The Church's "stance" on women.

gwendolynclare

On the roll call board, half the participants said they disliked people's perceptions of what the Church teaches and the other half said they disliked the Church's teaching on women.  With that in mind, if you dislike the Church's teaching on women, what is your perception of what that teaching actually is?

And I'm really interested in sincere responses and not into flame wars.   I think we can be civil and respectful.

Calypso1977

i am assuming that they find women "inferior" since we cant be priests.  at least, that is the argument i hear from friends of mine who have this view.

while i dont have a problemw ith the church's "stance" on women, i did personally struggle in pre-cana with the whole "man is the head of the household" concept.  i understand it, but its hard for me and we dont really practice that theory in our home.

mica178

But Eph 5 is not Catholic-specific.  H thinks he's the head of the household, and I generally allow him to think he is, but sometimes the tail leads the dog.  I get the concept that there can only be one head, but even in companies and governments, there's the acknowledged leader/figurehead, and there are the people that actually make things happen.

I think that many people question why women can't be priests or perform certain functions.  I grew up in a conservative church, and as a girl, we couldn't carry the cross in the procession, but we were more than welcome to help serve pancakes at the fundraiser after mass.  I hated that.  However, nowadays, I see female EMs and altar girls, so I know that things are changing.  But I don't feel the need to see a female as priest to feel good about Catholicism.  Wonderful things have been done and written by Catholic females (think about St. Teresa de Avila or Mother Teresa).  

catarntina

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_churchs-stance-women?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:bbc93501-bba9-479f-b70c-edcd1308dfdePost:6799fb68-c280-438a-8391-d40c0cf450d5">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]i am assuming that they find women "inferior" since we cant be priests.  at least, that is the argument i hear from friends of mine who have this view. while i dont have a problemw ith the church's "stance" on women, i did personally struggle in pre-cana with the whole "man is the head of the household" concept.  i understand it, but its hard for me and we dont really practice that theory in our home.
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

In my pre-cana class, they told us that the man was supposed to work.  The woman was supposed to rear the children.  And the woman needed to have her husband's slippers ready for him when he gets home.  I kid you not.

I laughed in their faces and said it was not going to happen (I make 4 times my husband's salary, so clearly I am not going to be the one staying home).

Meg1036

I feel a bit baited by this question, so this may be my one and only reply (if only because some of my thoughts on this were branded heretical in a previous thread).  I am not particularly interested in debating this, or having particular church teachings/bible readings tossed at me about this.  I am a bit skeptical that this conversation can go well.  (Sorry if this sounds a bit standoff-ish.  I have just really started to enjoy this board in the last week, and don't want it to descend into contensiousness).

I understand that the church teaches that men and women are equal but perform different roles.  And I really just can't accept that/have a hard time with it.  Certainly, we perform biologically different roles.  But nowhere else in my life do I accept that my actions, contributions, or potential is based at all upon my gender.  So the idea that there are roles within the church that are closed to women, or that my FI is supposed to be head of household and is responsible for me (although I particularly like Mica's comments on this), or basically that men and women should have a different relationship to Christ due only to their gender; I reject that completely.  I was given a set of gifts to use as best I can.  It seems that separating identity by gender may limit my ability to use those gifts.

I see that those different roles exist in the bible; but we can ultimately never know whether it is actually due to God's plan, or a product of the time in which Christ was here.  I have seen and read scholarly arguments about how if Christ meant for women to be priests, he would have had women apostles.  But ultimately, we can never know, so it seems that we should open all kinds of ministry to all kinds of people.

Edited: clarity.

Calypso1977

I see that those different roles exist in the bible; but we can ultimately never know whether it is actually due to God's plan, or a product of the time in which Christ was here.

very interesting thought....

woodie

I like to focus on Mary ....without her, we wouldn't have Jesus. 

lmeade62

Corinthians Chapter 12:12-25:

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ.

