The Church's "stance" on women.

monkeysip

"I am very aware of the argument about having a right to the rites but I have a problem with denying someone a rite simply based on their gender or sex.
It comes down to the idea that denying someone the ability to participate and receive a rite is wrong.  Whois to deny someone a rite?"

Again, that seems to imply that its a right.  For example, people have a right to go to school, so its unfair when a black person is denied access to a school while a white person is allowed in.  But if a white person decides to give a brand new car to a white person they know, instead of a black person, its not "unfair" because it was a gift... not something to which that black person had a right.  

God creates the sacraments.  And he gives them freely, but to whom he desires.  That is why the argument over women priests is directly connected to the argument over gay marriage.  If marriage is a sacrament, who is anyone to deny a sacrament to someone?  I'm not trying to derail the issue here into gay marriage, but I'm trying to illustrate the difference between rights and vocations.

This may represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the sacraments.  A common understanding is that the sacraments are just human practices and that the Church has discriminated on who receives them based upon cultural prejudices.  But a fundamental belief of Catholicism is that Christ instituted the sacraments, and it is only by Christ's authority that the Church dispenses them.  

As with any Sacrament, the Church must follow the same matter, form, and intent with which Christ instituted the sacrament.  With matter, the Church doesn't have the authority to use Koolaid instead of wine for the eucharist.  The Church doesn't have the authority to baptize with peanut butter.  And the Church doesn't have the authority to ordain a woman to the priesthood. 

If God has discriminated on which gender he gives the priesthood to, then its because he has a different plan for each gender.  That seems to be the essential disagreement... whether God has different plans for each gender.

It would be legalistic actually to believe that because a person can only receive 6 out of 7 sacraments, that they are somehow being denied equal access to grace.  The sacraments are avenues of grace, but not in some kind of quantifiable, mathematical way.

A person could go their whole life without receiving marriage or the priesthood (what about single people?) and still receive the same amount of grace as others who have received those sacraments.  

Ugh, sorry this has gotten so long!

monkeysip

@ Handbanana,

If it makes you feel any better, the argument about Afghanistan is not correct, as others have pointed out.  

As for the 6 out of 7 sacraments issue, well, most men can only receive 6 out of 7.  The only exception is male deacons and the small amount of married priests.  But remember, even these men had to be married before ordained.  No one can get married after they are ordained.

Motherhood may not be a Sacrament, but it is no less valuable than any of the sacraments.  And yet men will never know that.

Honestly, I find the whole envy of sacraments thing a little strange.  Sacraments are free gifts from God that we neither deserve nor have a right to.  So, God can give the sacraments to whomever he desires.  We must remember, both marriage and the priesthood are VOCATIONS not rights.  No one has a right to either of them.  And both come with serious responsibilities and sacrifices that no one should envy.

HandBanana

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:98ed23c0-69bb-48f9-b818-0c93e799f1d9">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]@ Handbanana, If it makes you feel any better, the argument about Afghanistan is not correct, as others have pointed out.   As for the 6 out of 7 sacraments issue, well, most men can only receive 6 out of 7.  The only exception is male deacons and the small amount of married priests.  But remember, even these men had to be married before ordained.  No one can get married after they are ordained. Motherhood may not be a Sacrament, but it is no less valuable than any of the sacraments.  And yet men will never know that. Honestly, I find the whole envy of sacraments thing a little strange.  Sacraments are free gifts from God that we neither deserve nor have a right to.  So, God can give the sacraments to whomever he desires.  We must remember, both marriage and the priesthood are VOCATIONS not rights.  No one has a right to either of them.  And both come with serious responsibilities and sacrifices that no one should envy.
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]

I am very aware of the argument about having a right to the rites but I have a problem with denying someone a rite simply based on their gender or sex.

It comes down to the idea that denying someone the ability to participate and receive a rite is wrong.  Whois to deny someone a rite?

monkeysip

"I am very aware of the argument about having a right to the rites but I have a problem with denying someone a rite simply based on their gender or sex.
It comes down to the idea that denying someone the ability to participate and receive a rite is wrong.  Whois to deny someone a rite?"

