Political Crossfire Forums

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060730/ap_on_re_us/ordaining_women

Quote: PITTSBURGH - Joan Houk has ministered to the sick and needy, run two Roman Catholic parishes that were without priests and has presided over baptisms and funerals. Her calling now, she says, is to be a priest.

Houk will be one of a dozen women participating in a ceremony Monday in which eight will proclaim themselves priests and four deacons. The ceremony won't be recognized by the Catholic church, which has a 2,000-year tradition of an all-male priesthood.

Similar ceremonies conducted by the group Roman Catholic Womenpriests have been held before in other countries, and most of the participants have been excommunicated. It's the first time the group is holding a ceremony in the U.S.

The Pittsburgh Diocese issued a statement saying the ordination would not be valid.

"This unfortunate ceremony will take place outside the Church and undermines the unity of the Church. Those attempting to confer Holy Orders have, by their own actions, removed themselves from the Church, as have those who present themselves for such an invalid ritual," according to the statement released by the Rev. Ronald Lengwin, a spokesman for the diocese.

The diocese said they will welcome back anyone who chooses to leave the church.

Liberal Catholics say the ongoing clergy shortage and the dramatic rise in female lay leaders in American churches will eventually create pressure to ordain women. More lay people than priests are working full-time in American parishes and a significant number of the lay leaders are women.

But conservatives believe only males can be priests, as evidenced by Jesus' choice of men to be his apostles and the church's long tradition of only allowing men to serve.

A majority of Catholic respondents to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken just after the death of
Pope John Paul II last year said they favored ordination of women.

Womenpriests said a male priest presided over the first ordination of seven women sponsored by the group in 2002 in Austria; the women were excommunicated by the
Vatican in 2003.

"We need to claim for women their equal right with men to be ordained. And we need to do this 'contra legem,' to break an unjust law and yet to remain firmly within the church," Patricia Fresen said last year at a Philadelphia conference on women in the church.

She is a member of the group, in which she carries the title of bishop, and is one of three people presiding over the Pittsburgh ceremony.

They also say there are many examples of women with prominent roles in Jesus' ministry, including his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene.

"Women were definitely leaders in the early church and so that's what we're asking to go back to, the early leaders of women in the church and leading to ordination," said Aisha S. Taylor, executive director of the Fairfax, Va.-based Women's Ordination Conference.

Eileen DiFranco, 54, of Philadelphia, who will be participating in Monday's ceremony, said she received a letter from Cardinal Justin Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia, telling her that she is a threat to church unity.

"I want to hold (the church) to a higher standard," DiFranco said. "I want it to be what it is capable of being, and that is an inclusive community."

Houk decided to pursue priesthood after listening to a speech by Fresen. Houk said she realizes she will face rejection for her choice, but she said she's prepared for that.

"I do not intend to start a church of my own," said Houk, a 66-year-old, married mother of six and grandmother of five. "I will not lead people away from the Catholic church but rather I hope to lead people to the church."

I may differ with many in the Catholic church over this but I believe that only men should be ordained priests. Women have their role in the communion of the church. They can choose to be parishoners, nuns, and catechists. But for some reason unknown, God chose men to be the communicators of his religion as priests. Jesus only chose men to be his apostles and these were the original priests of their time.[/quote]

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2260 Location: Washington

Is this something just for the Catholics on the board, or is it for anybody who's religion ordains priests?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8939

I will admit that I thought about this for a while before voting, but I voted in favor of female priesthood. While Jesus Christ chose men to be His apostles and God chose men to be His preachers, but I also believe that man and woman are equal in the eyes of God.

After much internal debate, I voted for the title of Priestess because of the equality of the sexes in the eyes of God and Jesus Christ. Men and women are equal in the love and grace of the Lord, and as such they are equal in God's work. I can understand the traditions and the convents of the Church, but I can also understand humanity's equality.

