Feminism and the ordination of women as priestesses and ministers.

[Xeuma]

I’d be interested in hearing the opinion of those who follow the internal affairs of the Catholic Church closely as to how likely they think it is that the Church will in the foreseeable future (or ever) permit the ordination of women. More and more Protestant denominations have been doing so, but my guess for the Catholic Church would be “not very likely”.

It will never happen. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis have all infallibly taught the ordination of women is an impossibility.

But there is some dispute among otherwise orthodox theologians about the infallibility of Ordinatio sacerdotalis, in a way that there is not about, say, the infallibility of the teachings against abortion and euthanasia in Evangelium vitae.

I mean, the CDF asserted it was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html. There doesn't seem to be much wiggle-room on the topic. I will confess to also not understanding it whatever, but if it is then it must be.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's always struck me as pretty bizarre when people who aren't conservative have called me narrow-minded for having this as an absolute deal breaker (if not allowed) on ever belonging to a church.

Serious question: would you then not be Christian until contemporary times? I'm not aware, nor is a precursory research, of any form of Christianity that would have ordained women until very recently. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but Christianity seems central to your identity. I'm just curious how you would reconcile the historical lack of the practice with this ultimatum.

The fact that I might have to make compromises on such a thing in the past (although in America some Congregationalist churches have ordained women before the US was a country) doesn't mean I can't refuse to make compromises on such things in the present.

[Benjamin Frank]

If what god 'ordains' for male and female roles happens to dovetail with societal rules and traditions of the time in which it was written then you can be assured there's nothing ordained about them. Except by men.

Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" and other religious scholars make it abundantly clear that the Bible is the work of humans and is not the infallible word of God.  

How can the Bible be the infallible word of God when there are multiple versions of the Bible?  This is not just stylistic differences of phrasing, but differences in meaning.  

For instance, does the 5th Commandment say "thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not murder."  Killing is a much broader prohibition than murder.

If, as many believe, the proper Commandment is thou shall not murder, how come all sorts of English Bibles write "thou shall not kill"?  If the Bible is meant to be the infallible word of God, why would God allow these mistakes to occur?

Also, the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John have significant differences in meaning.

For instance, did Jesus say on the cross "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do."  Or did Jesus say "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

The first suggests Jesus recognized his purpose was to be the sacrifice, the second suggests Jesus felt abandoned by all, even God, a completely different recounting.

Beyond this, there isn't even a universal agreed upon official Biblical Canon, as the Eastern Orthodox Churches have several additional books in their Bibles.  What books made the official canon and what books didn't was entirely a matter of human choice.

Certainly the Bible has valuable teachings, especially Jesus' parables, although some of even these parables have contradictory meanings in different Bibles, but, given all this demonstrated history of the Bible, how anybody can believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, has to be at least a little brainwashed by their religion.

Finally, according to Bart Ehrman and other Biblical scholars, books that did not make the official canon mention at least Mary as an early Church leader, so, to argue that there is no evidence of women as Church ministers is only the case based on the books that made the official canon.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's always struck me as pretty bizarre when people who aren't conservative have called me narrow-minded for having this as an absolute deal breaker (if not allowed) on ever belonging to a church.

Serious question: would you then not be Christian until contemporary times? I'm not aware, nor is a precursory research, of any form of Christianity that would have ordained women until very recently. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but Christianity seems central to your identity. I'm just curious how you would reconcile the historical lack of the practice with this ultimatum.

The fact that I might have to make compromises on such a thing in the past (although in America some Congregationalist churches have ordained women before the US was a country) doesn't mean I can't refuse to make compromises on such things in the present.

This might surprise you a little since this isn't a non-negotiable issue for me (if it were I wouldn't be Catholic!), but I'm actually very proud that my alma mater, Boston University School of Theology, produced some of the first women ministers in the American Wesleyan tradition.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

How do you square that with the Bible?

There is a higher law than even Scripture, and those who proclaim that Scripture is the universal, literal, whole, and highest law make a claim about the Bible that it does not make about itself.

What is the higher law?  And how can we know it?

I square it the same way I do when Paul forbids women from wearing jewelry - certainly applicable to the specific group in the specific time he was writing to.

That was written in the context of modesty.

However, Paul himself also speaks of several ordained women.

When?  Because afaik there's no evidence of female priests or pastors in the early church.  Female deacons did exist, on the other hand.