Again, that seems to imply that its a right.  For example, people have a right to go to school, so its unfair when a black person is denied access to a school while a white person is allowed in.  But if a white person decides to give a brand new car to a white person they know, instead of a black person, its not "unfair" because it was a gift... not something to which that black person had a right.  

God creates the sacraments.  And he gives them freely, but to whom he desires.  That is why the argument over women priests is directly connected to the argument over gay marriage.  If marriage is a sacrament, who is anyone to deny a sacrament to someone?  I'm not trying to derail the issue here into gay marriage, but I'm trying to illustrate the difference between rights and vocations.

This may represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the sacraments.  A common understanding is that the sacraments are just human practices and that the Church has discriminated on who receives them based upon cultural prejudices.  But a fundamental belief of Catholicism is that Christ instituted the sacraments, and it is only by Christ's authority that the Church dispenses them.  

As with any Sacrament, the Church must follow the same matter, form, and intent with which Christ instituted the sacrament.  With matter, the Church doesn't have the authority to use Koolaid instead of wine for the eucharist.  The Church doesn't have the authority to baptize with peanut butter.  And the Church doesn't have the authority to ordain a woman to the priesthood. 

If God has discriminated on which gender he gives the priesthood to, then its because he has a different plan for each gender.  That seems to be the essential disagreement... whether God has different plans for each gender.

It would be legalistic actually to believe that because a person can only receive 6 out of 7 sacraments, that they are somehow being denied equal access to grace.  The sacraments are avenues of grace, but not in some kind of quantifiable, mathematical way.

A person could go their whole life without receiving marriage or the priesthood (what about single people?) and still receive the same amount of grace as others who have received those sacraments.  

Ugh, sorry this has gotten so long!

HandBanana

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:3cefe011-709e-4e27-8c45-231b98b1b859">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]" I am very aware of the argument about having a right to the rites but I have a problem with denying someone a rite simply based on their gender or sex. It comes down to the idea that denying someone the ability to participate and receive a rite is wrong.  Whois to deny someone a rite?" Again, that seems to imply that its a right.  For example, people have a right to go to school, so its unfair when a black person is denied access to a school while a white person is allowed in.  But if a white person decides to give a brand new car to a white person they know, instead of a black person, its not "unfair" because it was a gift... not something to which that black person had a right.   God creates the sacraments.  And he gives them freely, but to whom he desires.  That is why the argument over women priests is directly connected to the argument over gay marriage.  If marriage is a sacrament, who is anyone to deny a sacrament to someone?  I'm not trying to derail the issue here into gay marriage, but I'm trying to illustrate the difference between rights and vocations. This may represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the sacraments.  A common understanding is that the sacraments are just human practices and that the Church has discriminated on who receives them based upon cultural prejudices.  But a fundamental belief of Catholicism is that Christ instituted the sacraments, and it is only by Christ's authority that the Church dispenses them.   As with any Sacrament, the Church must follow the same matter, form, and intent with which Christ instituted the sacrament.  With matter, the Church doesn't have the authority to use Koolaid instead of wine for the eucharist.  The Church doesn't have the authority to baptize with peanut butter.  And the Church doesn't have the authority to ordain a woman to the priesthood.  If God has discriminated on which gender he gives the priesthood to, then its because he has a different plan for each gender.  That seems to be the essential disagreement... whether God has different plans for each gender. It would be legalistic actually to believe that because a person can only receive 6 out of 7 sacraments, that they are somehow being denied equal access to grace.  The sacraments are avenues of grace, but not in some kind of quantifiable, mathematical way. A person could go their whole life without receiving marriage or the priesthood (what about single people?) and still receive the same amount of grace as others who have received those sacraments.   Ugh, sorry this has gotten so long!
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]

It is frustrating that you simply explained the rite vs right arguement and also did not address the idea that denying someone grace and preventing them from answering their calling from God is a problem.  Your examples do not make sense and I have difficulty with seeing how your arguement supports your idea that women should not be ordained.  I do not see how using an example of racism or a race involved decision that was supposedly not based on race has anything to do with women not being allowed to be ordained.  It kind of reminds me of the argument that Afghanistan is the reason women are not allowed to become ordained.

