Dear friends,
 
For anyone who is interested in browsing through a record of some of the views expressed about women by various theologians and spiritual leaders of our Church throughout its history, you will be interested in these parts of our library:

• cultural prejudice and bias against women has adversely influenced Church theology throughout history.  For more, see here: Liberated from Prejudice
• on the drop down menu, click on the 'Resources' tab. Then click on 'Ancient Texts.' early on in my journey here, I shared some of the quotations in the thread that is called, Women, Misbegotten Men? An Ancient Prejudice Lives and Rules our section on Thomas Aquinas is illustrative of how mistakes in science led to mistaken views about women.  If Thomas Aquinas knew the things we know through science today, I am quite certain he would disavow the views he expressed about women. compare the changes that are slowly being incorporated into canon to grant women more equality. See a) The Code of Canon Law, 1917 versus b) The Code of Canon Law, 1983.  Changes in the Code give implicit recognition to mistakes in old ecclesiastical ways of treating women.

Of all the points listed above, the first, Liberated from Prejudice, provides for easiest readability. Any questions, please let me know!
 
with love and blessings,
 
~Sophie~

Dear Therese:  I say this with a great deal of respect for you, but you are just so wrong, and your theology and theological background is just too weak for you to be dealing with this issue with real crediblity.  I feel I could write and write and write, but I don't have time.  But let me say this.  It is not that a woman cannot be an icon of Christ.  Of course she can.  We are called to be icons of Christ.  Christ got his flesh from a woman, who is "full of grace", the only person in the entire bible that an angel addressed by a title: "Hail, full of grace".  Not "Hail Mary", but a title "full of grace". 
 
The fact that women are not ordained has nothing to do with the woman and what she can and cannot be.  It is primarily about what Christ has decided.  You have not explained why Christ chose only men--fumbling, frail, sinful men.  Why did he do that?  He knew what was acceptable and not acceptable, and he didn't care.  He healed on the sabbath, he tore a strip off the Pharisees, he warned of their hypocrisy, etc.  He chose men who he knew would betray him.  Why did he do so?
 
It is not that women are inferior.  Women are not inferior.  The Church never taught that women are animals who just menstruate.  An individual person can say whatever he wants.  That's not Church teaching, even if he is a priest or bishop.  The early heretics were bishops.  They did not represent the Church.
 
Men only are ordained because that's what Christ chose.  He did not choose men only because men have something women do not.  It has nothing to do with men or women as such.  It has everything to do with his will.  He chose men.  And it goes back to the article that is at the beginning of this discussion forum.  Christ is the bridegroom, his Church is his bride.  You keep focusing on "women" as if it has something to do with the female sex, that the female sex is thought to be inferior.  It doesn't and it isn't.  It has to do with Christ's decision to choose only males.  Please answer this question: "Did Christ make a mistake?"  "Was Jesus unjust and discriminatory?"
 
You also say your mission is to make the Church see the face of Christ in women.  I'm sorry, my dear, but you are far too proud and you really lack a sense of your own limitations.  I don't mean to be offensive, but you are like the adolescent who complains about the ignorance of his or her parents.  Then, years go by, she has her own children and then she realizes that no, it was not her parents who were ignorant, it was the arrogance of youth that blinded her way back when she was only 13.
 
Please get off this track and don't waste your life barking up this wrong tree.  Just read the great female doctors of the Church, the great saints, and join the Church in her mission of turning towards the secular world--not towards her--and bringing souls to Christ.

Therese, thank you for speaking out the truth. 
Praying that the bishops who claim to lead for Christ will start developing their backbones.
Right now it seems too many of them are in for the soft ride instead of speaking for Christ's truth.
 
And thank you Dr. Wijngaards for your dedication in putting out this truth.
One day there will be a monument to you in Vatican Square.
 
Thank you both for showing such courage in the face of all that's wrong.

Dear friend,
 
Thank you for your reply! My reply includes links to various documents.  The links are highlighted with a violet hue.
 
Dear Therese:  I say this with a great deal of respect for you, but you are just so wrong, and your theology and theological background is just too weak for you to be dealing with this issue with real crediblity.  I feel I could write and write and write, but I don't have time.  But let me say this.  It is not that a woman cannot be an icon of Christ.  Of course she can.  We are called to be icons of Christ. 
 
Yes, dear friend.  I absolutely 100% agree with your statements that a woman can be an icon of Christ and that we are called to be icons of Christ.  It is because of this that I find the Vatican's arguments against women in priesthood to be so deeply troubling.  When it abandoned the old and obviously offensive reasons for excluding women from priesthood, the Vatican had to come up with a new explanation.  So now it is teaching that women can't be priests because we do not have the capacity to be full icons of Christ. 

This modern attempt to justify exclusion made one of its first appearances in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's document Inter Insignores.  In it we read:

the priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible¹⁸ and which the faithful must be able to recognise with ease. The whole sacramental economy is in fact based upon natural signs, on symbols imprinted on the human psychology: 'Sacramental signs,' says St.Thomas,' represent what they signify by natural resemblance.'¹⁹ The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this 'natural resemblance' which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ.
 