For equal love, for equal grace, for equal humanity, I vote in favor of ordaining women to be preachers of the Lord alongside men. I can only hope that the Archdiocese will recognize such ordaining within the Church itself.

Azuresidus · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 183 Location: Somewhere Else.

I'm one of those people who thinks that women should be allowed to do anything that men are. So, I had to vote yes.

That said, I am not a member of the Catholic church, so their traditions and conventions mean nothing to me. Not only that, but they are a religion, and so long as they are not actually doing anything to hurt people, they get to set their own rules. If they had a rule that said that you had to wear a bright purple hat, you would have to wear a bright purple hat to be part of that religion, join another, or start an off-shoot of your own. So, while I believe that women should be allowed to attempt this, and the reform is a good idea, I also believe that it is up to the church leaders in the end. I may think that they should say yes, but it is their right to say no. And I seriously doubt this reform is going to be accepted by them any time soon, or ever. I may not agree with their decisions, but it would only be one of many things about this Church that I do not agree with. Hence, not Catholic.

Bdwatkins · Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 27

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
1 Corinthians 14:34

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1 Timothy 2:12

So the question here is, do you believe in the WHOLE Bible, or do you pick and choose parts you like and ignore the rest? The Bible is VERY clear that women do not belong in church leadership. Women being pastors is an abomintion in the sight of the Lord.

Feminism has infested even our churches. How sad. :(

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8939

Bdwatkins wrote: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
1 Corinthians 14:34

Men and women alike are under the obedience of God. That obedience is higher than any obedience to any mortal; regardless of gender.

Bdwatkins wrote: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1 Timothy 2:12

Priests are not teachers, they are shepherds and communicators. They guide the flock of their parish with the Lord, and they communicate the message of God to that flock. Also, to ordain a woman would not usurp authority over another, but rather elevate that individual to a closer connection with God.

"Silence" is another term used in both passages. However God has power to grant anyone within His house.

It is not a matter of picking and choosing sections of the Bible, it is different interpretations of the same text.

Bdwatkins · Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 27

LostSoul3412 wrote: Bdwatkins wrote: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
1 Corinthians 14:34

Men and women alike are under the obedience of God. That obedience is higher than any obedience to any mortal; regardless of gender.

Bdwatkins wrote: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1 Timothy 2:12

Priests are not teachers, they are shepherds and communicators. They guide the flock of their parish with the Lord, and they communicate the message of God to that flock. Also, to ordain a woman would not usurp authority over another, but rather elevate that individual to a closer connection with God.

"Silence" is another term used in both passages. However God has power to grant anyone within His house.

It is not a matter of picking and choosing sections of the Bible, it is different interpretations of the same text.

If a Priest is not "authority," what is?

Yes you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow. I bet you also believe homosexuality is A-OK with God, despite it being condemned in the Bible. Well, maybe it is OK with YOUR god, but not the true, Living God of the Bible!

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8939

Bdwatkins wrote: If a Priest is not "authority," what is?

God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Archdiocese of the Holy See.

Bdwatkins wrote: Yes you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow. I bet you also believe homosexuality is A-OK with God, despite it being condemned in the Bible. Well, maybe it is OK with YOUR god, but not the true, Living God of the Bible!

It is mere different interpretations of the Bible itself as a religious text. Personally, my interpretation of the Bible is that God and Jesus Christ love all of humanity in a way that we could never hope to understand. That love, that compassion extends to all peoples, regardless of faith. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans all share the love of Christ. I believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind, not just the sins of His followers. I believe that God loves us, I believe that Jesus loves us, and I believe that the Holy Spirit lives within us; even if we do not realize it. Such is the power of God though love; such is the love of God through power. Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike share in this love. Men and women both share in this grace. There are not different gods, for there is only one true God; to separate that one God between two people is a futile attempt to keep others from His love. Catholicism is a religion based upon the love of Christ through the Church of Peter. While you can believe otherwise, my faith is based upon love for all creatures.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Azuresidus wrote: I'm one of those people who thinks that women should be allowed to do anything that men are. So, I had to vote yes.