This is a good example of my argument.

"They are asking the institutional church to allow God to call servants forward and to cease reducing the transcendent nature of God’s calling to an arbitrary set of rules that have no biblical or historical basis. They are asking those who, like the cardinal, were blessed to receive the gift of holy orders to stop impeding God’s work of offering this gift to all human beings. Their desire is not to win rights, but rather to ensure a fuller life and future for all members of the Catholic Church."

<a href="http://ncronline.org/blogs/young-voices/rites-women-rights-gays-cardinal-georges-double-standards" rel='nofollow'>http://ncronline.org/blogs/young-voices/rites-women-rights-gays-cardinal-georges-double-standards</a>

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:98ed23c0-69bb-48f9-b818-0c93e799f1d9">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]@ Handbanana, If it makes you feel any better, the argument about Afghanistan is not correct, as others have pointed out.   As for the 6 out of 7 sacraments issue, well, most men can only receive 6 out of 7.  The only exception is male deacons and the small amount of married priests.  But remember, even these men had to be married before ordained.  No one can get married after they are ordained. Motherhood may not be a Sacrament, but it is no less valuable than any of the sacraments.  And yet men will never know that. Honestly, I find the whole envy of sacraments thing a little strange.  Sacraments are free gifts from God that we neither deserve nor have a right to.  So, God can give the sacraments to whomever he desires. <strong> We must remember, both marriage and the priesthood are VOCATIONS not rights. </strong> No one has a right to either of them.  And both come with serious responsibilities and sacrifices that no one should envy.
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>What I bolded is a good point for understanding.  No person is denying any woman anything like running for president.  No one--male or female--has a "right" to be a priest.  A vocation is God's plan for us, a divine calling.</div><div><div>
</div><div>I can see why some women struggle with this issue because for all of history women have struggled for equality.  But God is beyond any political or social issues.  He created us equal, and we are loved equally, but not for identical roles.  But equality comes from<em> receiving </em>the Holy Eucharist, not from administering it.</div><div>
</div><div>The priesthood is not Jesus' intention for women.  Adam (not Eve) who was responsible for the first sin and ever since males have been officially responsible for making sacrifices for sin at Liturgy.  God the Creator hypothetically could have sent His "only Daughter" on earth but instead Jesus was male.  He was made the Sacrifice for us.  Jesus could have ordained Mary, a perfect human being and obviously qualified, but he did not.  Throughout the entire history of Judeo-Christianity, there was never an authentically ordained female priest.  Jesus was not sexist, and in fact, he shattered all cultural norms regarding interacting with women.  And any time someone says the Church is sexist they should google "Marian Devotions" for a reminder.</div><div>
</div><div>These and many others are basis for some of the reasons that the early leaders in the Church looked at all of this right after the death of Jesus, studied the Word of God, pray and were guided by the Holy Spirit, and understand that this is how Jesus wanted the Church on earth to be.  No pope, now or in the future, has the authority to change this.  Doctrines only protect through clarification what the Church already believes, they are not products of a certain time period or of any pope.  As monkeysip said and I'm just going to repaste here, <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">Christ instituted the sacraments, and it is only by Christ's authority that the Church dispenses them.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Instead, women have something equally awesome and important and that's motherhood.  This is no backseat role.  Put it this way, as God is creator, He is actually present in the womb to create a person and soul to bring to this world.  There is plenty of work to be done, for male and female alike, equally full of importance and grace.  We should dispel the myth that serving as a priest is the best way to serve the Church or gains extra graces to heaven.</div><div>
</div><div>Every priest acts as Christ whose bride is the Church.  A female cannot have a bride so we can't stand-in for Christ as a priest.  But we have the calling to be loved to the death as Jesus went to the death for the Church.  My opinion is that we got the better end of the deal.</div></div><div>
</div><div>I encourage for further discussion reading the book, "Male and Female He Created Them: A Theology of the Body."</div><div>
</div><div><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0819874213/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1888992751&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0GKCPB0WTECG7977GTPR">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0819874213/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1888992751&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0GKCPB0WTECG7977GTPR</a></div>

