|
|
 |
Mary
wrote:
|
|
Hi there,
I feel passionate about some aspects of Catholicism,
but have huge problems with the Church's stand
on women priests and homosexuality as being
sinful. My question does not ask for a defense
of these positions — I have read the
responses available on this web site and they
upset me. (e.g. Jesus chose to
be a man when he came to earth therefore women
will never be worthy to be priests — a
paraphrase of a previous answer). I also know
that Catholicism does not disrespect women
due to the special role it gives the Holy
Mother.
My question is whether or not I can pray
to God to help us increase society's
— and the Church's — respect
for the rights of women and gay, lesbian,
and bisexual individuals?
For example, can I, as a woman, include in
my prayers,
"May You offer insight to those who
do your work so that the Church may more
fully welcome women into the priesthood
and gay, lesbian, and bisexual people into
her arms without seeking to cure their
sexuality."
I have a feeling I'm not going to like the
answer you're going to give me, but I so desperately
want my relationship with the Church and God
to grow.
Thank you so much for your time and attention,
Mary
|
|
{
Can
I pray to God to help us in areas where I disagree with the teachings
of the Church? }
|
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Hi, Mary —
You may pray however you like, but
add:
"Thy will be done."
and ask the Lord to give you light.
Mary Ann
|
Mary
replied:
|
Thank you so much, Mary Ann.
I really appreciate the work you
and your colleagues do on your web
site — it has been a great
asset to me on my faith journey.
Mary
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
You're welcome!
I would like to add that the fact
that women aren't priests is not
because Christ was male.
Christ was male:
- first, because he had to become
the lowest of the low, the servant
of all, even all life!
- second, because of the work He
had to do.
He had to reveal the Father as the
source of life, not show Himself
as the source.
A woman is obviously visually a source
of life, and one cannot escape that.
She is a kind of terminus of attention,
the bearer and bringer forth of life.
The priest must not capture attention,
but must be transparent to the Source
of all, the Father, and reveal Him
as working.
Men's first expression, sense of
themselves, is functional. Women's
is being, relational. So while Christ
does give birth to the Church on
Calvary, an act of the Spirit, and
is sometimes referred to by saints
as motherly, his imaging of God is
male for a reason. Of course, all
humans are feminine to God - not
female, but feminine.
Hope this helps,
Mary Ann
|
John
replied:
|
Hi, Mary —
Actually the matter of a male priesthood
is pretty simple and has more to
do with the nature of Holy Orders
then the qualifications and natural
ability of a male or female.
Christ only ordained men. We have
no record of Christ ordaining women.
Therefore, the Church is limited
in her authority to ordain men.
For a sacrament to be valid, three elements
must be present.
- Correct Form [the words]
- Correct Matter
- Correct Intention
If one of those elements is missing,
the sacrament is not valid.
So for instance, the Matter involved
in the Eucharist is wheat bread and
grape wine. A priest cannot consecrate
sushi and saki or beer nuts and Budweiser.
If he were to attempt to consecrate
invalid matter, nothing would happen.
No transubstantiation would take
place.
Likewise with Holy Orders, the proper
matter is a baptized male. Period,
End of Story, Exclamation Point!
If a Bishop were to attempt to Ordain
an unbaptized male or a female, nothing
would happen. The Holy Spirit would
not descend, He, the Holy Spirit,
would not configure the person to
Christ and the person would not receive
the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
The
woman might walk away thinking she
was ordained. She might even be a
better preacher or more pastoral
than a real priest, but she would
not be a priest. When she attempts
to consecrate the Eucharist, nothing
would happen. When she attempts to
absolve a sinner in the confessional,
nothing would happen.
In short; a woman becoming a priest
is a total theological impossibility.
John
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
John,
There is also the principal
point that a sacrament is the extension
of the willed deed of Christ. Christ
willed to ordain men, so there it
is. However, I was presuming she
had read all of that on the site,
and was just adding something that
I have found helps people see things
in a new light. It's just my own
thought.
What I was doing was attempting to
explain why it is fitting that the
High Priest (Jesus) is male, and
all priests are male. Female priestesses
are usually priests of fertility
cults, for obvious reasons.