That said, I am not a member of the Catholic church, so their traditions and conventions mean nothing to me. Not only that, but they are a religion, and so long as they are not actually doing anything to hurt people, they get to set their own rules. If they had a rule that said that you had to wear a bright purple hat, you would have to wear a bright purple hat to be part of that religion, join another, or start an off-shoot of your own. So, while I believe that women should be allowed to attempt this, and the reform is a good idea, I also believe that it is up to the church leaders in the end. I may think that they should say yes, but it is their right to say no. And I seriously doubt this reform is going to be accepted by them any time soon, or ever. I may not agree with their decisions, but it would only be one of many things about this Church that I do not agree with. Hence, not Catholic.

Very well said! I agree 100%

Azuresidus · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 183 Location: Somewhere Else.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
It is mere different interpretations of the Bible itself as a religious text. Personally, my interpretation of the Bible is that God and Jesus Christ love all of humanity in a way that we could never hope to understand. That love, that compassion extends to all peoples, regardless of faith. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans all share the love of Christ. I believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind, not just the sins of His followers. I believe that God loves us, I believe that Jesus loves us, and I believe that the Holy Spirit lives within us; even if we do not realize it. Such is the power of God though love; such is the love of God through power. Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike share in this love. Men and women both share in this grace. There are not different gods, for there is only one true God; to separate that one God between two people is a futile attempt to keep others from His love. Catholicism is a religion based upon the love of Christ through the Church of Peter. While you can believe otherwise, my faith is based upon love for all creatures.

Really, really not trying to be at all insulting. But I do have a question. If your faith, or what you believe, differs from the official position of your church, what would you do? Trust your interpretation of the Bible and what God would want you to believe, or trust the Church's? As I understand it, the Catholic Church can be a bit judgemental of things like homosexuality and other faiths. Again, really trying to phrase this to be nonconfrontational, I am honestly curious. Are you making a distinction between "sharing in his love" and being "saved" and going to heaven in the above post? Or am I misunderstanding the Church's position? Like I said, I'm not and have never been Catholic, so this is entirely possible.

Izzibeth · Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 423

Bdwatkins wrote:
Yes you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow. I bet you also believe homosexuality is A-OK with God, despite it being condemned in the Bible. Well, maybe it is OK with YOUR god, but not the true, Living God of the Bible!

i believe you are the one picking and choosing which parts to follow. (i would like to point out that, from my understanding of Corinthians, it is Paul's opinion as he himself states on several occasions..but i digress)

Quote: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. Corinthians 11:4
gentlemen. do not wear a hat while praying. that is dishonourable.

Quote: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven Corinthians 11:5
women. you better wear something on your heads. or you are dishonouring yourself!

Quote: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. Corinthains 11:6

Quote: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? Corinthians 11:14
no long hair! yet....

Quote: No razor shall come upon his [a Nazarite's] head. He shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair on his head grow. Numbers 6:5
Quote: For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son [Samson]; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite. Judges 13:5
Quote: I will give him [Samuel] unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head. Samuel 1:11
it's so hard to know what to do when there are so many contradictory statements!

there is a lot in the bible that is interpreted by different people and there is a LOT... a LOT that is ignored. #1. because it is contradicted in other parts of the bible #2. because it simply does not apply to modern times

there is a lot in the bible that says women should not speak in church and then there are other verses which seem to suggest that women were leaders in the church and noted among the apostles.

everyone "picks and chooses" what to follow in the bible.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

The last poll selection is silly. Lay ministers are not priests and are not ordained. In the U.S. there is no shortage of lay ministers.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8939

Azuresidus wrote: Really, really not trying to be at all insulting. But I do have a question. If your faith, or what you believe, differs from the official position of your church, what would you do? Trust your interpretation of the Bible and what God would want you to believe, or trust the Church's? As I understand it, the Catholic Church can be a bit judgemental of things like homosexuality and other faiths. Again, really trying to phrase this to be nonconfrontational, I am honestly curious. Are you making a distinction between "sharing in his love" and being "saved" and going to heaven in the above post? Or am I misunderstanding the Church's position? Like I said, I'm not and have never been Catholic, so this is entirely possible.