monkeysip

"It is frustrating that you simply explained the rite vs right arguement and also did not address the idea that denying someone grace and preventing them from answering their calling from God is a problem.  Your examples do not make sense and I have difficulty with seeing how your arguement supports your idea that women should not be ordained.  I do not see how using an example of racism or a race involved decision that was supposedly not based on race has anything to do with women not being allowed to be ordained.  It kind of reminds me of the argument that Afghanistan is the reason women are not allowed to become ordained."

Hmm.... I'm sorry, maybe my examples only confused things more.  I did address the issue of denying someone grace.  I stated that first of all, its God's plan to deny some people certain graces.  For example, God doesn't plan all people to get married, so he is in fact denying some people the grace of the sacrament of marriage.  Second of all, we can't be mathematical about the sacraments... you can still receive the same amount of grace or more even if you only receive 6 out of 7 of the sacraments.  Each person will receive the graces that God has planned for them.  There is no reason to believe that every person is supposed to always receive every sacrament.  

No woman is being denied a call to the priesthood.  She has no such call.  It doesn't exist.  As for your last argument in quotes, the institutional Church, as I tried to illustrate earlier, doesn't have the AUTHORITY to ordain women.  If God didn't do it, the Church can't either.

This is something that should provide all of us security.  The Church doesn't make up doctrine.  The Church has received doctrine and is merely bound to protect it.  This way, no change of culture or change of leadership can distort doctrine.  Christ promised Peter that the Holy Spirit would protect his Church.  No priest, Bishop, or Pope, no matter how corrupt, has the authority to change doctrine.  

There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition to suggest that women were ever authentically called to the priesthood.  Scripture and Tradition are on the side of the Church on this issue (as with every issue, of course).  As I tried to explain earlier, Jesus glorified women and had many women who were close to him.  As clearheavens explained, Jesus went against cultural norms with his interactions with women.

But he did not ordain any woman.  He did not give them the duties or abilities of the apostles.  That is not accidental.  If he had meant the priesthood for either sex, then why would he not have chosen a woman to be a part of the 12 apostles, who were the first 12 bishops?

The early Church also went against cultural norms by giving women prominent roles within the Church as patronesses, by actually using the testimony of women witnesses in the Gospels (unheard of at the time), and by declaring the only sinless person to be a female, Mary, who is also the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God.  Some christians and Church theologians may have been very sexist, but Church doctrine has always held women as equal to men.  

HandBanana

I'm not saying that every person should be allowed every sacrement but I am saying that there is not legitimacy to the church denying women a rite.  We are not going to come to an agreement because there is nothing in the founding of the church.  All of that is interpretation added later.

Calypso1977

Whois to deny someone a rite?

God?

doctabroccoli

I understand what each side is arguing here.  I guess my problem, personally, is that the role of women in society today is drastically different from the role of women in society two thousand years ago when our faith was created.  And when people refer to Catholicism as having oudated, archaic doctrine, it's because the world is in constant evolution, which makes it difficult to 100% relate to events from centuries past.  What if Jesus were here on this earth today choosing his apostles?  Do you think they'd all still be men?  I, personally, do not.  Why?  Because women are regarded now as more than just mothers.

HandBanana

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:9ca978d1-39cb-4b6c-a801-45d8b1475ac9">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]Whois to deny someone a rite? God?
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]


I agree but it certainly shouldn't be my gender that causes me to be denied a rite.  I see that as a flawed determining factor that was added by man.

The claims that there is historically basis are flimsy at best in my eyes.  I find that the importance of gender is something the church tacked on later.  I would compare it to arguments about the constitution in the US.  No one can really know what our founding fathers had in mind when they stated "the right to bare arms."  That is the best explanation of my argument I can think of other than the quote I posted before.