In other words, women can't be priests because the image of Christ is not perceptible in women (contrast with what Jesus says in Matthew 25 or what Mother Teresa says -- 'I see the face of Christ in everyone I meet'.   I personally have no difficulty seeing Christ in anyone I meet! 
 
The Vatican can no longer rely on the old reasons to justify exclusion of women.  As St. Cyprian says:  'a custom without truth is merely ancient error.'  Ancient errors made about women that affected our ability to be sacramental ministers in the Church?   Throughout the  history of the Church, we witness in the writings of many spiritual leaders, bishops, theologians, canon lawyers and even Popes, a prejudicial attitude towards women.  Unfortunately, I am not making this up.  It is irrefutable! The fact that this is so is:

• evidenced in historical records
• acknowledged in several Apostolic Letters written by Pope John Paul II  (eg, Letter to Women, June 29, 1995: 'Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women's dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves, and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision.'

Throughout most of Church history, the exclusion of women was justified on a threefold prejudice against women:

• women were thought to be physically, intellectually and emotionally inferior to men: Only men were believed to be fully in God's image (different what we now believe today, ie that both women and men are in God's image.)     Women were actually considered to be a form of 'misbegotten men'.  The misbegotten state was attributed to reasons like a cold wind blowing on the day of conception, the mother living for too long in a cold, damp client for too long during pregnancy, etc.  The belief was that had the conditions been ideal at conception, during pregnancy, etc, the only product that could have turned out was a 'man.'  Until the 18th century, the scientific belief persisted that the full material needed to produce a child was contained in the sperm only.  Women's contribution to procreation through contribution of the egg was not understood until very recently.  Until this realisation, belief was that women were merely the vessels where the child grew until birth.  Putting it in colloquially -- the womb was considered to be like an oven where the 'men cakes' were baked.  If things turned out perfectly, a male child would be the product of birth.  The birth of a female child was  explained away by problems with the 'oven', the weather, or other untoward events affecting either conception or gestation.
• women were considered to  be the source of sin (Eve). 
• women were considered to be ritually unclean when menstruating. Uncleanliness was thought to defile holiness.  As unclean creatures, women were kept far from the altar and sacred services. 

This threefold prejudice underlies all medieval thinking and makes it impossible to imagine that women too could be priests. The theological reasons given are rationalizations to justify the prejudices.   (See the links found on this page, Liberated from Prejudice, for more information.)
 
The priesthood was and is still considered to be an important role.  Because men were the more perfect form of human being, only they could take the sacred role.  How could women -- inferior to men intellectually, physically, emotionally -- be priests?   Because of their inferiority, women were not only forbidden from being near the altar, there were limitations imposed on how or when we could do such simple things as touching sacred linen.  I am not making this up!  This sadly is part of our history.
 
Plentiful evidence of this abounds! 
  
eg, As found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

• Sacred linen must first be washed by men, before women touch them
• Only men can hold ecclesiastical orders and offices
• Women cannot be full members of pious organizations.
• Women may not distribute holy communion
• Women may not read out Sacred Scripture in church
• Women are the last choice of minister for baptism

eg, Capitulary of Bishop Theodulf of Orleans (760-821):

• Canon 6. While a priest is celebrating Mass, women should in no way approach the altar, but remain in their places, and there the priest should receive their offerings to God.  Women should therefore remember their infirmity, and the inferiority of their sex: and therefore they should have fear of touching whatever sacred things there are in the ministry of the Church.

eg    Sicardus of Cremona (1181):

Women are not allowed to touch any of the sacred vessels used in the liturgy: 'Reverence with regard to sacred utensils is shown both in what one does and in what one does not do. With regard to not doing, utensils may only be touched by men and not even be touched by religious sisters.' On Distinctio 1 de cons.
• The birth of a girl carries a double curse:  'There were two commandments in the (Old) Law, one pertaining to the mother giving birth, the other to the delivery itself. With regard to the mother giving birth, when she had given birth to a male child, she was to refrain from entering the Temple for forty days as an unclean person: because the foetus, conceived in uncleanliness, is said to remain formless for forty days. But if she gave birth to a female child, the space of time was doubled, for the menstrual blood, which accompanies birth, is considered to such an extent unclean that, as Solinus states, fruits dry up and grass withers at its touch. But why was the time for a female child doubled? Solution: because a double curse lies on the feminine growth. For she carries the curse of Adam and also the (punishment) ‘you will give birth in pain’. Or, perhaps, because, as the knowledge of physicians reveals, female children remain at conception twice as long unformed as male children.'  Mitrale V, chapter 11

eg Hugucio (1188)