For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

For the body is not one member, but many. If a foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; the is therefore not of the body. And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; it is therefore not of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing; If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

But now hath God set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now they are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee: or again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Nay, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary; and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness; whereas our comely parts have no need: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor that part which lacked; that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

This passage, which I found while I was in RCIA, helped me have a different perspective on the argument about women not being priests. Just because we can't be priests, doesn't mean we don't have important roles to play. It takes all kinds of roles and all of them are valuable and crucial to the success of the Church.

If everyone were a head, our Church body would be pretty funny looking!! And wouldn't be able to walk very far...

Linda

monkeysip

I don't want to get too deep into the entire debate on gender roles within the Church, but there is something I thought I would mention that may be slightly helpful for those on the board who have difficulty with the Church's teachings.

The Church teaches that men and women serve different roles within the Church, family, and society, BUT it would be a mistake to believe that this necessarily means that men and women are born with completely different talents and abilities.  

For example, it is well known that women cannot be priests in the Catholic Church.  Have not ever and will not ever in the future.  But, some Catholics mistakingly believe that this is because a woman is not *capable* of being a priest by virtue of some skill, talent, or ability that she is lacking (i.e. she lacks leadership abilities, wisdom, or administrative skills or something)

The reverse mistake is made for men.  Some think that men can't be mothers because they're deficient in some kind of personal trait, such as the ability to nurture, comfort, or educate.  

But this is not Church teaching.  In fact, there are probably many women that are equally or even more qualified for the duties of the priesthood than some men.  And there may be some men that are equally or even more qualified for the duties of a mother than some women.

Instead, I believe that God has given us separate roles not because of what we already are, but who he wants us to be.  There are plenty of women with leadership skills, intelligence, strength, courage, etc.  But perhaps he prefers them to be mothers to help develop the other virtues in them so that they may be complete and whole persons.  There are plenty of men with nurturing qualities whom God may be trying to form into more courageous leaders by calling them to the priesthood or as fathers.  In the end, they will be more complete and whole persons.

Either way, we must remember that men are fathers and women are mothers not in strict 1950s stereotypical ways.  To be a father means to protect and care for the Church, society and your family.  To be a mother means to nurture and care for the Church, society, and your family.  Sometimes being a good father may mean staying home.  Sometimes being a good mother may mean going to work.  There are no predetermined rules, but in either case, a father and a mother will put others first.

In that way, our roles are not biologically determined limitations we are born with. They are vocations that God has called us to strive for.  They say nothing of our deficiencies.  Rather, they speak of God's overall plan for us.

ootmother2

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_churchs-stance-women?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:bbc93501-bba9-479f-b70c-edcd1308dfdePost:f86f724e-b7c5-4d93-bbac-e3fdb6edb33b">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]I feel a bit baited by this question, so this may be my one and only reply (if only because some of my thoughts on this were branded heretical in a previous thread).  I am not particularly interested in debating this, or having particular church teachings/bible readings tossed at me about this.  I am a bit skeptical that this conversation can go well.  (Sorry if this sounds a bit standoff-ish.  I have just really started to enjoy this board in the last week, and don't want it to descend into contensiousness). I understand that the church teaches that men and women are equal but perform different roles.  And I really just can't accept that/have a hard time with it.  Certainly, we perform biologically different roles.  But nowhere else in my life do I accept that my actions, contributions, or potential is based at all upon my gender.  So the idea that there are roles within the church that are closed to women, or that my FI is supposed to be head of household and is responsible for me (although I particularly like Mica's comments on this), or basically that men and women should have a different relationship to Christ due only to their gender; I reject that completely.  I was given a set of gifts to use as best I can.  It seems that separating identity by gender may limit my ability to use those gifts. I see that those different roles exist in the bible; but we can ultimately never know whether it is actually due to God's plan, or a product of the time in which Christ was here.  I have seen and read scholarly arguments about how if Christ meant for women to be priests, he would have had women apostles.  But ultimately, we can never know, so it seems that we should open all kinds of ministry to all kinds of people. Edited: clarity.
Posted by Meg1036[/QUOTE]


Question, Meg.