I find quoting other people much more eloquent and lessens the chance for me to say something wrong.

gwendolynclare

One thing I really loved learning about while studying Theology of the Body is this.  Our souls didn't exist before our bodies.  It's not like our parents got it on, sperm fertilized egg, and a soul just flit down from heaven and jumped into whatever body available.  No, at the moment of conception, a brand new soul (!) as well as a new body was formed.  That's why I can say I participated in the creation of my beautiful daughter.  God made her soul and allowed my DH and I to make her body.
( And also amazingly, that's why conjugal love can be a source of grace... just like a sacrament...)

What does that have to do with anything?  That means that our bodies are, in fact, an outward reflection of our souls.  I have some anchorings in the protestant tradition of hymns and as much as I love them, I always use a couple to demonstrate how this idea that our body has nothing to do with our soul is furthered.  In Panting for Heaven there's a gorgeous (but wrong!) line that goes like this: I'm fettered and chained up in clay; I long to be soaring away, my God and my Savior to see.

We're not fettered and chained to our "clay" bodies.  We were given them because they glorify God and they express something about our true selves.  They express something about our souls.  That means my soul is female.  I have a female body and I have a female soul.  My husband has a male soul and his body reflects that.

Further, a vocation is not what we do, but who we are.  This is always getting muddled because "vocation" is used as a synonym for "career."  It's not.  I own a small business; that's what I do. But who I am is wife and mother. 

I'm not responding to or addressing anyone's points in particular, just reminding people of this incredible teaching.  I was blown away when I learned it.  And despite years of Catholic school education, it was not what I was taught to believe.  Maybe you didn't learn it eaither.  Maybe you think every soul soul is both masculine and feminine and that before we're born, we're all chillin' in heaven.  That's what I used to think, anyway.  I'm not trying to attack you by bringing this up, just asking you to consider the Chuch's point of view.

caitriona87

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:e44825b1-cfcb-444e-ab3e-36e608fe76fe">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]I understand what each side is arguing here.  I guess my problem, personally, is that the role of women in society today is drastically different from the role of women in society two thousand years ago when our faith was created.  And when people refer to Catholicism as having oudated, archaic doctrine, it's because the world is in constant evolution, which makes it difficult to 100% relate to events from centuries past.  What if Jesus were here on this earth today choosing his apostles?  Do you think they'd all still be men?  I, personally, do not.  Why?  Because women are regarded now as more than just mothers.
Posted by doctabroccoli[/QUOTE]

But God and Truth do not change. What was true then is true now.

Also, this line of thinking is problematic because it seems to accuse Jesus of being somehow bound by the cultural constraints of the time & place when He lived on earth. He is God. He was not a product of the cultural norms that existed then. He did plenty of things that were completely revolutionary and overthrew all sorts of expectations, including about women's roles. As others have said, the command to love your wives as Christ loves the Church was countercultural in a way that we cannot possibly imagine from our vantage point in history. We can't accuse Jesus Christ of being sexist or of kowtowing to arbitrary social conventions. He clearly did not.

I love gwendolynclare's entire post because it says much more eloquently what I wanted to say about women being "just" mothers. Motherhood is the true calling of every woman, whether biologically or spiritually, and whatever else she does is what's secondary. She may DO writing/medicine/teaching/whatever, but what she IS is a mother. But the same is true for a man. He is primarily called to either biological or spiritual fatherhood, and whatever else he does pales in comparison. He IS father, the other stuff he just DOES.  Priesthood is spiritual fatherhood, and it simply is not possible for a woman to be a father, just as a man cannot be a mother. One is not better or worse than the other; both are images of God and are essential for the begetting of biological and spiritual children.

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:7684a26a-4bb6-46da-8f2e-d39159955690">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]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.
Posted by HandBanana[/QUOTE]

I'm still with Mica & handbananna on this one

Jasmine&Rajah

[QUOTE] 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.
Posted by HandBanana[/QUOTE]


When I first read this, I nearly spit coffee out onto the keyboard.  Forgive me, Lord, for making a "snap judgement" - after a few moments of consideration, I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding.  Did the couple explain any further?  For example, do they not use NFP because they are not concerned with spacing pregnancies?  Or were they saying that they use artificial birth control? 