• Man rather than woman is an image of God:  'On account of three reasons the man is said to be an image of God and not the woman. First of all: just as there is one God and from him everything arose, so one man was created from the beginning from whom all the others arose. Therefore to this extent he has a similarity with God namely that as everything proceeded from this one God so all other human beings proceed from this one man. Secondly just as from the side of Christ when he was sleeping in death on the cross the origin of the Church flowed namely water and blood through which are signified the sacraments of the Church through whom the Church subsists and has its origin and becomes the spouse of Christ, so from the side of Adam when he was sleeping in paradise was formed his spouse because from there was taken a rib, from which Eve was formed. Thirdly: just as Christ is head of the Church and governs the Church so the husband is head of his wife and rules and governs her. And through these three causes the man is stated to be the image of God and not the woman, and therefore the man must not be like the woman a sign of subjection, but a sign of freedom and preeminence. However, in a fourth way both the man and the woman are said to be an image of God, wherefore we have the expression ‘Let us make man’ that is ‘let us make him in our image and our likeness’ that is capable of the divine essence through reason, through the intellect, through memory, through genius and this is said both about the woman and the man.'  On Causa 33, quaestio 5, chapter 13

eg Thomas Aquinas.

• Women are biologically inferior.
  • Following Aristotle's view of procreation, Aquinas believed that a woman is born by some defect in the generative process.
  • A woman is a ‘defective male’. The biologically secondary status is also clear from the belief that the male seed contains the generative power.
  • The mother only provides a womb that gives nourishment to the seed/foetus. This view was common among the Fathers.
• Women are socially inferior.
  • A woman is subject to man by nature, because human reason, though common to both men and women to some extent, predominates in the male.
• Women are created as dependent on men.
  • Man was created first. Though both men and women are the image of God as to our intellectual nature, man is the image of God in a special sense. Aquinas argues that, on account of these inherent defects, woman cannnot signify eminence of degree and can,therefore, not represent Christ as an ordained minister.

eg, St. Bonaventure (1217-1274):

• Women do not bear the image of God.
• 'A woman is not capable of such power.' A woman ‘is not capable of such power’.  ‘In Orders there is a concentration of power which many reasons show to be not at all suitable for women’.

Christ got his flesh from a woman, who is "full of grace", the only person in the entire bible that an angel addressed by a title: "Hail, full of grace".  Not "Hail Mary", but a title "full of grace". 

 
As an aside, you may be interested to learn about the traditional devotion to Mary as the first priest of Christ which has existed in our Church throughout most of its history.  More about it is found here: Mary First Priest of Christ.  It was only at the beginning of the twentieth century that the Vatican began to impose prohibitions against this devotion.
The fact that women are not ordained has nothing to do with the woman and what she can and cannot be. Agreed!  There is nothing about women that prevents them from being priests. It is prejudice that prevents it!
 
 It is primarily about what Christ has decided. 
 
Is it? The Vatican's own Pontifical Biblical Commission says there is nothing in scripture that precludes the ordination of women. So now the Vatican forbids discussion. As someone said earlier, if the Vatican had confidence about its case, it would be encouraging people to freely and vigorously discuss. 
 
You have not explained why Christ chose only men--fumbling, frail, sinful men.  I don't agree that Christ chose only men.
 
Why did he do that?  He knew what was acceptable and not acceptable, and he didn't care.  He healed on the sabbath, he tore a strip off the Pharisees, he warned of their hypocrisy, etc.  He chose men who he knew would betray him.  Why did he do so?  Christ loves all of us and teaches about redemption!
 
It is not that women are inferior.  Women are not inferior. 
 
Dear friend, I absolutely 100% agree with you.  But see  above.  Like it or not, this is part of the foundation our current problems in the Church are based on.  I wonder if there are reasons we are not taught much about Catholic Church history!
 
The Church never taught that women are animals who just menstruate.  An individual person can say whatever he wants.  That's not Church teaching, even if he is a priest or bishop.  The early heretics were bishops.  They did not represent the Church.
The teaching was that women were unclean because they menstruate. Unclean beings were not permitted to come near the altar.  
 
Men only are ordained because that's what Christ chose. 
 
Are you so sure that the choice of the twelve apostles is the 'stopping point' in assessing what Christ chose. 

• The first evangelist appointed by  him was a woman -- the Samaritan woman. 
• The only people to annoint him in Scripture were woman.
• The first person he appointed to announce the Good News of the Resurrection was a woman, Mary Magdalene.  In the eastern Church, she is still known as the Apostle to the Apostles! 
• We are told there were only twelve male apostles there.  Yet study the scriptures -- it is clear that apostles and disciples were present.  Based on Jewish Passover practices and what we know of Jesus, it is inconceivable that women would not have been there!

He did not choose men only because men have something women do not. 
 
If one argues that Jesus chose only men, then one must also look at the qualities of those men: Jewish mostly poorly educated married fishermen. They would have had dark skin, beards, circumcisions, children, etc.  They would not have been Philippino, Ukrainian, Dutch, Spanish, English or any of the many other many kind of men who make up the priesthood today.
 
It has nothing to do with men or women as such. 
 
I agree! But the Vatican and those who support exclusion of women have turned it into such!
 
It has everything to do with his will. 
 
Agreed!
 
He chose men. 
 
That's what you are saying presumably because you agree with the Vatican!  As I have pointed out, he also chose women.  For whatever reasons that undergird fear of women, those who have been making the rules in the Church are refusing to acknowledge that Christ also chose women!
 