How do we know that He didn't have women apostles?

ETA:  I had this discussion with the pastor of my church recently and he admits that no one knows for certain.  Mary Magdalene was a very close follower of Christ, perhaps as much as the named apostles.

Meg1036

Color me very impressed with the interesting thoughts here.   Thanks for the ideas.

mica178

I always consider Mary Magdalene as one of Jesus' apostles.

ootmother2

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_churchs-stance-women?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:bbc93501-bba9-479f-b70c-edcd1308dfdePost:bb90c7b7-539d-40b0-908f-57e21f045514">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]I always consider Mary Magdalene as one of Jesus' apostles.
Posted by mica178[/QUOTE]

yes, AND she stayed with Jesus as he bore the cross to his death.  Why would the church not consider her an apostle.

Because.....?

Other than the fact the the NT was written before many women knew how to read and write.


mmm, mica

Hope61

Monkeysip had a great answer

As for the apostles question.... a quick google search led me here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

I only read the first few sections, that seems to explain the women apostles question well enough. "Apostle" in the sense of "messenger" or "delegate" could apply to a very many people. But there were also 12 men who Christ Himself clearly named as His apostles, and He reserved the term for them. Mary Magdalene was a very close disciple, perhaps as close or closer to Christ than some of the twelve. She just had a different role than the named apostles.

ootmother2

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_churchs-stance-women?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:bbc93501-bba9-479f-b70c-edcd1308dfdePost:bb90c7b7-539d-40b0-908f-57e21f045514">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]I always consider Mary Magdalene as one of Jesus' apostles.
Posted by mica178[/QUOTE]

I think so as well, mica.

It was Mary who found the empty tomb on Easter Sunday and she spred the word that Jesus had been raised from the dead

ootmother2

"The angel spoke to the women one more time.
"Go quickly and tell the other disciples that Jesus has risen from the dead.and he is going into Galilee where you will see him."

I won't quote more but the women went to Peter who didn't believe them so he went to see for himself.

So these women played a very important role as friends of Jesus.

Why believe they were not apostles?

ootmother2

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_churchs-stance-women?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:bbc93501-bba9-479f-b70c-edcd1308dfdePost:62143d01-56c8-42da-8402-6532984c043b">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]Color me very impressed with the interesting thoughts here.   Thanks for the ideas.
Posted by Meg1036[/QUOTE]

Meg, I reread your reply twice and I strongly agree with your points

monkeysip

Right, it just depends on how you mean "apostle".  If you mean disciple, then of course Mary was an apostle.  As were many other women (and other men). If you mean the chosen ones of Christ, those whom Christ laid hands on, breathed upon, and delegated to found the Church and forgive sins, then no, Mary was no such apostle.

There is no historical evidence that any woman ever received the ordination of Bishop, presbyter, or deacon.  There were deaconesses, but there's at least a dozen statements from councils and fathers explaining that these women were not ordained. Rather, women were placed as deaconesses to take care of certain administrative duties in the Church or to do things that might not be as appropriate for a man, such as baptize women or bring the eucharist to housebound women. 

This goes back to my earlier point.  Just because the priesthood is for men doesn't mean that men are somehow more virtuous or closer to God.  Consider the Gospels.  The Church recognizes the Virgin Mary as the ONLY sinless human being besides Christ, as the very first Christian, and the one person that stayed with Christ from birth to the foot of the cross, and finally at the empty tomb.  But she wasn't selected as part of the 12.  Neither were the many other women, like Mary Magdalene, who supported Christ when the men ran away.  The 12 apostles were no holier, more devout, or even more courageous than many of the women in Christ's life, but Christ held separate special places for the men and the women. The men may have been out casting out demons and the like, but Mary Magdalene was given the supreme privilege to spend her days sitting with Christ, listening to him speak.

