Women as priests...a sin??? Vatican excommunicates 7.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

sulawesigirl4

Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
7,415
Location
Virginia
As a woman who has struggled with issues of equality in the church, I honestly do not get how in this day and age it is possible to remain so narrow-minded. Whatever happened to "there is no male, female, Greek, Hebrew, slave, or free...we are all one in Christ?" :|

Vatican Excommunicates Seven Women 'Priests'
Mon Aug 5, 8:24 AM ET

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Reinforcing its opposition to female priests, the Vatican ( news - web sites) said Monday it had excommunicated seven women, including a nun, who were ordained in June in a ceremony on a boat in Austria.

An Argentine bishop, not recognized by the Holy See, ordained the Austrian, German and U.S. women in a ceremony, witnessed by 300 people.

This prompted a warning from the Vatican last month, giving the women 12 days to repent.

"Because the women ... did not give any indication of amendment or repentance for the most serious offence they had committed...they have incurred excommunication," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a papal right-hand man, said in a press release from the Vatican.

He had earlier branded the ordination "an affront to the dignity of women," saying women had a specific role in the church which was distinctive and irreplaceable.
 
WTF? I think women should be able to become priests if they want! It frankly pisses me off when the church or anyone says that a woman cant do what a man can.


BTW my grandmother agrees that women shouldnt be able to be priests!




:madspit: :madspit: :madspit: :madspit: :madspit:
 
Don't they realize that the first WITNESS of Christ's Resurrection was Mary Magdalene, a WOMAN? She discovered the empty tomb and spread the Good News! I support the Priesthood of All Believers.

~U2Alabama
 
Honestly, I don't know why anyone would WANT to be a priest in the first place, let alone believe they have a greater relationship with God and Jesus?

If you read history of the Catholic Church it was the female sex that was pivotal in its legacy during the first few hundred years. They ran the charities, administrations, etc. For this reason I find it incredibly bizarre that women would believe that their place is somehow subpar to those of men.

Playboy magazine has an interesting article on this subject. It's in the issue with Jordan on the cover. I think it's the September issue. It is written by a former priest who left the church after realizing the hypocrisy involved with the "big wigs" at the top. After reading it I'd be surprised if anyone placed a new-found faith in this religion's principles.
 
...although I disagree with you as to what role I think that a soft-porn magazine should have in the goings-on of the Catholic Church.
 
Playboy will forever be associated with perverted sensibilities simply because it has pictures on attractive, young, nude women?.(Ah, that reminds me?.((Danospano glances over recent Playmate pictorial))?.I love this magazine). Nevertheless, it DOES publish intriguing, thoughtful commentaries, interviews, and fictional pornographic cartoons. Three things that everyone hates to admit that they LOVE!!!!!!

I can?t defend the content of the article, because I?m sure that many will disregard its quality based on nothing more than the publisher?s reputation. That?s sad. I think that anyone who?s ever read?..yes, I said ?read?, Playboy would have the understanding to pick fallacies from realities. That being said, find a copy on the internet, or even better, go to the nearest newsstand and shovel over a few bucks.
Don?t tell me your afraid you?ll go to hell? LOL
 
So there really are people who "read it for the articles"?

No, I am aware that they publish valid articles in their cultural journal. But I have seen articles written by and/or about ex-priests in other mediae as well, including THE BIRMINGHAM POST-HERALD. I just don't really think the Vatican is going to change time because of what PLAYBOY prints. What's next? Hugh Hefner advising the Pope on the recent scandals in the Church? Anna Nicole Smith going to serve in Mother Teresa's mission?