I know the reality of the situation is that many Catholic couples do use BC (and for the one millionth time on this board . . . <strong> I'm not judging them for it,</strong> only pointing out that it is not acceptable by Church teachings.)  But to be a presenting couple at a Catholic marriage prep session and say that they don't use NFP is bizarre, at best.   If I paid to go to a lecture on cloth diapering and the speakers announced that they thought Huggies disposables were the best thing since sliced bread and they never use cloth, I'd be asking for my money back!

But again, I may be misunderstanding what they meant.

Jasmine&Rajah

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:261d8c23-357b-4b31-80a1-1f0443b2018e">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE] But God and Truth do not change. What was true then is true now. Also, this line of thinking is problematic because it seems to accuse Jesus of being somehow bound by the cultural constraints of the time & place when He lived on earth. He is God. He was not a product of the cultural norms that existed then. He did plenty of things that were completely revolutionary and overthrew all sorts of expectations, including about women's roles. As others have said, the command to love your wives as Christ loves the Church was countercultural in a way that we cannot possibly imagine from our vantage point in history. We can't accuse Jesus Christ of being sexist or of kowtowing to arbitrary social conventions. He clearly did not . . . Priesthood is spiritual fatherhood, and it simply is not possible for a woman to be a father, just as a man cannot be a mother. One is not better or worse than the other; both are images of God and are essential for the begetting of biological and spiritual children.
Posted by caitriona87[/QUOTE]

AMEN.

So many of you ladies save me so much typing time.  I really owe you fruit baskets. 

Calypso1977

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.
Posted by HandBanana

and again, this is why i greatly dislike lay persons teaching pre-cana!!  most of them dont know the faith or dont live it/practice it.    i know the churches are probably hard up for volunteers or there arent enough clergy to do it, but they are doing such a grave disservice by utilizing people who dont know what they are talking about.    and then they wonder why so many have no idea what their faith is about or why tehy are receiving the sacrament.

doctabroccoli

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:8dee3195-c9b0-4e64-bba4-229b8c433c2c">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]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. Posted by HandBanana and again, this is why i greatly dislike lay persons teaching pre-cana!!  most of them dont know the faith or dont live it/practice it.    i know the churches are probably hard up for volunteers or there arent enough clergy to do it, but they are doing such a grave disservice by utilizing people who dont know what they are talking about.    and then they wonder why so many have no idea what their faith is about or why tehy are receiving the sacrament.
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

Okay, I have to admit that Banana's case is really weird.  We took two NFP courses (an actual course in St. Louis and a course built into our pre-cana in Cleveland), and the presenters all used NFP. 

But Calypso - why would you want priests or nuns to teach about NFP?  They certainly don't use it!

mica178

I think it's fine to have lay people involved in pre-marriage prep because I know the priests are so stretched for time, but I agree that there needs to be more screening.  I've shared before that at my EE, 3 of the 6 presenters were divorced, one couple used IVF to conceive, and none could talk to us at all about NFP.  I felt that for the people less well-versed in the practical parts of Catholicism that some of the sharing that went on from the presenters was giving the wrong impression of Catholic married life. 

H and I actually think we might volunteer for EE when we move.

Calypso1977

But Calypso - why would you want priests or nuns to teach about NFP?  They certainly don't use it!

because they in theory will have a full understanding of church teaching and more importantly WHY it is the church teaching.   that is a big part of what is missing.  the theology behind why the church teaches what it teaches.

how many people do you know who think that the church teaches NFP because they want us to have tons and tons of kids?  