”In the context of modesty” means nothing. If you hold the writings of Paul to be authoritative in doctrine, then women are forbidden from wearing jewelry and men from having long hair.

Junia, in Romans 16, is referred to as an apostle. This is a title given to the Twelve, to Paul, to Barnabas, Silas, Andronicus, Timothy, and to her. Priscilla, too, is sometimes considered to have been a presbyter. Junia, given the title of apostle, becomes equal in rank with the authors of Scripture.

Furthermore, Sarah Crosby was the first female preacher in the modern age, and she was granted such license by John Wesley. Sojourner Truth, one of the greatest preachers in American history, was a black woman ordered to preach by God in a vision. Given her testimony, I hesitate to decry such visions as false.

IIRC Junia is only referred to as an apostle in certain translations.  Some say that the passage is actually referring to a man named Junias.  I'm less interested in what later Christians did concerning this issue.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If what god 'ordains' for male and female roles happens to dovetail with societal rules and traditions of the time in which it was written then you can be assured there's nothing ordained about them. Except by men.

Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" and other religious scholars make it abundantly clear that the Bible is the work of humans and is not the infallible word of God.  

How can the Bible be the infallible word of God when there are multiple versions of the Bible?  This is not just stylistic differences of phrasing, but differences in meaning.

Yes, there are differences in the different English translations of the Bible.  How does that disprove the Bible?

[Kingpoleon]

Serious question: would you then not be Christian until contemporary times? I'm not aware, nor is a precursory research, of any form of Christianity that would have ordained women until very recently. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but Christianity seems central to your identity. I'm just curious how you would reconcile the historical lack of the practice with this ultimatum.

Methodists began ordaining women 200 years before most medical/law schools began accepting them; Quakers began having female preachers a hundred years before that. In this area, parts of the Protestant Church were miles ahead of the secular world.

IIRC Junia is only referred to as an apostle in certain translations.  Some say that the passage is actually referring to a man named Junias.  I'm less interested in what later Christians did concerning this issue.

Some say that, but the name Junias is not recorded by Roman censuses in the first century. By contrast, Junia was a pretty common female name. Furthermore, all of the earliest Romans texts give the name Junia - it takes several hundred years for a monk to add an S to make it male.


For those not familiar with Sojourner Truth (Egypt refers to the identification of slaves with the Israelites in slavery):
“My name was Isabella; but when I left the house of bondage, I left everything behind. I wasn’t going to keep nothing of Egypt on me, and so I went to the Lord and asked Him to give me a new name. And the Lord gave me Sojourner, because I was to travel up and down the land, showing the people their sins, and being a sign unto them. Afterwards I told the Lord I wanted another name, ‘cause everybody else had two names; and the Lord gave me Truth, because I was to declare the truth to His people.”

“I carry no weapon; the Lord will preserve me without weapons. I feel safe in the midst of my enemies; for the truth is powerful and will prevail.”

1844, Northampton, Massachusetts: At a camp meeting where she was participating as an itinerant preacher, a band of young white men disrupted the camp meeting, refused to leave, and threatened to burn down the tents. Truth caught the sense of fear pervading the worshipers and hid behind a trunk in her tent, thinking that since she was the only black person present, the mob would attack her first. However, she reasoned with herself and resolved to do something: as the noise of the mob increased and a female preacher was trembling on the preachers' stand, Truth went to a small hill and began to sing "in her most fervid manner, with all the strength of her most powerful voice, the hymn on the resurrection of Christ". Her song, "It was Early in the Morning", gathered the rioters to her and quieted them. They urged her to sing, preach, and pray for their entertainment. After singing songs and preaching for about an hour, Truth bargained with them to leave after one final song. The mob agreed and left the camp meeting.

A bunch of violent thugs, who may have lynched her, were more supportive of a woman preacher than many of you. I will let this fact speak for itself and itself alone.

[afleitch]

Open question.

If the ordination of women isn't a deal breaker for those who otherwise believe in equality, why is that specific concession made?

[Former President tack50]

Open question.

If the ordination of women isn't a deal breaker for those who otherwise believe in equality, why is that specific concession made?

At the cost of sounding like an edgy atheist, wouldn't the answer be: "Because God says so"?

Of course there is ample disagreement among Christian denominations about that point, but denominations who do believe women can't be ordained believe that it is because of that in some way.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Open question.