Same could be said for the Virgin Mary.  No, she never got to consecrate the eucharist or forgive sins, but she got to bear the Christ in her womb.  Of course, she is the only woman with that privilege, but the ability to carry life in our wombs is something men will never be able to know.  Let them have the priesthood.  For me, I think we got the better end of the deal.  

clearheavens

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_churchs-stance-women?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:bbc93501-bba9-479f-b70c-edcd1308dfdePost:f5fe72a8-f8e9-44d0-9c22-d5e6f56c9463">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]Right, it just depends on how you mean "apostle".  If you mean disciple, then of course Mary was an apostle.  As were many other women (and other men). If you mean the chosen ones of Christ, those whom Christ laid hands on, breathed upon, and delegated to found the Church and forgive sins, then no, Mary was no such apostle. There is no historical evidence that any woman ever received the ordination of Bishop, presbyter, or deacon.  There were deaconesses, but there's at least a dozen statements from councils and fathers explaining that these women were not ordained. Rather, women were placed as deaconesses to take care of certain administrative duties in the Church or to do things that might not be as appropriate for a man, such as baptize women or bring the eucharist to housebound women.  This goes back to my earlier point. <strong> Just because the priesthood is for men doesn't mean that men are somehow more virtuous or closer to God. </strong> Consider the Gospels.  The Church recognizes the Virgin Mary as the ONLY sinless human being besides Christ, as the very first Christian, and the one person that stayed with Christ from birth to the foot of the cross, and finally at the empty tomb.  But she wasn't selected as part of the 12.  Neither were the many other women, like Mary Magdalene, who supported Christ when the men ran away.  The 12 apostles were no holier, more devout, or even more courageous than many of the women in Christ's life, but<strong> Christ held separate special places for the men and the women.</strong> The men may have been out casting out demons and the like, but Mary Magdalene was given the supreme privilege to spend her days sitting with Christ, listening to him speak. Same could be said for the Virgin Mary.  No, she never got to consecrate the eucharist or forgive sins, but she got to bear the Christ in her womb.  Of course, she is the only woman with that privilege, but the ability to carry life in our wombs is something men will never be able to know.<strong>  Let them have the priesthood.  For me, I think we got the better end of the deal.  ;)</strong>
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]<div>
I totally agree with <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span"><a style="border-style:initial;border-color:initial;outline-width:0px;outline-style:initial;outline-color:initial;font-size:12px;vertical-align:baseline;background-image:initial;background-attachment:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal;color:#1f1f1f;border-width:0px;padding:0px;margin:0px;" href="http://community.theknot.com/cs/ks/user/default.aspx?membershipid=5982327212960489&plckUserId=5982327212960489" target="_blank" class="username_knot">monkeysip</a>.  I especially loved the bolded points.  Thank you for taking the time to write these posts.</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">When someone asks me, "Can women do anything in the Church that men can't do?  It's so unfair."  I answer, "Of course.  They can be mothers."</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">The Church upheld women so highly such that the highest creature on earth was a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary.  She carried God incarnate in her womb.  And she was made so pure and holy that she was spared by original sin and was sinless throughout her life.  Women sadly has been treated as second class throughout history, but if you look at the history of the Church, you'll see that it has always treated women a little better than the rest of society at the time.</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">Every woman has a calling to be a  mother, whether it's to be a biological mother or a spiritual one to others.</span></div>

Meg1036

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_churchs-stance-women?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:bbc93501-bba9-479f-b70c-edcd1308dfdePost:00986c83-926e-4c60-805b-207d0f32e605">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Church's "stance" on women. : Question, Meg. How do we know that He didn't have women apostles? ETA:  I had this discussion with the pastor of my church recently and he admits that no one knows for certain.  Mary Magdalene was a very close follower of Christ, perhaps as much as the named apostles.
Posted by ootmother2[/QUOTE]

OOT, I don't actually think that we know that.  I have seen that used as a reason why women's minstry is sometimes limited.  But I like the discussion of Mary Magdelene as an apostle, and personally agree that it is true.