Mary Ann
|
Mary
replied:
|
Mary Ann,
I did find your comment very helpful,
especially its connection with the
idea of God as a creating force and
Jesus's creation of the Church as
an act of maternal love.
John, your comment unfortunately
brought me back to one of the most
discouraging aspects of the Catholic
Church for me.
I prefer to think of the ways that
the Church allows women to be special
and meaningful.
(e.g. stories of Jesus and the women
who followed him and helped him,
the respect that Jesus shows to his
Mother, Mary as a patient, virtuous
and strong woman) rather than focusing
on ways that they are not. (e.g.
the idea that Jesus only ordained
men)
I feel I'm pretty aware of the historical
and Biblical precedents for the male
priesthood — I'm just trying
to reconcile my feminist beliefs
with a Church in which I occasionally
feel neglected. I have been, for
all intents and purposes, away from
the Church since the 8th grade when
I graduated from my Catholic Elementary
School in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
I have been trying to find my way
back for two or three years. I love
God and want to be closer to Him,
but the logic part of my brain gets
stuck on a few ideas like this, and
arguing about it just makes me see
more loopholes.
I think in an earlier post (re: Transubstantiation),
I saw your team recommend not to
be too concerned about being uncertain about
certain aspects of the faith, as
long as the intention
to believe is there.
I recently read The Case for God
by theologian Karen Armstrong. In
it, she recommends an approach to
faith that relies upon the infinite
nature of God and how truly beyond
comprehension He and His plans for
us are. I think this falls into the beyond
my comprehension category.
Anyway, my original question about
the [validity|morality] of my prayers
has been answered!
Thanks to both of you,
Mary
|
John
replied:
|
Mary Ann,
I'm not questioning your answer at
all. You put some meat on
the bones.
My real short answer to the question
is the reason a woman can't become
a priest is the same reason a male
can't get pregnant.
It is about being. It
has nothing to do with ability or
qualifications.
John
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Well . . . OK,
As long as one does not
say that there is something about
the being of a male that is superior
to the being of a female. The difference
between males and females is not
metaphysical, not on that level of
being, but the priestly character
is ontological, meaning it modifies
his being . . . not in being itself,
but as the quality of an act.
To be Christian, is to be conformed
to Christ, as men and women both
are equally. (And women, most likely,
are better conformed to him more
often! : ) But there is a
special and different conformation
to Christ in His role, His function,
as High Priest (a role He has in
virtue of his two natures), and to
be conformed to that function one
must be male.
The word persona in "in persona Christ" comes from the Greek
word which designated the mask worn
by an actor who played a role. The
priest acts as Christ, and Christ
acts through his acts,
not his being. The priestly character
is a modification of the power to
act, according to
St. Thomas, which renders his power
to act capable of being taken up
by Christ so that his acts become
Christ's acts in a unique way (not
in a way that accrues to the priest
at all, but in a way that serves
the people of God).
Unfortunately, in modern times, in
a reaction against Protestantism,
we have begun to almost deify priests,
and that is a terrible burden for
them.
Mary Ann
|
Mary
replied:
|
John — you made me smile!
- Let's celebrate our own unique abilities,
shall we?
Cheers,
Mary
|
John
replied:
|
Amen to that Mary,
And if we can
be any help to you on your journey,
please feel free to write again.
We will pray for you.
God Bless,
John
|
Mary
replied:
|
Mary Ann,
The idea of seeing God through the
priest's actions was also extremely
useful to me — in the same
way that we hear the Word of God
through the lectionaries, we see
Christ through the actions of the
priest. In this way, it almost becomes
less relevant who God is working
through — He's simply working,
but I'm calling it a night for now.
P.S. — I feel like I'm back
in graduate school again!
Mary
|
Mike
replied:
|
Hi Mary,
I've been reading with interest the
dialogue between you, Mary Ann, and
John.
You said in your original question:
I also know that
Catholicism does not disrespect women
due to the special role it gives
the Holy Mother.
- Can you clarify your answer for me?
Mike
|
Mary
replied:
|
Folks,
Thank you for CC'ing me — it is
refreshing to know that there is
this sort of dialogue between the
faithful and emphasizes the fact
that the Church is a living, breathing,
thinking entity rather than a stale,
unthinking because-it's-tradition place.