If the ordination of women isn't a deal breaker for those who otherwise believe in equality, why is that specific concession made?

At the cost of sounding like an edgy atheist, wouldn't the answer be: "Because God says so"?

Of course there is ample disagreement among Christian denominations about that point, but denominations who do believe women can't be ordained believe that it is because of that in some way.

Yeah but if you don't agree with those denominations, then you're making a concession. So why is one willing to? I'm not.

[Former President tack50]

Open question.

If the ordination of women isn't a deal breaker for those who otherwise believe in equality, why is that specific concession made?

At the cost of sounding like an edgy atheist, wouldn't the answer be: "Because God says so"?

Of course there is ample disagreement among Christian denominations about that point, but denominations who do believe women can't be ordained believe that it is because of that in some way.

Yeah but if you don't agree with those denominations, then you're making a concession. So why is one willing to? I'm not.

I mean yes, but that's why you don't agree with those denominations

Trying to explain myself better, if you truly believe that say, the Roman Catholic church is the one true way to interpret Christianity and the "correct" denomination; then you will believe that women should not be ordained period; because "God says so" (and I guess in Catholicism's particular example, "the Pope says so")

You may not like the decision, perhaps think it is wrong, but I assume that because it is a divine mandate, it trumps whatever your opinion is. Because it is a command from God. I don't think anyone would view it as a concession. Or if you do believe that it is a concession, then you'll suck it up because that's what Catholics do. Of course, contradictions like that can and probably do put people in a path towards questioning Church teachings, which often ends with the person in question either leaving the church alltogether or changing denominations.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Open question.

If the ordination of women isn't a deal breaker for those who otherwise believe in equality, why is that specific concession made?

At the cost of sounding like an edgy atheist, wouldn't the answer be: "Because God says so"?

Of course there is ample disagreement among Christian denominations about that point, but denominations who do believe women can't be ordained believe that it is because of that in some way.

Yeah but if you don't agree with those denominations, then you're making a concession. So why is one willing to? I'm not.

I mean yes, but that's why you don't agree with those denominations

Trying to explain myself better, if you truly believe that say, the Roman Catholic church is the one true way to interpret Christianity and the "correct" denomination; then you will believe that women should not be ordained period; because "God says so" (and I guess in Catholicism's particular example, "the Pope says so")

You may not like the decision, perhaps think it is wrong, but I assume that because it is a divine mandate, it trumps whatever your opinion is. Because it is a command from God. I don't think anyone would view it as a concession. Or if you do believe that it is a concession, then you'll suck it up because that's what Catholics do. Of course, contradictions like that can and probably do put people in a path towards questioning Church teachings, which often ends with the person in question either leaving the church alltogether or changing denominations.

Yeah but the question would apply more to people who DON'T believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true way to interpret Christianity or the "correct" denomination. Because if it was, it couldn't be wrong on women's ordination. And if you believe that it is not and that it's wrong on women's ordination and that God is OK with it...then why remain? And that "cultural" stuff that I constantly mock because I honestly am just completely incapable of wrapping my mind around it doesn't strike me as a valid excuse, especially if you believe the church teachings against go against the will of God (not just on this but also on LGBT issues.)

I mean I can totally understand being willing to compromise on some issues because basically everyone has to be if they belong to a church, but who can lead the church doesn't strike me as one that it's minor enough to.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Open question.

If the ordination of women isn't a deal breaker for those who otherwise believe in equality, why is that specific concession made?

In my case it was because the non-RC options that are near me had issues with them that were even bigger poison pills (I don't think I've ever said this on the forum before, but for me the last straw with the Episcopal Church wasn't any of the Having of Sex chestnuts the Ordinariate people tend to complain about but the fact that my local parish stopped saying the Nicene Creed during its services!), and secondarily because (sorry BRTD) I have a family background and intuitive familiarity with Catholicism in a way that I just don't with the other liturgical traditions. If I had moved permanently to Boston with its beautiful old egalitarian-but-small-t-traditional Anglo-Catholic parishes then I might very well still be an Episcopalian to this day.

[Benjamin Frank]

If what god 'ordains' for male and female roles happens to dovetail with societal rules and traditions of the time in which it was written then you can be assured there's nothing ordained about them. Except by men.

Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" and other religious scholars make it abundantly clear that the Bible is the work of humans and is not the infallible word of God.  