And it goes back to the article that is at the beginning of this discussion forum. 
 
Christ is the bridegroom, his Church is his bride.  (Someone earlier in this thread pointed out the problems that arise when there are attempts to literally apply this to the sacrament of the Eucharist.  Metaphors are not meant to be taken literally.)
 
You keep focusing on "women" as if it has something to do with the female sex, that the female sex is thought to be inferior.  It cannot be denied that throughout the first 20 centuries of Christianity, the alleged inferiority of women was one of the main planks in the argument that tried to justify exclusion of women from priesthood.
 
It doesn't and it isn't.  It has to do with Christ's decision to choose only males.  Please answer this question: "Did Christ make a mistake?"  It depends what you consider to be a mistake. 
 
On the one hand, one could look at the story of the Syrophonecian woman who because of her persistence convinced Christ to expand his ministry.  Initially, he seemed to understand that he had come only for the Jews.  She was not Jewish.  He refused here.  She persisted and because of this, he included her in his ministry.  Was his initial refusal a mistake? Or was he modelling to men of the Church today that sometimes people have good points to make and that it is ok to expand the way.
 
I personally do not agree with your argument that Christ chose only men.  Besides the women I have pointed out, throughout the New Testament, we are reminded that it is written from the perspective of men. For instance, in the story of the feeding of the five thousand, we are told there were five thousand people there 'not counting women and children.'  Hidden clue:  not all of the details are necessarily always provided in the text.
 
"Was Jesus unjust and discriminatory?"
 
No. He showed himself to be a man capable of listening to and incorporating new ways of seeing into his way of being.  Considering the story of the syrophonecian woman, can the same be said about our male Church leaders with respect to women today?  Instead of listening and having conversation, they block their ears, forbid discussion and come out with lines like, 'Case closed. There is nothing more to say!'
 
You also say your mission is to make the Church see the face of Christ in women.  I'm sorry, my dear, but you are far too proud and you really lack a sense of your own limitations. 
 
This is considered to be an ad hominem argument.  Courteously I point out to you that when one starts attacking the character of the other participating in conversation, it is a sign that s/he is grasping for straws.  Making derogatory remarks about one's partner in conversation does not go to the substance of what is being discussed.  By virtue of the first part of your next comment, I think you understand all this.
 
I don't mean to be offensive, but you are like the adolescent who complains about the ignorance of his or her parents.  Then, years go by, she has her own children and then she realizes that no, it was not her parents who were ignorant, it was the arrogance of youth that blinded her way back when she was only 13.
 
However, as you continue, you persist with the ad hominem.  We gather here in CIRCLES in the spirit of Christian dialogue.  That means derogatory statements about others should be left out of conversation.
 
Please get off this track and don't waste your life barking up this wrong tree.  Just read the great female doctors of the Church, the great saints, and join the Church in her mission of turning towards the secular world--not towards her--and bringing souls to Christ.
 
I do read the great female saints and doctors of the Church and they inspire me.  St. Teresa of Avila in particular shares some outstanding guidance about who we are as Christians and how we are to live our lives as such. One of her more famous poems is one I love:

Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

 
She says that I am Christ's body.  Was she right or wrong? Is it wrong for me to interpret this prayer as though it could apply to me... a woman? 


Do you see Christ in women?
 
with love and blessings,
 
Therese (Sophie)

Why won't the Vatican let women participate in discussions?

Bottom line is, these men are out on a limb trying to develop arguments to defend their privileges. 

If the Vatican believed there was some real muscle in what they were saying, they would not be forbidding discussion about it.  Sad thing is that by doing this, they are making themselves look as not very credible guardians of the faith or managers of administration.

I have not read one lucid explanation from the Vatican that justifies the exclusion of women. They dish out obfuscation, theological mumbo jumbo, and contorted rationalisations that make no sense at all. They continue to bring shame upon Christianity and Catholicism. This is all incredibly sad.

Dear friends,

Several of the earlier posts appropriately raised the issue of the bride/bridegroom metaphor that is often used to describe the relationship between  Christ and the Church.

A literal interpretation of the metaphor has problematic features especially when it is used to attempt to justify exclusion of women from priesthood.  An excellent academic article about this is Dr. Tina Beattie's,  The Female Body and the Sacramental Theology in Neo-Orthodox Catholic Theology.

And our CIRCLES discussion thread that is devoted singularly to this theme is located here:  Bride and Bridegroom in Ephesians.

If you have any questions, please let me know! 

with love and blessings,

~Sophie~

Guest


Therese, thank you for speaking out the truth. 
Praying that the bishops who claim to lead for Christ will start developing their backbones.
Right now it seems too many of them are in for the soft ride instead of speaking for Christ's truth.
 
And thank you Dr. Wijngaards for your dedication in putting out this truth.
One day there will be a monument to you in Vatican Square.
 
Thank you both for showing such courage in the face of all that's wrong.