Mike —
What I meant by Catholicism respecting
women because of the special role
it gives the Virgin is this: I think
a lot of other religions tend to
glance over Catholicism because it
does not allow women into the priesthood.
I think those religions equate a
lack of authority with a lack of
respect.
What I meant to say is that Catholicism
respects women in a way that is different
from what we typically see as respect.
In other words, we tend to assume
that if a woman is not allowed
to do something, it is because she
is not respected. I know Catholicism
respects women — I just wish
it would allow them to do a little
bit more.
- Does that clarify what I meant?
I'd like to ask one more question,
if I may. We typically assign the
gender roles of He to God and She
to the Church.
- Do you folks think of these gender
roles as absolute, or are they
just useful markers?
I, for one, tend to think of God
as beyond gender — or at least
beyond my ability to classify Him.
I think it is awfully bold of us
to attempt to limit God to a He formation,
in that we use He
as a stand-in for something greater.
- What are your thoughts on this?
Cheers,
Mary
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Mary,
The reason we call God He is
to respect His wishes. He is not
an It. He is beyond male or female,
male and female together image Him but He reveals Himself to us as He.
It is good manners to call a person
by the name he gives you! : )
The Church is She because She is
the new People of God to whom the
Lord is espoused, and because she
brings forth Christ in us, and nourishes
us with Him, who is Life. We are
all She with regard to
God; the soul is always spoken of
as She and languages
with gender are always feminine,
because we receive everything from
God.
Sex is the analogy God used for His
relationship to us. Gender, in language,
is our expression of that. We are
limited, God is not. We can't
de-sex language any more than we
can de-sex ourselves, though many
try.
As far as women doing things
is concerned, two points:
- the clergy exists to bring Christ
to nourish the laity to do the
work of God in redeeming the world.
- the real work is
the caring, feeding, healing,
cleansing, suffering, dying that
Christ did. The laity are on the
front lines.
Doing more at Church is nice, and
we can participate in the educational
efforts and charitable efforts of
the Church but to consider that doing
more, must include being up
in the Sanctuary, is to be a clericalist.
One sort of expects clerics to succumb
to the temptation of clericalism,
but when laity become clerical, the
end is near . . . as we have seen
with sex abuse, when so many laity
stood up for Father so and so against
the mere lay victims.
Mary Ann
|
Mike
replied:
|
Hi guys,
I've enjoyed reading this dialogue.
Thanks Mary, your reply did clarify
my confusion. I found it interesting
and enlightening for a cradle Catholic
like me.
Thanks a bunch!
You said:
Thank you for
CC'ing me — it is refreshing to
know that there is this sort of dialogue
between the faithful and emphasizes
the fact that the Church is a living,
breathing, thinking entity rather
than a stale, unthinking because-it's-tradition place.
I've found the last fourteen years as an on-line Catholic Apologist
refreshing as well.
It's great how
the AAC team works off each others strengths.
Yeah, every once in a while we'll
have a few family fights over a difference
of opinion, but we can take constructive
criticism well because we focus on
Christ, His Church, and His Truth.
The worst we'll end up with is a
bruised ego.
Mike
|
John
replied:
|
Just to add to your comments.
We tend to forget what the Gospel
is. Jesus Christ came and died for our sins. We need His salvation which
is given by grace, accessed by faith
and perfected as we cooperate with
sanctifying grace.
Jesus Christ did not come to validate
the political agenda of special interest
groups. He came to empower us to
become sons of God. He didn't come
to empower us, fulfill our personal
need to be actualized or some other
modern day dribble.
The Church deals in objective truth.
It's not about making people feel
this way or that way, because it's
not about feelings. It's about faith
which is not a feeling. We are all
called to submit to the faith. We
don't lose reason in the process,
but it's certainly not about feelings.
Jesus came and revealed God to be
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We
have no right to change the Fatherhood
of God to something else to appease
the social agenda of a particular
group.
Jesus came as a Jew. We can't make
Him an Arab or a descendent of Ismael
to appease the Arabs.
The facts are the facts.
John
|
|
|
|