How can the Bible be the infallible word of God when there are multiple versions of the Bible?  This is not just stylistic differences of phrasing, but differences in meaning.

Yes, there are differences in the different English translations of the Bible.  How does that disprove the Bible?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but your comment seems to suggest you believe the problem of different translations is largely related to the King James Bible.  Different translations of the Bible long predate English translations and they are far more significant than you seem to acknowledge.

In answer to your question, I'd have to ask what you mean by 'disprove.'  I never said it disproved the Bible, I said it disproved it was the infallible word of God.

Due to the significant multiple translations of the Bible, Bart Ehrman personally concluded that it does disprove the Bible and that it disproves the existence of God.  His argument is that given the importance of the 'Word' through the Bible, the only way to eternal life is through the Word, that it made no sense to him that God, being all powerful, wouldn't have ensured that the Word of the Bible was certain and undisputable.

I disagree with Ehrman and I'm surprised he took this position given that he agues convincingly the Bible is a book written by humans for humans.  I agree with that, but, to me, that doesn't mean the basic moral precepts aren't inspired by God.  

1.Given that Ehrman argues that, the more consistent position for him is to also believe that the Word being so important to Christianity is also a human creation, and that what is really important is the moral teachings.

2.It also doesn't make sense given that billions of humans either lived before Jesus or weren't familiar with Jesus until informed of Him over 1,000 years later.  According to Christianity, this means that all of those uninformed souls were damned to disappear.  That makes no sense to me.

However, in the 1990s, there were studies of all the of world's great religions and spiritual movements, and they found enormous similarities in the moral teachings.  This is consistent with the view that God wanted His moral teachings to be made clear and followed, but wasn't so concerned with other details.

Bart Ehrman and many other Biblical scholars, for instance, those in the PBS Frontline documentary  "From Jesus to Christ" argue that when Christianity was a small Jewish sect, women were at least equals in this religion.  They mention that most Christian religious worship took place in homes and that women were the masters of homes in Ancient Rome, so it's reasonable to conclude that women were, in fact, many of the early Christian ministers.

As Christianity became more predominant, it began to reflect society more and more, and concurrent with that, new transcriptions of the Bible were written over time that diminished the role of women.

For instance, as Bart Ehrman writes in Misquoting Jesus (page 185):

"One occurs in a passage I have already mentioned, Romans 16, in which Paul speaks of a woman, Junia, and a man who was presumably her husband, Andronicus, both of whom he calls 'foremost among the apostles" (V.7)  This is a significant verse, because it is the only place in the New Testament in which a woman is referred to as an apostle.  Interpreters have been so impressed by the passage that a large number of them have insisted that it can not mean what it says, and so have translated the verse as referring not to a woman named Junia but to a man named Junias, who along with his companion, Andronicas is praised as an apostle.  The problem with this translation is that whereas Junia was a common name for a woman, there is no evidence in the ancient world for Junias as a man's name.  Paul is referencing a woman named Junia, even though in some modern English Bibles (you may want to check your own!) translators continue to refer to this female apostle as if she were a man named Junias.

Some scribes also had difficulty with ascribing apostleship to this otherwise unknown woman, and so made a very slight change in the text to circumvent the problem. In some of our manuscripts, rather than saying "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and fellow prisoners, who are foremost among the apostles" the text is now changed so as to be more readily translated as "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives; and also greet my fellow prisoners who are foremost among the apostles." With this textual change, no longer does one need to worry about a woman being cited among the apostolic band of men!"

My overall take away from this is that God gave us a brain to use, and I doubt that He wanted us to then shut off this brain and mindlessly follow what organized religions tell us to think.

[RFayette]

Open question.

If the ordination of women isn't a deal breaker for those who otherwise believe in equality, why is that specific concession made?

At the cost of sounding like an edgy atheist, wouldn't the answer be: "Because God says so"?

Of course there is ample disagreement among Christian denominations about that point, but denominations who do believe women can't be ordained believe that it is because of that in some way.

Yeah but if you don't agree with those denominations, then you're making a concession. So why is one willing to? I'm not.

I mean yes, but that's why you don't agree with those denominations

Trying to explain myself better, if you truly believe that say, the Roman Catholic church is the one true way to interpret Christianity and the "correct" denomination; then you will believe that women should not be ordained period; because "God says so" (and I guess in Catholicism's particular example, "the Pope says so")

You may not like the decision, perhaps think it is wrong, but I assume that because it is a divine mandate, it trumps whatever your opinion is. Because it is a command from God. I don't think anyone would view it as a concession. Or if you do believe that it is a concession, then you'll suck it up because that's what Catholics do. Of course, contradictions like that can and probably do put people in a path towards questioning Church teachings, which often ends with the person in question either leaving the church alltogether or changing denominations.