 


Dear friend,

From the bottom of our hearts, thanks from both of us and all our Team!  Hearing from someone like you gives us tremendous encouragement!

in hope we struggle,
with love and blessings,


~Sophie~

 the priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible18 and which the faithful must be able to recognise with ease. The whole sacramental economy is in fact based upon natural signs, on symbols imprinted on the human psychology: 'Sacramental signs,' says St.Thomas,' represent what they signify by natural resemblance.'19 The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this 'natural resemblance' which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. 

In other words, women can't be priests because the image of Christ is not perceptible in women (contrast with what Jesus says in Matthew 25 or what Mother Teresa says -- 'I see the face of Christ in everyone I meet'.   I personally have no difficulty seeing Christ in anyone I meet!  

No, Therese, you missed it again.  Mother Teresa would not agree with you about women priests, btw.  But when Mother Teresa says “I see the face of Christ in everyone I meet”, that is understood in a completely different sense than what we find in Inter Insignores.  In the latter, we are dealing with a dogmatic theological statement.  Mother Teresa is not talking on the level of dogmatic theology, but Catholic spirituality.  This is the fallacy of equivocation you are committing here.  The natural resemblance that the document speaks of is referring to something entirely different.  A man is a natural resemblance of Christ.  It does not speak of “icon”.  As a woman, you do not have a natural resemblance to Christ.  That does not mean you are not an icon of Christ—an icon makes present what it symbolizes.  But you have a natural resemblance to Israel, the Bride of Yahweh, and the Church, the Bride of Christ.  Why?  Because you have the capacity, by nature, to be a mother and to nurse a child at your breasts.  

I don’t have that natural resemblance to Israel, the woman referred to in Genesis 3, 15, because by nature I am not a woman.  But, as I ascend to God in prayer, I will find you in God, because you came from God, your origin, and I will see you from God’s point of view.  I will see Christ in you, I will see you as Christ intends you to be.  Every human person comes from God and is destined to return to God.  What we have to do is strive to see individual persons from God’s point of view, by finding them in God.  When we do so, we see them in Christ and we see Christ in them.  But all this is theology of the spiritual life, not dogmatic theology.

You, as a human person created by God, are not a spirit trapped in a body.  You are your body, and you are a female.  You are a female man, that’s what ‘woman’ means; from the old English wiv-man.  You are created in the image and likeness of God, but you exist in that image in a very specific way, a gender specific way.  You are a female, and you have a natural resemblance to the Bride that God intended to take to Himself from all eternity.

So your theology is confused right from the get go.  That should be enough for you to stop in your tracks, turn around and re-examine that anger you felt at World Youth Day.  “Do not let the sun go down on your anger, lest you give the devil a foothold” (1 Peter, I believe).

As for your claim that I am engaging in the ad hominem fallacy, that’s actually not quite true.  If I said, “what do you know, you’re a woman”, that would be ad hominem.  If I said: “You can’t be right about this, because you have blond hair”, that’s ad hominem.  But to point out that you lack a sense of your own limitations, that you are tackling theology that you don’t fully understand, is not ad hominem at all.  It might resemble it in that you could take offense.  But strictly speaking, it is not ad hominem at all.  I’m drawing a conclusion based on what you say.  It does not mean you are an adolescent.  You are not.  You are an intelligent woman.  What I am doing here is making an analogy of proper proportionality.  As an adolescent is to her parents, Therese is to the Holy Father.  What does that mean?  It means that the adolescent is really convinced that her parents don’t know what they are talking about, yet she doesn’t have a great deal of experience to fully appreciate their point of view.  Therese is not a trained theologian and philosopher.  She is bright, but she lacks the enormous background that great theologians like a Garrigou-Lagrange or a De Lubac or a Von Balthasar, yet you think you see farther than they do.  It does not mean you are an adolescent.  It means you lack a sense of your limitations.  That comes through in your arguments here.  I’d like to go through them step by step, but I don’t have time, and to be honest, I don’t think it is necessary, and I’ll tell you why.  Most—and I mean most—women do not need extensive arguments to convince them why female ordination is not happening nor can happen.  They just need some basic sacramental theology, and they get it almost right away.  They see it, they accept it, but no matter how much I write in response to each one of your points, I am not going to change your mind.  I can’t do that.  Only the grace of God is going to do that.  You are convinced that God has given you a mission.  I’m convinced that He’s allowing you to go down this path because “He looks upon the proud from a distance”, and receiving the Holy Father in his visit to Canada in a spirit of anger is an instance of monumental ingratitude and pride.  People in Toronto spoke of a spirit that pervaded the city that year, a peaceful and holy spirit, and so many vocations were inspired as a result of that visit.  But you received him in anger.  You did not see love, but domination and oppression. You were the one that judged the heart of the bishops and the Bishop of Rome.  Your eyes were closed to their love, and you saw only a “male Church”, you saw “injustice” where there was no injustice.  I’m convinced that the Lord is going to allow you to travel down this long road, and at the end of your life you are going to see how much of a waste it has been and that you were mislead by your own pride.  At that point you will repent in sorrow and taste His mercy, and He will draw tremendous good out of this evil—you will know His mercy in a way that otherwise would not have.  Or, you will persist in your anger and rebellion, and die in it.  In that case, He will grant you what you want for all eternity—to dwell forever in your own anger.