Jasmine&Rajah

I've never felt that women were treated or considered inferior by the Church, or in the Scriptures, so it's difficult for me to understand the other side of this discussion.  Thanks, ladies, for keeping it civil and respectful.

I hope that anyone who struggles with this issue will consider - as others have stated - the incredible women in the Bible and in our Church today, and the honor that has been given to them.  We have no shortage of female role models!  Remember, Divine Mercy was revealed to Saint Faustina.  The miracle at Lourdes (and the Blessed Mother's declaration of her Immaculate Conception) was revealed to Saint Bernadette.  As mentioned above, the Virgin Mary was "full of grace"  and Saint Elizabeth was the first to recognize her as the mother of the Messiah.  Saint Martha (LOOOOVE HER!) walked right up to Christ and said outright, "If You had been here, my brother would not have died" - but then, even in her grief and suffering, she went on to call Him her Savior. (She's an inspiration to me right now as I endure a painful ordeal, and struggle to be patient and positive.)

I don't mind St. Paul's instructions on this matter (1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians) because the Scriptures give me quite enough to do and aspire to as it is (Proverbs 31, Titus 2, for example.)   :-D

Our "big sister," Eve, was deceived by the fallen one, and wanted what the Lord had not intended for her.  May we never fall into the same trap that she did, but rather, rejoice at the incredible privileges and blessings that God HAS given us as women, and do all that we can to glorify Him.

God bless you all. 

newlyseliski

Ditto monkeysip...

My fi and I went to a Cana dinner at our parish that was open to engaged and married couples and had a fantastic speaker that talked about Ephesians 5... that lovely passage that usually causes squirming or cringing.  We would have had it at our wedding, but felt that it would probably cause a few specific guests to storm out of the church

The speaker talked about how at the time Paul explained these things, the concept of mutual submission and self sacrifice was incredibly revolutionary and counter-cultural in the exact opposite way that this reading is seen now.  In Paul's day... talk of husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the Church was definitely against the grain of the typically subservient position that wives usually held.

We view all of this through the lens of our individualistic American culture that bristles against absolutes and the concept of any sort of authority.  The priesthood is not about power... it is about service.  One priest joked about how the nuns who taught in the schools and religious ed classes actually had all the "power" because they could educate children in the faith 5-6 days a week whereas the priest only has his 15 minute homily on Sundays!  I understand that at Mass, most especially during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the priest acts in the person of Christ... the person of Christ was a man.  I don't feel any less intelligent or inquisitive for accepting this fact... nor do I consider it to be misogynistic. 

SoHappyToBeMrsC

To provide an alternate idea on why women are not priests....

I recently had my final interview at my church as part of my confirmation process, and we were going over various church doctrines and the reasoning behind them, and I was asked how did I feel about the role of women in the church. I replied that I wasn't particularly comfortable with the fact that women are not priests.

I was told that it isn't necessarily that the church is against women being priests; but that the Catholic church is a worldwide organization. Therefore, any changes made to policy have to be made worldwide. While it would probably not be a huge issue for women to be priests in the US, can you imagine a female priest in Afghanistan? She would be murdered almost instantly. So the church has to take those things into account when deciding whether or not to change policies.

Meg1036

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_churchs-stance-women?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:bbc93501-bba9-479f-b70c-edcd1308dfdePost:8072f59e-af5c-451c-9ddf-d9f15ad66d32">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]To provide an alternate idea on why women are not priests.... I recently had my final interview at my church as part of my confirmation process, and we were going over various church doctrines and the reasoning behind them, and I was asked how did I feel about the role of women in the church. I replied that I wasn't particularly comfortable with the fact that women are not priests. I was told that it isn't necessarily that the church is against women being priests; but that the Catholic church is a worldwide organization. Therefore, any changes made to policy have to be made worldwide. While it would probably not be a huge issue for women to be priests in the US, can you imagine a female priest in Afghanistan? She would be murdered almost instantly. So the church has to take those things into account when deciding whether or not to change policies.
Posted by SoHappyToBeMrsC[/QUOTE]

That response really surprises me, since the Vatican has re-affirmed a number of times that women cannot be priests.  While I cannot accruately re-create the reasons here, all the ones I have seen have significatnly more doctrinal reasoning behind them than that.