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:3f1cd2f3-cd23-4705-b8be-dd49ecf18701">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Church's "stance" on women. : Okay, I have to admit that Banana's case is really weird.  We took two NFP courses (an actual course in St. Louis and a course built into our pre-cana in Cleveland), and the presenters all used NFP.  But Calypso - <strong>why would you want priests or nuns to teach about NFP?</strong>  They certainly don't use it!
Posted by doctabroccoli[/QUOTE]

<div>As Calypso mentioned, the years priests and nuns spend on learning Theology of the Body (TOB), relationships, love, and even the amount of experience in observing and teaching usually trumps most laypeople.  Remember also that TOB was a series of talks by Pope John Paul II.  He was a genius and very profound person and of course a priest himself.  To learn the "why" of NFP you need to have a foundation on TOB.</div><div>
</div><div>As for teaching the "how" of NFP, chaste people like nuns and unmarried women can chart NFP.  You don't even have to be Catholic to know the mechanics and chart NFP.  Most organizations like the Couples to Couples League teach as a couple (obviously with the name) because the benefits to couples and their marriages are strong and they want to show that to their students.</div><div>
</div><div>I think laypeople should be encouraged to teach NFP, especially lay nurses and doctors, who can give a medical component to NFP like the Creighton Method.  It's my opinion that as religious people have to study many years before becoming ordained or perfessing their vows, I think laypeople teaching NFP should be required to do the same.</div>

doctabroccoli

Clear -
I'm not disagreeing that the presenters should be educated.  I guess we were lucky in that our lay presenters were good.  And I understand that any woman could chart.  But I guess I'm just more interested in hearing an NFP talk from a couple who actually uses it rather than a priest or a nun.

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:becb3170-9703-4b88-b232-c91929d17f5d">Re: The Church's "stance" on women.</a>:
[QUOTE]Clear - I'm not disagreeing that the presenters should be educated.  I guess we were lucky in that our lay presenters were good.  And I understand that any woman could chart.  But I guess<strong> I'm just more interested in hearing an NFP talk from a couple who actually uses it rather than a priest or a nun.</strong>
Posted by doctabroccoli[/QUOTE]

<div>I agree, I would be, too.  Hypothetically even if a teaching couple doesn't mention at all why I should use it, I could learn the "why" of TOB on my own.  But a couple can use their background and antecdotes in the classroom.  And they can also answer questions on how to get back on track postpartum or the effects of breastfeeding on your charts more personally.</div><div>
</div><div>I just wish the quality of NFP instruction was consistently good throughout the USA.  I think we all think that.  It would save us a lot of breath on dispelling myths.</div>

HandBanana

I will add that the schedule was altered because of a Bears Packers Playoff game.  Not sure what would normally have happened and I am very aware that changing our Pre Cana schedule for a football game isn't the best.

I know part of it was the liberal approach.  At our mass on Saturday night the priest welcomed everyone to accept communion without question of having completely converted to Catholicism.  There were many interfaith couples.

And I think I got much more from 4 couples who have had serious faith struggles and relationship struggles than if I had been approached by priests or nuns.  It was an incredibly beautiful experience and I could definitely feel the presence of the Holy Spirit that weekend.

ETA: The other three couples said NFP worked perfectly for them and they stressed the importance of controling urges and they went into being creative when it came to times intercourse was not a possiblity.  The couple that did not explain why they did not use NFP but during one of  the PRCDs they presented they explained they had a very difficult time conceiving and she had several miscarriages.

bibliophile2010

I agree that Pre-Cana instructors should be well educated and that there needs to be a distinct spiritual component to it. That said, I do not think that because someone is a priest or a nun they are automatically the best people to do that counseling. For example, I know many lay people with masters' of theology or divinity degrees who are as educated and capable of teaching as someone who has a religious vocation. Plus, I believe married couples are uniquely situated to share their experiences. I think a better balance needs to be struck.

In my Pre-Cana, we have only seen one priest formally. He presented some formal theology of marriage at the TOB class. The rest has been lay couples who are well versed in whatever they were talking about. They all witnesses the importance of the faith in their marriage, and none of them spoke against church teaching, like some of you have experienced. This included a class at a very "liberal" parish and the God's Plan for a Joy-Filled Marriage (TOB) class.