So no matter how much I write, I will not convince anyone on this forum.  They are not seekers.  Clearly they are not seekers.  They drip with sarcasm and bitterness.  Those women who don’t have that bitterness will have no time for this forum, so there’s no need for me to be here to explain Church teaching on this issue.

Theology is far more subtle than you seem to realize, but you are not going to patiently wait and spend the next 25 or 30 years studying theology and philosophy, rather, you are going to theologize right now without adequate training, because you are impatient and angry.  As Aristotle said, one cannot acquire the intellectual virtues without the moral virtues.  Before you grow in the gift of wisdom, I think you have a great deal of work to do.  Mother Theresa is a great place to start, she was too preoccupied with the poor and the Eucharist and Christ to be concerned about female ordination.  Where do you ever find Mother Theresa complaining about bishops or the Church or Church teaching, especially with respect to the ordination of women?  She was totally faithful to the teachings of the Church, as was St. Theresa of Avila and the other great women of the Church.  

There is a hermeneutical problem with the way you use texts, like the writings of JP II, in order to support a position that he did not support.  There is a basic logical problem with the way you use texts as well.  You commit the fallacy of begging the question and the fallacy of equivocation.  That shows your lack of philosophical background.  

In any case, there’s no need for me to go on and on.  Life is too short, and it is sad to see such a gifted woman veer off the rails as you have done.  But go ahead, continue on.  You’ll discover the Lord’s mercy or you’ll die in your anger.  

Take care and all the best.
 
 
 

>That does not mean you are not an icon of Christ—an icon makes present what it symbolizes.  But >you have a natural resemblance to Israel, the Bride of Yahweh, and the Church, the Bride of Christ.  >Why?  Because you have the capacity, by nature, to be a mother and to nurse a child at your >breasts.   

>I don’t have that natural resemblance to Israel, the woman referred to in Genesis 3, 15, because by >nature I am not a woman. 
...
>You, as a human person created by God, are not a spirit trapped in a body.  You are your body, and >you are a female.  You are a female man, that’s what ‘woman’ means; from the old English wiv->man.  You are created in the image and likeness of God, but you exist in that image in a very >specific way, a gender specific way.  You are a female, and you have a natural resemblance to the >Bride that God intended to take to Himself from all eternity. 


Dear friend,  


I hope you will read the article by Dr. Tina Beattie that I provided a link for you above and visit the conversation thread I recommended.  Once again, the links are here:

• The Female Body and the Sacramental Theology in Neo-Orthodox Catholic Theology by Dr. Tina Beattie
• our CIRCLES discussion thread that is devoted singularly:  Bride and Bridegroom in Ephesians.

As has been observed by many theologians, the Vatican runs into problems when it insists on a literal interpretation of the Bride/Bridegroom metaphor in its application to the priesthood.  Those problems are surfacing in the comments you have made in our discussion here.


On the one hand, you point out that a priest must have a natural resemblance to Christ because Christ was a man.


And you say that only women can be the Bride because only women bear a natural resemblance to the Bride.


You also say that you are not a priest.


If Christ must be represented by a man and the Bride by women, where does that leave someone like you?  What role do you have to play in the mass?  You say that you are not a priest, that you are a man and that you cannot image the Bride because you are not a woman.


The Vatican explains this away by saying that except for the priest, we are all women.  Despite your inability to bear a natural resemblance to a woman, from the point of view of Vatican theology, it doesn't matter.  You are Bride.


Do you see the double standard?  Literal interpretation applied for Christ.  Figurative interpretation applied for Bride.   They can't have it both ways!  It is either literal or its not.  Anyone familiar with literary techniques  understands that metaphors carry deeper truths than that which can be expressed in words, eg metaphorically.


I agree with you!  I am not a spirit trapped in a body. I am a woman. Men and women are both made in the image of God.  Scripture is replete with images that describe God as a woman. Christ is one of the persons in God.  Therefore I am in his image, too.  Christ came to take on our humanity so that we could share in his divinity.  When we say we believe that, it is not a belief ascribed just for men.


I can see how a person who insists on literal interpretations will find that hard to understand.  But you seem to understand what icons are.  


Be assured of my love and prayers for you,
with my eyes fixed on Christ,


~Sophie~

 In Mulieris Dignitatem, John Paul II is at pains to emphasise that “’fatherhood ‘in God is completely divine and free of the ‘masculine’ bodily characteristics proper to human fatherhood.”(45)

But if this is the case, then there can be no necessary link between the fatherhood of God and the maleness of Christ and the sacramental priesthood. One could equally argue that the female body as priest serves to emphasise the fact that the fatherhood of God is not like human fatherhood. 
 