It's not insulting at all, in fact it's a very good question. Often times I do find myself on the different end of an issue with the Catholic Church, but this doesn't mean I don't follow the faith; the point is that I do not follow it blindly. If anything, I tend to just shrug my shoulders and move on. On the issue of other religions, I believe that everyone actually worships the same God, but through a multitude of different ways. This is not to say that any one religion is better, this is not to say that any religion is worse. I believe that in God's eyes, all men are created equal in standing, and in faith. Also, I believe that all humanity is created equal in sexuality. Regardless of one's sexuality, God loves all creatures, and to walk the path of God we must do the same. While I do disagree with the Catholic Church on these issues, I do not believe that they reject homosexuals and other religions out of hate. It is only a different interpretation of the same text. Basically, I am a "liberal" Catholic in an establishment run by conservative Catholics. But the point still stands: we are all Catholics. My faith doesn't change because I disagree with the Archdiocese. Personally, I believe that God and Jesus Christ are both above worldly politics, and should have no place in them. But again, that's just my opinion.

I appreciate the respect in your post, but there is no need to worry about insulting me. :wink:

Azuresidus · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 183 Location: Somewhere Else.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Azuresidus wrote: Really, really not trying to be at all insulting. But I do have a question. If your faith, or what you believe, differs from the official position of your church, what would you do? Trust your interpretation of the Bible and what God would want you to believe, or trust the Church's? As I understand it, the Catholic Church can be a bit judgemental of things like homosexuality and other faiths. Again, really trying to phrase this to be nonconfrontational, I am honestly curious. Are you making a distinction between "sharing in his love" and being "saved" and going to heaven in the above post? Or am I misunderstanding the Church's position? Like I said, I'm not and have never been Catholic, so this is entirely possible.

It's not insulting at all, in fact it's a very good question. Often times I do find myself on the different end of an issue with the Catholic Church, but this doesn't mean I don't follow the faith; the point is that I do not follow it blindly. If anything, I tend to just shrug my shoulders and move on. On the issue of other religions, I believe that everyone actually worships the same God, but through a multitude of different ways. This is not to say that any one religion is better, this is not to say that any religion is worse. I believe that in God's eyes, all men are created equal in standing, and in faith. Also, I believe that all humanity is created equal in sexuality. Regardless of one's sexuality, God loves all creatures, and to walk the path of God we must do the same. While I do disagree with the Catholic Church on these issues, I do not believe that they reject homosexuals and other religions out of hate. It is only a different interpretation of the same text. Basically, I am a "liberal" Catholic in an establishment run by conservative Catholics. But the point still stands: we are all Catholics. My faith doesn't change because I disagree with the Archdiocese. Personally, I believe that God and Jesus Christ are both above worldly politics, and should have no place in them. But again, that's just my opinion.

I appreciate the respect in your post, but there is no need to worry about insulting me. :wink:

I think that I like "liberal Catholicism" alot more than the conservative version that I tend to encounter most of the time. Thank you for the explaination. :)

Todd D. · Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:50 am Post subject:

LostSoul, I do agree with much of what you say, but I would suggest that there is a fundamental difference between you as a (presumably) lay person disagreeing with certain areas of Church teaching versus someone claiming for themselves a title of Priest (or, in one case, Bishop), even though according to the official requirements for such position, they are not eligible to receive that title.

I liken it to calling myself a Libertarian. If I say that I am a member of the Libertarian Party of the United States, but I believe in drug laws, collective ownership of property, mandatory armed service, and international aggression, do I still remain a member of the Libertarian Party? I am of course more than free to call myself a "Libertarian", but if I am explicitly contradicting many of the positions that are required in order to be a member of said party, I would most likely no longer be recognized by the party as a member, would I?

