Saturday, May 31, 2008

This horse is already dead

but the issue just will not go away.

Today's 'Your Voice' column in the Cincinnati Enquirer argues that male-only priesthood isn't Biblical:

On Thursday, Reuters reported that the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano included a decree that women priests, and those who ordain them, will automatically be excommunicated.
The Roman Catholic Church, which already bans the ordination of women priests, now forbids those who participate in such activities from receiving the sacraments or sharing in acts of public worship.
Why does the Catholic Church ban women's ordination? Because Christ chose only men for his apostolate, the pope says.
There are two serious problems with this assertion.
First, Jesus also selected women apostles. In fact, Jesus selected Mary Magdalene for his original apostle. At the tomb scene, Jesus deliberately did not appear to his male disciples, including Peter and John; he waited until they left before appearing to Mary Magdalene (John 20). Then he commissioned her to tell his followers he had appeared, making her the primary witness to the Resurrection. This transformed her into the unique role of first apostle, the earliest person sent to tell Jesus' followers he had risen from the grave. If Jesus could entrust a woman with the status of primary apostle, why can't the Vatican?
Even the Apostle Paul commended a female apostle. In Romans 16:7, he commended the woman He HJunia (later translated into a man "Junias" during the 13th century) as prominent among the apostles.
A second critical problem lies with the Vatican's explanation for excluding women. Even if we were to agree that Christ chose only males for his apostolate, it also is true that he selected only from among Jews. If we follow the Vatican's reason to its logical conclusion, then the church should be ordaining only Jewish men from the Middle East for the priesthood.
Loveland writer Heidi Bright Parales is the author of "Hidden Voices: Biblical Women and Our Christian Heritage" (Smyth & Helwys, 1998).


I will write a response, and I will submit it to the Enquirer, as well as post it here.

6 comments:

adoro said...

Wow. What a selective reading of the New Testament! No mention of Mary, and no mention that neither Mary NOR Mary Magdalene were present at the Last Supper where the priesthood was instituted.

It's ALSO illogical to use the Jewish argument.

They don't have an understanding of the "deposit of faith" that we hold so dear, in that women have NEVER been ordained, and thus, in 2,000 years, and if Christ wanted to do so, he could have for in ALL of the pagan religions of the time priestesses were a dime a dozen! It would not have been bucking the trend to ordain women at that time...yet He chose not to do so.

And if they try to argue for a married priesthood, certainly the first were married, only because it was just beginning. Yet Paul clearly states it's better to remain unmarried for the "sake of the Kingdom." This was REVOLUTIONARY for women at the time! (I've written of this...somewhere).

And even those Eastern Catholic churches, and Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptics, etc. that have a married priesthood, they take their bishops ONLY from the celibate priests, and they still hold that once ordained, they cannot marry!

Yeah, they didn't bring all that up but it's the other common complaint.

And it's not like it's new that women who decide to be "ordained" are now barred from the sacraments as of this week. That has ALWAYS been the teaching. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS.

It's logical; if you leave the Church and start your own religion, well, then you are no longer in communion and thus you can no longer access the Sacraments, unless you're renoncing the religion you've just made up. And then you can come back through Confession.

It's so profoundly simple. It really IS!

And I'd rather be a holy woman than a priest any day! (no offense, Father...it's just not my calling! lol)

Theresa said...

You can go to
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24879373/
and vote on the question below. (It would be fun to have a lot of faithful Catholics vote in this unscientific poll and really mess up MSNBC's expected result!!)

Do you agree with the Vatican's decision to excommunicate female priests and the bishops who ordain them?

When I last checked, out of 9291 responses 35% responded that "Yes, church law states that only a baptized male can be made a priest." and 65% said "No, women priests could help the church deal with its clergy shortage."

Theresa

adoro said...

Thanks, Teresa, I just voted and sent the link on to others...and some of those people will do a lot to get others to that link! LOL!

gramps said...

I wonder why people protest with so much energy to church teachings and yet are free to leave and go to a "protest" church of any other flavor. Wouldn't they find what they are looking for elsewhere? Why stay where you do not believe what the church teaches and put yourself through such anger and bitterness. It puzzles me.

Adoro te Devote said...

gramps ~ These people literally have stated in various locales that they believe their "prophetic calling" is to remain in the Church...and change her from within.

We like to call that corruption. They call it "prophetic voice" or "propehtic call". Or some other nonsense.

That's why they remain. And they're ticked off because it doesn't work.

Kasia said...

That's a bit of a skewed poll. I'm sure they could have phrased the questions in a less "leading" fashion, had they really wanted to...