Therese, this is not a good article.  You are putting your eggs in a theologian's basket.  First of all, what she concluded here was once again poor in logic.  Fatherhood is completely divine and free of the masculine bodily characteristics, because to be a father is to be the initiator of a generation.  God is the initiator of all generation and being, and his status as First Cause is completely different than that of a human male.  A human male is an imperfect initiator.  Fatherhood in God is NOT a metaphor.  It is an analogy.  There is a difference between an analogy and a metaphor.  God is perfectly Father, really and truly "Father".  A human male person is a father, but only imperfectly so.  He is not the cause of the existence of his offspring.  He is not the first cause of the soul of his offspring.  He imparts his seed (23 chromosomes) to the woman, who receives it into herself.  She too contributes, so her role is not purely passive.  She is more perfectly mother than he is 'father'.  But she is truly mother.
 
Now, the Church is really and truly "mother".  That too is not a metaphor, but an analogy.  The Church really does generate offspring in baptism.  She really is the mother of all Christians.  She really does receive into herself the divine word, which impregnates her with the new life of grace.  When Christ says "I am the vine, you are the branches", that's a metaphor.  When he says "enter through the narrow gate", that too is a metaphor.  Christ is not literally or really a vine, nor is he really a gate.  But the Church really is a bride and mother, because the Church is really and truly one flesh, one body in Christ.  The one flesh union between Christ and the Church is real and of an entirely different order than the union of man and woman in marriage, but it is a real one flesh union nonetheless.  It is not a metaphor.  If the Eucharist were merely symbolic, and not literally Christ's body and blood, soul and divinity, then you could argue quite persuasively that the Church as mother is merely a metaphor.  But we believe in the real presence.  I'm not sure if you do.  But working backwards, I would suspect that you don't really believe in transubstantiation.
 
So, she is wrong to say "then there can be no necessary link between the fatherhood of God and the maleness of Christ and the sacramental priesthood. One could equally argue that the female body as priest serves to emphasise the fact that the fatherhood of God is not like human fatherhood." 
 
This is terrible logic.  There is a real and necessary link between the Fatherhood of God and the maleness of Christ, because God is really "father", not merely in relation to creation, but within Himself, in relation to the generation of the Son.  There is real generation in God, a generation that is not change, but "activity".  There is no movement from potency to act, but there is an eternal generation.  The relation between the First Person of the Trinity and His Word is a real relation, a real filial relation.  That relation is identical to God's nature.  God's nature is to exist.  Hence, the Word by which God knows Himself is God.  God from God.  It is God the Son, because the Word is the perfect image of the First Person of the Trinity.  A human son is an image of his father.
 
Now, the relation between me and my son is not subsistent.  It is an accident (a mode of being that exists "in" substance).  But in God, the relation between Father and Logos (Son) is a real subsistent relation.  The Second Person of the Trinity really is the Son of the Father.  That's not a projection of a human characteristic onto God.  Now Christ, the Incarnation of the Son, had to have been male.  Not because male is superior.  That's silly.  But because Christ is the image of the Father.  He is the Person of the Son.  A woman is not a son, but a daughter.
 
But once again, you are caught by this article because you lack a theology of the Trinity.  But let's leave that aside for a moment.  The problem is that you regard Church teaching as a body of doctrine rooted in human beings, as if "man is the origin of Catholic doctrine".  You seem to think that a particular doctrine has its roots in a particular understanding in the mind of a bunch of men.  But that's not what we believe as Catholics.  We believe that it is the Holy Spirit who leads the Church to the complete truth (see Jn 16)..  The deposit of faith does not come from men, but from the Holy Spirit through unworthy men.  But man is not the originator of the deposit of faith.  The express teachings of the Church are not the creation of man.  You can have 2000 theologians in the history of the Church and all of them could very well be passionate woman haters--they are not, but I'm trying to make a point here.  What they think at that particular time is not entirely relevant.  There is a radical difference between the theological formulation or articulation of a doctrine, and the doctrine itself.  Church teaching is guided by the Holy Spirit.  Theologians like Aquinas or Augustine can and are wrong on particular matters.  What they or any other number of theologians or doctors of the Church teach is NOT what Church teaching is based on.  You seem to think Church teaching is based on the theological articulations of particular theologians at the time.  It is not, never has, and never will be.  Church doctrine exceeds the minds of the Church's members.  For example, Church teaching on contraception.  Our understanding of the morality of contraception now is much better than it was centuries ago.  But the Church has taught that contraception is wrong, for 2000 years.  But the pilgrim Church has not always been able to provide the best reasons that could adequately explain this.  We've got much better explanations today than we did back then.  But Church teaching is not and has never been based on what a bunch of men at one time thought or what they think now.  The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. 
 
And what you said about the syrophonecian lady helping Christ widen his vision says it all.  Your Christology is so off and the very fact that you could entertain such a notion is proof positive that you really don't know what you are talking about.  I'm telling ya, Therese, you have a lot of goodness in you, you are bright, you can write, you can read, but there is a huge world of theology, a veritable universe, that you have not been properly formed in.  You are putting your eggs in the basket of a dissenting theologian(s).  You should not even put your eggs in the basket of a faithful and loyal theologian(s).  Theology serves Church teaching, it serves to explain, to explicate, to articulate, to make clear.  Church teaching is not founded upon current theological opinion.  You don't understand "charisms" and what the charism of office really is. 
 
Like I said, you've got to get off this track.  But you won't, I know.