Yeah but the question would apply more to people who DON'T believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true way to interpret Christianity or the "correct" denomination. Because if it was, it couldn't be wrong on women's ordination. And if you believe that it is not and that it's wrong on women's ordination and that God is OK with it...then why remain? And that "cultural" stuff that I constantly mock because I honestly am just completely incapable of wrapping my mind around it doesn't strike me as a valid excuse, especially if you believe the church teachings against go against the will of God (not just on this but also on LGBT issues.)

I mean I can totally understand being willing to compromise on some issues because basically everyone has to be if they belong to a church, but who can lead the church doesn't strike me as one that it's minor enough to.

Perhaps some Catholics believe God set up the RCC as the church for all Christians to be a part of, but he allowed it to make some errors?  This seems like a coherent position I suppose.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The prohibition on women priests is one of several reasons I am not a Roman Catholic. I am not more qualified to lead a flock or counsel to people simply because I have a penis. As Eve was created from the rib of Adam, and not from his head or his feet, women are equal to men before God.

And at least with women priests, I mean, how often do you hear about women messing around with choir boys? [/snark]

As conservative of a tradition I come from, women are allowed to be pastors in their own right. One interesting quirk of said tradition.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The feminist position is to seek the destruction of organized religion, not to try to get equality within it, since organized religion as an institution is inherently and inseparably designed in such a way as to subjugate women into sub-human roles in society.

[If my soul was made of stone]

I obviously lack the intimate knowledge of church history and liturgy of someone raised into a faith (rather than combative and intellectually vacant New Atheism as I was) to a degree that could potentially elucidate many of my outsider observations and concerns with this quandary, but the position of the Catholic feminine ideal within its broader vision has always struck me as somewhat paradoxical. The veneration of Mary and female saints, some of whom have fascinating continuity in characterization with pre-Christian figures, combined with the strict taboo on women holding high ecclesiastical roles, strikes me as inconsistent with itself and/or establishing a very restrictive concept of the connection between the feminine and the divine. Earlier in college in a course on medieval and Renaissance music I wrote a brief essay on the gender politics of Hildegard of Bingen as expressed in her music, which, at the risk of sounding like a no-fun-allowed critical theorist type and demeaning the source material, also struck me as presenting a restrictive and paradoxical ideal in which the defining characteristics and creative power thereof, at times compared to that of the natural world in almost a classical "mother goddess" sense, are entirely subordinate to a masculine conception of divinity from which independence and deviation is a grave taboo. It seems to all stem from a primordial fear of feminine qualities and power, perhaps to the biological level as I have mused on before.

The liberation of the feminine spirit is a core goal of my own practice, so naturally this is all a bit confounding to my weird inner world that runs on queer theory and esotericism. Were I interested at all in personally entering any Abrahamic practice then the restriction of women from these positions would be a deal-breaker, but perhaps that just shows that my personal spirit isn't quite compatible with those ideas as much as I try to respect them.

[Samof94]

The feminist position is to seek the destruction of organized religion, not to try to get equality within it, since organized religion as an institution is inherently and inseparably designed in such a way as to subjugate women into sub-human roles in society.

Look at Iran and Afghanistan’s for what happens if you let religion take over a society that wasn’t especially religious(by their region’s standard) before.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The feminist position is to seek the destruction of organized religion, not to try to get equality within it, since organized religion as an institution is inherently and inseparably designed in such a way as to subjugate women into sub-human roles in society.

Do you have a working definition of "organized religion" that one might use to assess this allegation?

[The Puppeteer]

I say if you don't like what a religion teaches and how it is run then you should just start your own. If you want true equality then do what the men did and put in the effort to make something people actually want to be a part of rather than just complaining and taking what belongs to others. If you want to show that you are truly equal or can do better then prove your worth through your own actions.

[Kingpoleon]

The feminist position is to seek the destruction of organized religion, not to try to get equality within it, since organized religion as an institution is inherently and inseparably designed in such a way as to subjugate women into sub-human roles in society.

Aren't women twenty percent more religious than men are?