protesting the practicde as taking the time to find oun on what principle it rests.

I can think of at least one "church" in my past, and in a rather unique setting, where a certain woman perfectly-filled the role of "pastor-teacher", but then no woman following after her could get the job done and a man who still does not match what she had once done there has since filled the role of pastor-teacher.

Actually, it was Paul who stated that women shouldn't teach, but cover their heads and keep quiet in the churches. That wasn't Jesus.

And, why have women given up covering their heads in church? To assert that they are no longer under man's authority?

The Catholic Church goes more on church tradition than on the Bible. Traditions change over time.

"... 'Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.'"
(Jeremiah 16:19)

Traditions that are a matter of custom can and do change; but we mean more than that when we talk about Tradition (capital letter and all).

The problem still remaining, however, is in the fact of mere traditions of men seeming to be transfigured into Tradition (such as the first day of the week now overshadowing the S/sabbath, for example).

A woman cannot be a Priest. But she can be a Priestess.

ruveyn

Always has been and always will be a problem - tradition being popularly elevated to the level of Tradition, I mean. But that's where the - *ahem* - Patriarch of Rome steps in.

(Oh, and in answer to the OP's question, 'yes'.)

MP - from you as OP I do not want to hijack this, and will be happy to take up either or both these points elsewhere if they seem to diluting, but two points of what seems to me relevance:

1. Many Evangelical groups, to my knowledge, take and run with Paul's not letting a woman teach and will not consider a female pastor [shepherdess?]. The Orthodox churches are also in step with the Roman Church on this.

2. Years ago I was stuck attending a meet of language chairmen [all men that year] at which one head of a big department - a moderately offensive person by my stndrards - bemoaned the fact that most degree candidates these days are women. His pont being, men tend [see other statements] to seek lucrative positions of power, and an increasing feminization implies that language teaching is seen by the public as a field for losers of no economic import.

Funny that the branches of Christianity that most diefy the Virgin Mary, the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic, are the ones that forbid female clergy whereas the unrelentingly male god of the Protestants typically allows female ministers.

Apparently there are seperate glass ceilings for goddesses and for mortal women in religion.

In certain denominations (United Methodists, Presbyterian) the proportion of female clergy does seem to be growing.

They're also losing ground to the Evangelicals, who do bring in boatloads of cash.