Take care, and thanks for your prayers.  I will keep you in my prayers.

Peace in Christ

Therese:  Here is a document by the SCDF on the relationship between the theologian and the magisterium, and it also provides an explanation of the true meaning of sensus fidelium.  It looks at dissent, what it is, what is not dissent, etc.  This is a very important document to read.  It does not deal with women's ordination, but it does expose the basic thinking errors that you have adopted.  I was going to just paste the key sections, but I know that is going to take a lot of time.  Have a look at this, and I am going to pray that you decide to stop and get off this track, so that your gifts are not a waste.  I mean, either way God will use you to bring about a greater good for the Church as a whole.  Even my arguing with you has forced me to articulate things that I might not have, and I will be able to use these.  But is that how you want to be of benefit to the Church?  So that the Church can learn from your mistakes?  Theological faith is ecclesial, and right now you do not think cum Ecclesia, but contra Ecclesia.  I pray that you will turn from facing the Church to entering into the very flesh and posture of the Church towards the world, for the salvation of souls, as opposed to a personal agenda.

Here's the link:

http://www.vatican.va/rom...ogian-vocation_en.html

Peace

Dear friend,

I write to acknowledge your post.  I will read the document and respond within the next short while!

with love and blessings,  

Therese (Sophie)

Dear Sophie,
 
    I find it strange that the author only focused on men called in the past. Does God really only want 12 disciples? I feel that God wants all of us to be disciples!!!!!! I feel proud that I feel called to be a disciple though not a priest. I also have felt shame when I have betrayed him. We don't want to be on a pedestal, we want to be right next to the men. They are full of grace as well! These 12 are a great example for us all and I honestly find it rather ignorant to focus on their sex. Perhaps ignorance is bliss to some? I personally find knowledge to be a great gift and strive for more but respect Pope John Paul's thoughts on stupidity being a gift as well. I'm still not sure why men in the Catholic Church find the thought of women being priest so fearful. It's not like we'll try to drive them out in retaliation, we're a family. He makes it sound like men are less holier and therefor priest, not so in my book. Does it really come down to genitalia? Jesus doesn't talk about sex a lot because he came for something higher than fleshly desires (heard a great sermon on that). Yet for some reason, we are constantly aware of it in the Church consciously or subconsciously. Luckily I have finally learned to forgive, but I still desire the Church see the light of God in the eyes of women just as much as we women see it in the eyes of men.

Please forgive my blessed stupidity of saying less holier rather than holy, and forgive this man's as well. Let's strive to correct errors though. The apple now taste pretty good as far as earthly knowledge being applied to understand God. I think we both got a bad spot for a minute! Let's cut those out.

>>Luckily I have finally learned to forgive, but I still desire the Church see the light of God in the eyes of women just as much as we women see it >>in the eyes of men. 


Thank you for saying this so beautifully.


This is my hope, too.  We say that Christ humbled himself to take on our humanity.  He didn't just take on masculinity, he took on our humanity. Men and women are both human.  This is what is important.  Not that Christ was a man but that he became human.


This makes all the difference. 


But those who favour a male only priesthood try to make it about something else.  I pray for them.

If God became a man in order to exclude women from the priesthood, then there is something very wrong with this concept of God.
Exclusion and discrimination based on gender alone are forms of bigotry. Replace the word gender with race, nationality, eye color or any other physical trait and the answer is clear. 
 
Either God places women in an inferior status or man does. Since God is perfect and man is not the answer must be man.
 

It is either a pretty puny God who will only have men as priests or it is some puny men trying to bring God down to their size.

There is so much more to Christ than that.

Just wondering: Can monotheists ever demonstrate full human equality in practice and profession while identifying 'God' in male terms? In other words, can Judaism, Christianity and Islam ever rise above the limitations of the human words in their holy texts for the sake of justice?  so that women are recognised as equal?


if they can't, like someone said, pretty puny God they're trying to sell.

Guest


Dear Sophie,
 
    I find it strange that the author only focused on men called in the past. Does God really only want 12 disciples? I feel that God wants all of us to be disciples!!!!!! I feel proud that I feel called to be a disciple though not a priest. I also have felt shame when I have betrayed him. We don't want to be on a pedestal, we want to be right next to the men. They are full of grace as well! These 12 are a great example for us all and I honestly find it rather ignorant to focus on their sex. Perhaps ignorance is bliss to some? I personally find knowledge to be a great gift and strive for more but respect Pope John Paul's thoughts on stupidity being a gift as well. I'm still not sure why men in the Catholic Church find the thought of women being priest so fearful. It's not like we'll try to drive them out in retaliation, we're a family. He makes it sound like men are less holier and therefor priest, not so in my book. Does it really come down to genitalia? Jesus doesn't talk about sex a lot because he came for something higher than fleshly desires (heard a great sermon on that). Yet for some reason, we are constantly aware of it in the Church consciously or subconsciously. Luckily I have finally learned to forgive, but I still desire the Church see the light of God in the eyes of women just as much as we women see it in the eyes of men.

You said it well! Brava!!!