These women are free to ordain each other, God bless them for doing so. They can even call themselves "Catholic" if they want to, but to pretend that their ordanation would be valid and recognized by the Catholic Church is downright silly.

Whether women should be ordained or not, I feel that these women went about this cause the wrong way. If they wanted to elicit real change inside the Catholic Church, they should not have left it (and, whether they are willing to admit it or not, they have left the Church).

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8939

Todd D. wrote: LostSoul, I do agree with much of what you say, but I would suggest that there is a fundamental difference between you as a (presumably) lay person disagreeing with certain areas of Church teaching versus someone claiming for themselves a title of Priest (or, in one case, Bishop), even though according to the official requirements for such position, they are not eligible to receive that title.

I liken it to calling myself a Libertarian. If I say that I am a member of the Libertarian Party of the United States, but I believe in drug laws, collective ownership of property, mandatory armed service, and international aggression, do I still remain a member of the Libertarian Party? I am of course more than free to call myself a "Libertarian", but if I am explicitly contradicting many of the positions that are required in order to be a member of said party, I would most likely no longer be recognized by the party as a member, would I?

These women are free to ordain each other, God bless them for doing so. They can even call themselves "Catholic" if they want to, but to pretend that their ordanation would be valid and recognized by the Catholic Church is downright silly.

Whether women should be ordained or not, I feel that these women went about this cause the wrong way. If they wanted to elicit real change inside the Catholic Church, they should not have left it (and, whether they are willing to admit it or not, they have left the Church).

I am no priest, nor to I even attend Church; but I would also say that Catholic priests can only be ordained through the Catholic Church. I understand your arguments, and I agree with them. As much as I believe that women have the same rights as men in the eyes of God, these ordainings are not recognized by the Catholic Church, and therefore, are not valid in my opinion. Even though I do not agree with it, it is the will of the Archdiocese as authority over the Church of Peter. I do not believe that it will be recognized by the Catholic Church, and therefore is not a valid ordaining, but I do believe that it should be recognized. Another disagreement I have with the establishment of my faith. But as much as I disagree with it, it is still the path I walk.

Bdwatkins · Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 27

Quote: God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Archdiocese of the Holy See.

No. Clearly the Bible is speaking in regards to temporal authority. Let not any woman have authority over a man. Men are leaders, and women are followers, just as a wife must submit unto her husband, and husband is the head of the household.

There is no "interpretation" here required. The Bible says what it says. If you do not like it, write your own Bible, and start your own church. Clearly your beliefs are out of step with the Roman Catholic Church.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 18289

No. Emphatically, women should not be ordained.

This is one reason I abandoned the Anglican Communion, the other being ordination of openly-partnered homosexual clergy.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8939

Bdwatkins wrote: No. Clearly the Bible is speaking in regards to temporal authority.

That is your interpretation, and you are entitled to it. Just as I am entitled to mine.

Bdwatkins wrote: Let not any woman have authority over a man. Men are leaders, and women are followers, just as a wife must submit unto her husband, and husband is the head of the household.

Men and women are equal in the eyes of God and Jesus Christ.

Bdwatkins wrote: There is no "interpretation" here required.

You entire claim is based upon your interpretation, and mine upon mine.

Bdwatkins wrote: The Bible says what it says. If you do not like it, write your own Bible, and start your own church.

That is unnecessary, for the Bible, like the Constitution, can have many different meanings for the same words. I also am not compelled to leave the Church because I do not pray to text, I pray to God through that text.

Bdwatkins wrote: Clearly your beliefs are out of step with the Roman Catholic Church.

I have openly admitted that, but that does not mean that my faith in not in tune with Catholicism.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8939

Azuresidus wrote: I think that I like "liberal Catholicism" alot more than the conservative version that I tend to encounter most of the time. Thank you for the explaination. :)

Before I forget my manners, you are most welcome. There are always multiple sides to the same issue. :)