~U2Alabama
 
Danospano said:
Honestly, I don't know why anyone would WANT to be a priest in the first place, let alone believe they have a greater relationship with God and Jesus?
priests don't have a greater relationship with God
they (should) dedicate their life to help us strengthen our faith

I do somewhat understand why the decision is made that priests can't be married
you are a priest all of the time - no office hours
people tell you things in strictest confidence
things you won't be able to share with your partner (because it was told in confidence) even when those things effect your mood for the rest of the week

I never really understood why women can't be priests though
 
I never understood the fact that while priest are celibit(sp?), you have to go in for marrage councilling(with a priest) before you get married.
Like I've always said [accent]"You no playa the game, you no makea the rules."[/accent]
 
Bama I am really surprised you are discrediting something because of its source. I am aware that source is important, but I sincerely doubt the magazine would publish such an article in the hope THEY may knock some sense into the vatican. As Danospano said, it was written by an ex-priest. I think an ex-priest, regardless of where his words end up printed, would have some interesting things to say about the church.

I dont know if I'm following this, these women were excommunicated because they were ordained without full authority?
 
Does this have anything to do with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? If so, I understand that this passage is often taken out of context and therefore misunderstood.

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

This is what I understand from the above passage. When Paul spoke this, there were fights or upsets going on between women in the church; I think it was due to cutting remarks, gossip, suchlike; and this is why he said what he said.

Of course, I don't think it is fair for priests/clergymen to extrapolate from this passage and say that women are not allowed to be ordained.

:shrug:

foray
 
that passage actually has a simple meaning.

In Pauls time women would sit at the back and men at the front. It was common for women to talk to their husbands, who were up in front, to ask them what the preacher had said. This of course meant they had to raise their voice hence Paul telling them to wait until they got home.

This is taught at a prominent bible collage which my friend attended which actually boasts one of the most intelligent theologians in the world.

Now,
another thing, and I don't want to offend anyone here.

But this excommunication thing is one of the things I find wrong with catholicism. I was just saying how we are not living in the middle ages in another thread and here we're talking about a tradition which originated precisely then!

does it not irk catholics that you have someone way over in Vatican determining whether or not you can be a christian?? I mean, they excommunicate these women and say they have a certain amount of time to repent...
is that how God operates??? ARGGG! That's the most frustrating thing EVER!
God is always there, ALWAYS forgiving, and no f*cking man on earth can tell ANYBODY that they are not chistians.

The pope WAY too much power if you ask me.

And as to the person who asked why women would want to be priests...why should there be any pastors, why should there be any clergy at all?!?
These people want to have these positions because they feel that it is a good place from which to help others and to guide people in their christian walk. Of course, you can do that without becoming a clergyperson but people just look up to these people, often.
 
Last edited:
If more women were preists then there would be less little boys getting molested....
I mean if someone wants to help inspire faith in others you would think the Church would support it. Well whatever the men can cling on to their out dated hierarchy. You boys can go play dress up with those big hats on your own. Don't worry, we'll be fine.
 
I've thought about this issue quite a lot (having been raised in a conservative sphere where women's ordination was never even considered) and have discussed it with other friends on this forum. Rather than re-type some of my thoughts, I have lifted a portion of an email discussing this topic that I think is relavent. (apologies to the original recipient for having to read it twice ;)).

-----

Let's begin with the traditional concept of biblical womanhood. The more "conservative" one and the one that I have been exposed to in one form or another. Keep in mind of course that because I went to a boarding school, I was "raised" by many people not necessarily my parents and so I have a variety of conflicting influences pulling at my subconscious. By that I mean, the stereotype I am about to put forward is not necessarily one that I was taught but one that I observed with some regularity. That said, here we go. In a nutshell, the rules are: women should if at all possible stay at home with their children, women should never be in ultimate authority in the church (they can be involved in varying degrees but the top dog MUST be a man), in the marriage relationship husbands have the final say, women with leadership capabilities are rebellious and not truly "spiritual" else they would be more submissive. Now particularly in the church environment, women are viewed as suspect. They can "give their testimony" but they can't "preach." They can shepherd a small group, but they can't pastor a church. They can go to college (although why should they? Good Christian women should only want to be housewives and mothers) but seminary is out of the question, except in the case of preparing for the foreign mission field. Oh and on the mission field, they are expected to have a male leader figure in charge of the work in their area. Sound about right? And if you question this arrangement, you are given a stern warning about the evils of our ?liberal media? and on the soundness of "God's plan" for "biblical masculinity and femininity". And after all, no one would EVER want to be labeled a * gasp* "feminist" as they are the evil to end all evils. Now if you detect a note of sarcasm, you're astute. Lol. I don't agree with a word of this, but I have been led to believe that this is Gospel truth from a very early age.