SoHappyToBeMrsC

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_churchs-stance-women?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:bbc93501-bba9-479f-b70c-edcd1308dfdePost:9e4a9060-9d9c-45ed-adfa-350e04499a94">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Church's "stance" on women. : That response really surprises me, since the Vatican has re-affirmed a number of times that women cannot be priests.  While I cannot accruately re-create the reasons here, all the ones I have seen have significatnly more doctrinal reasoning behind them than that.
Posted by Meg1036[/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm sure that there is more reasoning behind it. I was just offering an additional point of view to consider.

Calypso1977

I was told that it isn't necessarily that the church is against women being priests; but that the Catholic church is a worldwide organization. Therefore, any changes made to policy have to be made worldwide.

im not sure that is correct.

was this a lay person who told you this??

SoHappyToBeMrsC

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_churchs-stance-women?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:bbc93501-bba9-479f-b70c-edcd1308dfdePost:24f0d085-6a00-4ee6-b1e7-6cfe779dea78">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]I was told that it isn't necessarily that the church is against women being priests; but that the Catholic church is a worldwide organization. Therefore, any changes made to policy have to be made worldwide. im not sure that is correct. was this a lay person who told you this??
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

Yes. Isn't the Catholic church all over the world?

caitriona87

In my experience the Church's teaching on this, as on all things, is really very beautiful. The complementarity of male and female is an important way in which God reveals His own nature to us as well as our relationship to Him.

http://peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

This talk is long, but excellent. It explains many of the reasons why women cannot be priests. As some PP's have stated, none of them have anything to do with any sort of power trip or skill vs. lack thereof. We are all called to meekness and humility, male or female.

Calypso1977

well, yes, that its a worldwide organization, but not sure its "yes" that because it is a worldwide organization that is why the change cant be made.  i too had thought it was doctrine.

clearheavens

While the Church is universal, across all time and culture, there are different Rites that may have different Liturgies.  These Rites include the Latin (the biggest one), Byzantine, Armenian, Maronite, Coptic, Syrian (middle east), Malankarese (in India), and so on.  That's a beauty of the Church that despite different values of different times and places, all the Rites together provide a special dimension to our Catholic heritage.

The lady who said that the Church isn't able to ordain priests because the culture of the certain places such as Afghanistan doesn't allow women to have any public role, that's incorrect.  If it were a reason, then the Eastern Rites would try to work it out in the Liturgy.

The Church, both the Eastern and Latin Rites, isn't able to ordain women priests because it is what Jesus intended for the Church, and the Church in her wisdom guided by the Holy Spirit made it into doctrine.

It's not bad if you're struggling to wrap your head around this doctrine.  It doesn't mean you're less Catholic.  All of us are supposed to struggle at some point to have genuine wisdom and understanding.  The thing is to keep reading, keep praying, and the Holy Spriit will guide you into understanding the Truth.

HandBanana

Really interesting about the PP experiences in Pre Cana about gender expectations in marriage.

Our Pre Cana focused on the possiblity that your roles will be unique but you are partners.  Two of the Four couples had stay at home fathers and working mothers.  The entire Pre Cana focused on partnership and communication.  We also had a half hour where they handed out NFP brochure and one of teh couples pointed out they didn't use NFP so they couldn't really advise on it.

As far as the role of women in the church, I find it upsetting that I can receive only six of seven sacrements due to my sex. (I'll be 6/7 after April 30th)

I also dislike the reasoning that "Oh well you see we want women to be priests but its because of people in Afghanistan."  It really doesn't make sense and is really a lazy argument.