Calypso, I think you would have gotten a lot out of God's Plan for a Joy-Filled Marriage. It is all theology of marriage and Theology of the Body (ours also had an intro to NFP) -- in other words all the whys behind the teachings. I thought it was really good, but it did present strict Catholic teaching, which makes some people (including plenty of our classmates) uncomfortable.

katiemac101

Interesting discussion.  We did our Pre-Cana session yesterday (I am Catholic, fiance is not) and it was pretty much a disaster.  We sat in a room for 9 hours and watched clips from 1980s instructional marriage videos. (The couples in the videos were wearing stone-washed denim and the men had mullets.)  Each problem the couple faced was the woman was at home cleaning all day with 5 kids and the man never lifted a finger on the weekends.  The solution at the end of the clip: Men, take your women out for a meal once a week and help with vacuuming on Sundays during football commercials. 

None of the videos applied to us as a professional, egalitarian  couple.  We were both offended when we had to do an exercise that basically condoned gender stereotypes.  (Men are rational thinkers who like facts and evidence, women like to talk about tv shows and gossip about hairstyles.)

Fiance actually refused when it was his turn to read out loud Eph.5:22
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands."

The facilitator was pretty ticked at Fiance.  We managed to get through the rest of the day and received our certificates.  I was just disappointed because I like the Church and wanted fiance to feel welcome.  Oops. 

mica178

Oh, katiemac, I'm sorry that you had such a negative experience!  I guess pre-cana/EE quality really varies.  Where we live, the SAHW is a rarity, so showing a video like yours would be a no-go.  I was disappointed by the "lightness" of ours, but at least we didn't see anyone in acid rinsed jeans.    H isn't Catholic either, but he felt comfortable at EE and attends Catholic mass with me.

katiemac101

Mica,
Thanks.  I really hope it must have been a regional difference.   Looking back, I should have asked around and made the effort to attend a Pre-Cana in a larger city with professional couples.

agapecarrie

As it is a solemnity I decided to look back here...this is my favorite topic, so I'll add a bit..

While the feminist movement helped women for equal opportunities and being viewed as the same dignity as men, I think it has also made people think that women are the same as men and that women's value is in what they do, rather than just who they are.

The Church's love of women is glorious... read JPII's Letter to Women, or his apostolic letter “On the dignity and vocation of women.”

In fact, women are the pinnacle of creation. Think of a triangle... many people think the chuch operates with the pope at the top, cardinals underneath, then bishops, priests, men and then women. When actually, it is in service that the pope is at the bottom ...with the triangle upside down. Women at the top. This is why we trust the pope and cardinals with the magisterium, because they have the weight of the Church and the good of souls on them.

God the Father is “initiator” of the gift of self, and the Church is receiver. (in the feminine). It's stamped into the body, men and women, who gives and receives. This is the nature of masculinity-- for men to be priests to take us back to the paschal sacrifice of the mass. The priest being the initator and the church the receiver, joined together brings resurrection and new life. (Hence how the priest is married to the church). To entertain women being ordained is a lowering of their dignity...a step back in their role, not a step forward. The job is so difficult that God provides a sacrament for the grace needed to live that vocation. Women aren't denied it, rather, they get to experience the sacramental nature of bringing new life into the world. This is an even deeper experience of a vocational sacrament than holy orders.

The same idea applies to Eph 5. “Submissive” means “under the mission of”. The husband's mission is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. To love means to will the good of the other, which means heaven. Christ loved the church by dying for her, so a husband's job is to help get his wife to heaven, even if it kills him. The wife's job is to put herself under that mission...to allow her husband to love her. Eph 5 is so beautiful in speaking of the dignity of women. I put in another thread this can be seen more practically on www.e5men.org

katiemac101

Agape,

You provided a very moving and knowledgeable explanation of Eph. 5.  However, I wish that during Pre-Cana sessions (and I acknowledge that some parishes probably do this quite well) the facilitators would recognize that some of the hand-outs and videos on recommended gender roles in marriage might be challenging  or even offensive to  some modern couples.  If that had been done yesterday, I would have felt a lot better.  Instead, I had to watch video after video of Catholic SAHM's with no discussion or critique period.

--Philia