First, how is it that I could possibly be expected to love and trust a God that considers me a second-class citizen, an afterthought, or a "weaker vessel"? That flies in the face of everything that I've read about Jesus. Second, if Jesus doesn't see me that way, then why is it that the church, the group that is supposedly his representative on earth, would like to impose this upon me and convince me of it?

The question at stake is very simple. "Are women fully human?" If the answer is yes, then it follows that they must then be endowed with every trait and quality that makes up what it is to be human. That would mean that there is nothing inherent in womanhood that would limit her function and status. And if Christ died on the cross to redeem all of humanity and restore it, then how is it that his redemption is not enough to restore women to the same level as men? One thing I have noticed in the research I have done is the concept of "human liberation" not "women's liberation." There is a motif of Old Testament law being overturned by New Testament fulfillment that I think bears on the situation. Women may have been held in low esteem in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of Christ they are restored to their rightful place as equals.

Now specifically about women in the church. Simply put, I don't believe that there is precedence for keeping women confined to a supportive role rather than a leadership one. The early church happened to be starting off in the first century, a time with it's own culture and social fabric, and in my opinion any interpretation of Scripture as it concerns church government at the time should be seen in its context and not made normative. It seems to me that we pick and choose those things that we would like to be "contextual" and those that should be taken "literally." When Paul talks of women covering their head, there are not many (although there are always a few) today that would seriously try to convince us that women should cover their heads in church and that to refrain from doing so is to rebel against God and to fail to be obedient. How is it that a verse from this very same passage is used to keep women from preaching in church? Who draws the line and decides which part is literal and which is meant as a model for all time? I find it shocking that in the extremely male-dominated society of the Mid-East and Rome, that Paul would refer to women as his "fellow workers", address letters to house churches run by women (actually that's John who did this, but you get the point), and even refer to what looks suspiciously like a woman apostle (whose name was changed to a male version in later translations because the scholars assumed that naturally the text couldn?t mean THAT ? only MEN could be apostles).

This would suggest a pattern to me, one that Paul would not have been able to fully expand in his culture, but one that we have the means of making a reality today. After all, slavery was another evil that existed in Paul's day and although he gives guidelines for how Christians are to function with that institution still fixed in society, does that mean he should be interpreted as condoning the practice or even advocating its continuance for all time? Hardly. I think this is an excellent model for how the position and treatment of women in the early church vs. now should be viewed. It's not static and was never meant to be.

Another way to look at this is the subject of spiritual gifts. In all the lists of gifts that are in the NT, you will not find one that is split up by gender. It's never said that "here are the men's gifts...and oh here are the ones that are for women." They are for all Christians. Now, if God were to give me the gift of prophecy or of preaching and exhortation, would he then turn around and tell me that to use that gift is a sin? That to find an outlet for it is against his will? It seems contradictory.

Anyways, that's a starter, I suppose. I'm reading some excellent research on the meaning of some of the original Greek such as the word "head" as used in "the man is the head of the woman." Such as the fact that this word has 27+ connotations/translations and NONE of them have anything to do with authorship or leadership, except of course supposedly in this one instance.
 
Perhaps these priests should convert to Methodism or some other denomination that allows female preachers.
 
Perhaps a denomination to which these women have voluntarily donated their commitment ought to show a little more appreciation.
 
paxetaurora said:
Perhaps a denomination to which these women have voluntarily donated their commitment ought to show a little more appreciation.

How likely is it that the Catholic church is going to change their mind on this issue?

If those women want to put up a massive campaign to get women in the priesthood, then more power to them. But if not, they'll either have to submit to the church's doctrine or leave. I just don't see the point in getting an unrecognized bishop to ordain them...it seems like a token act at best.
 
Ah Sula...thanks for bringing it up.

Here are some thoughts:

Ask the average Catholic, and they support the male priesthood on the fallacy that there were never male priests and that Jesus' apostles were all men. Hence, the belief is that it was always meant to be a male institution. However, female priests did, in fact, exist for the first 500 years of the Catholic Church. Female priesthood was eliminated, in fact, because the leaders at the time saw it as pagan, as there were high priestesses in pagan religions. A pathetic excuse? You bet.

The primary philosophy behind this emanated from St. Augustine (345-430), whose later followers became noted for "Christian stoicism," a movement characterized as being heavily anti-woman, anti-gay, and, generally, anti-emotional (hence, the modern definition of a "stoic").

Quite simply, the Christian stoic movement (not to be confused with the ancient Greek stoic movement, which was materialistic) took the writings of St. Paul to heavy extremes. Later stoics, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John Chrysostom, went as far as to declare fetuses to be completely male, except the fact that Satan often interfered and made females--hence, women were evil. These were also the inventors of original sin, whereas humans were automatically evil upon birth, due to the process of childbirth through the evil woman. Later on, "original sin" was amended to mean that all humans were evil upon birth, due to the sin of Adam and Eve (which, BTW, the Catholic Church now views as a myth).

The ideal Christian, to the stoics, was a celibate, unmarried male, as sex, even with one's spouse, was evil, because it involved "pleasure." The female was forbidden from expressing any pleasure from sex, but males were allowed to "sacrifice" as it became blatantly obvious that procreation would never occur without a male orgasm. As such, this was the origin of the Catholic belief that sex was only for procreation, and, hence, all other purposes were evil. Homosexuals, as expected, hit their nerves the hardest, as these sex acts could never produce children, and, in their infinite wisdom, believed that children could spawn inside of men, as sperm was the whole creator of children to them (reducing women to "incubators"). As such, this was also the origin of most modern homophobia, as the stoics believed this was the worst sin of all.

My point in all of this is to show what kind of tradition the Catholic Church bases this stuff all on, plus to show the irrelevance of those who originated the tradition. What does the Pope say on the matters of female priests? Nothing. "The matter is closed." Rather than tell the truth about female priests in history and come up with a definitive reason why women aren't allowed, he's contented with people using the fallacious version. I mean, he's technically not lying either; just being silent. :slant:

Unfortunately, most of our social taboos have less to do with the Bible than the medieval Christian stoics who took certain Biblical passages too far; passages that early Christians took far more lightly. But what do you do when over 1000 years have passed?

Melon
 
Angela Harlem said:
Bama I am really surprised you are discrediting something because of its source. I am aware that source is important, but I sincerely doubt the magazine would publish such an article in the hope THEY may knock some sense into the vatican. As Danospano said, it was written by an ex-priest. I think an ex-priest, regardless of where his words end up printed, would have some interesting things to say about the church.

Angela_Harlem:

I do not "discredit" the article, but I sincerely believe that the Church should look to its critics WITHIN rather than in PLAYBOY. In fact, they should have listened to the ex-priest when he was still a priest. I probably agree with much of what he said.

I just find it funny that we look to nudie books for advice on how the Church should operate. I also find it funny that PLAYBOY is telling anyone how women should be viewed/treated, etc.

~U2Alabama
 
Point taken Bama, should I have said dismissed? But neither here nor there. I have never read the magazine either I don't believe, except for once years ago when my friend announced she had gone snooping in her mum's drawers and found a whole bunch of men's mags. We had a quick read of one and it did contain a semi intersting article on I think mens roles in the average household compared to 30 years ago or something. Run of the mill, nothing groundbreaking, but not really toilet reading either.

The church and God are so far removed from each other. Its kinda ironic that a mens magazine has more respect for women than the Vatican.
 
Not that I really have a voice in the Catholic Church...

But...I do have opinions on this issue.

I traced my ancestry back to around 400AD and found two women (Queens) ,Saint Margaret Atheling and Saint Clotild descendant from Charlemagne who were sainted for initiating Catholicism in their country as a faith and reinforcing the catholic church and christianity in early France and Europe. This was MANY people...NOT just one's opinion on the issue.
I fail to see why this particular post "priest" should exclude people who can get a Nation to follow their lead and bring Europe out of the Dark Ages?
Women are a gender and NOT being a male doesn't mean we are pagans. I applaud these women for taking a stand for something they have devoted their lives to and something they whole heartedly believe in.
I also believe that the word "Man" in The Bible should be taken in context in many uses as a reference to the entire species and not just the male gender (Freudian thinking...humpf!) because as a population we have evolved to believe that both sexes have not only a mind but a voice.....just my opinion.
To those women who took the time and effort to become ordained>God Speed their efforts!!!!!
 
Last edited:
The women could have been excommunicated for accepting ordination from someone who's not recognized as a bishop by the Vatican. The ultra-conservative group that doesn't recognize the teachings of the Second Vatican Council is excommunicate for this reason--their big shot ordained priests. I'm a practicing Catholic, and I don't see why we can't ordain women, either. But I also don't see why we should do something because it was endorsed in Playboy magazine.
 
I thought of the ultraconservatives who got kicked out after their big shot ordained priests....the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX. They think the Church is being run by the Freemasons and have some other views that I think are completely off the wall.
 
I don't post much in FYM, but this is an interesting topic. I am a bit late entering the discussion, but I just wanted to mention a couple minor things.

I am not Catholic. I grew up in a rather conservative wing of the Lutheran Church. Women had a diminished role. Not as extreme as some churches, but there were usually no women as officers in the church and even now there are very few women as ministers. There weren't any rules against it, it just wasn't done.

I often wondered, and still do, why women could not be priests. Mary the Mother of Jesus plays such an important role in the Catholic Church. She is looked up to, prayed to and revered...but women have such a minor role and cannot be priests. It just has never made any sense to me.
 
I found this article last night :scream:
http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=0208110356000021

So apparently from these two stories we can draw the conclusion that spreading the word of God (if you're female) is a worse offense then sexually abusing children. So let me get this straight you'll get excommuniated if you're a female who tries to become a priest, but you can rape children and not even lose your postition in the church. This makes me so mad GRRRR AHHHH I don't even have words to express how angry this makes me FUCKING.... GAH!!!! :banghead: :mad: :banghead: Also apparently homosexuality this terrible, deadly sin......but only if it's between two consenting adults, if it's with an innocent child it's only a minor offence. :barf:
On another note: good plan with the whole giving abusive priests administrative jobs plan.....that would make it impossible for them to get access to children and is truely a just punishment for their actions *rolls eyes*.....and isn't the statistic something like 95% of child molesters will repeat their crime if let out in the general public? :scratch: :tsk:


Note: this post is in no way meant to bash Catholics, some of my relatives are Catholic, but to bash the hypocritical high ranking clergy that turn the other way when they see these things going on...........God sees what you have done.
 
Here's more information on that Playboy article that contains details on life within the Catholic Church (as told by a former priest):

Title: "Sex and Sanctity: One man's story about religious life and what seminaries really teach about sex."

Author: Charles J. O'Bryne

September 2002 Issue
 
It annoys me no end when a Catholic big shot blasts being gay as a terrible sin and then we find out he's covered up for priests who abused children. Likewise when they punish women for wanting to be priests after pushing gays into the closet. I will agree, this stinks. The church needs to judge less and tolerate more. Our big shots have a few messes to clean up. They're going after the wrong people. Being Catholic means that all of this crud really pisses me off because it's my church.
 
Back
Top Bottom