Video: Do women run the Catholic Church?; Update: Video fixed

posted at 10:01 am on March 11, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The prevailing view of the Catholic Church is that of a patriarchy to which women contribute very little except in subservient roles.  The media coverage of the conclave has touched on this, and commentators have repeatedly wondered whether the next Pope will finally allow women into roles of power within the Vatican and the church around the world.  In yesterday’s Washington Post, Ashley McGuire of The Catholic Association says the media has missed the transformation that began decades ago, and is in full flower at this conclave:

One by one, I spoke with these women, asking them especially about life as a woman in the Vatican. When I told Sara, an Italian mother of two, that many in the American press have an impression that women are underrepresented in the Vatican and the Catholic Church, her eyebrow arched with suspicion and she leaned back, almost as if offended. “No,” she said. “Maybe twenty years ago.” (She was working at the Vatican then as well.) “Very important women are leading Vatican offices. Women are very, very important [here].”

Carolina chimed in, saying:

“We have a special place here. Because so many of the men here are priests, we have a different form of brightness and character that we come in with, it’s lightened the mood and the ambiance here.”

She continued: When we come in the door, they’re all wearing their clerics. And us lay women, we really bring it when we come in. When people see us come in and out, they do a double take. Romina leaves on her moped, Sara’s driving in with her Badgley Mischka Carter shades. People are looking through the gates and they can’t believe how many women are coming out. Fabulous women that are very well-educated and very well put-together.”

Carolina, who has a degree from Notre Dame, is wearing floral skinny jeans, black suede boots, purple cat-eye glasses, and her voluminous blonde waves are tied up in a chignon.

The women pointed out that the growing presence of women in the Vatican has led to a very pro-family environment. The Vatican, whose workforce is approximately 40 percent female, has a very progressive maternity leave policy, allowing women paid leave beginning two months before their due date and allowing them a year of paid leave after birth. When the women return, they are allowed to create a “milk schedule” so that they can structure their hours around their nursing needs.

In an interview with me this morning from the Vatican media center, Ashley reaffirms that women hold an increasing  number of powerful positions in the Church, and not just here at the Vatican:

Note: My volume is a little low due to a mixing issue, but I’m still audible.

Part of the “patriarchy” misconception comes from a failure to note the fundamental changes in the view of vocations in the church.  George Weigel does a good job of covering this decades-long transition in his book Evangelical Catholicism, but any Catholic active in his or her parish would know this without explanation.  Bishops and priests don’t run dioceses and parishes as CEOs any longer, at least not in practice if still in nominal authority.  Most of those duties have devolved to the laity, in order for the ordained to focus on pastoral and catechetical tasks for which they are sorely needed for the “new evangelization.”  Anyone with personal experience in the parish will know just how many of those managerial and supervisory spots are held by women, and that’s apparently true here at the Vatican as well.

That is, of course, one reason a papal conclave can be of value, other than in choosing a new pontiff.  It’s an educational opportunity, and hopefully the attention on the Vatican now will bear some fruit in the future.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

She continued: When we come in the door, they’re all wearing their clerics. And us lay women, we really bring it when we come in. When people see us come in and out, they do a double take. Romina leaves on her moped, Sara’s driving in with her Badgley Mischka Carter shades. People are looking through the gates and they can’t believe how many women are coming out. Fabulous women that are very well-educated and very well put-together.”

All of that vanity, “worldliness,” would not mesh well with Cardinal O’Malley’s Capuchin vows.

Not to mention many others’…

It’s not so much their gender but the affectations and attachments to such vanity that seems both frivolous and somewhat cruel.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM

In an interview with me this morning from the Vatican media center, Ashley reaffirms that women hold an increasing number of powerful positions in the Church, and not just here at the Vatican:

Hey, the WaPo ran an article a few weeks ago that asserted the next Pope should be a nun. Maybe it wasn’t as far off the mark as I first thought.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Anyone with personal experience in the parish will know just how many of those managerial and supervisory spots are held by women, and that’s apparently true here at the Vatican as well.

Those spots held by many a woman, certainly.

It’s not well known for being a manly thing to be doing and most men have to be earning more money than they would at such clerical jobs…

Seems mostly practical in that context.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Romina leaves on her moped

A Catholic nun I know has been driving herself around town on a moped for a few decades now…

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM

It’s visible in the local church, but that’s the laity.

I’m referencing the Italian he-man woman haters club of ghey mafia “clergy”.

Until the church takes a dramatic change, I don’t see how this repairs itself without another massive fissure.

Give it to the guy from the Philippines. Anybody who oversees a group who nails themselves to the cross should have a different, non-euro perspective.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Now that I recall, too, a Catholic Priest near and dear to me used to drive a moped out into the desert at night and conduct mass out under the stars for the people he’d find there…

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 10:13 AM

I’m referencing the Italian he-man woman haters club of ghey mafia “clergy”.

Until the church takes a dramatic change, I don’t see how this repairs itself without another massive fissure.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Yes, most of us who are Catholics are well aware of who you speak and about what. Really has to continue to change; Pope Benedict began this, must continue.

Cardinal Dolan is a pretty vital guy’s guy.

Lourdes on March 11, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Until the church takes a dramatic change, I don’t see how this repairs itself without another massive fissure.

Give it to the guy from the Philippines. Anybody who oversees a group who nails themselves to the cross should have a different, non-euro perspective.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 10:12 AM

So the solution is for the church to become more secular? Good luck with that.

I’m all for a non-European but whoever the white smoke is for is going to be charged with upholding Catholic doctrine not destroying it. Change is not going to come by Papal decree that suddenly it’s okay to abort one’s child, use contraception, or be a married priest.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Do women run the Catholic Church?

Is that a test question, of course women run the Catholic Church.

fourdeucer on March 11, 2013 at 10:34 AM

The church’s gender gap is often invisible because the top tier of church leadership is still heavily male. Over 90% of Protestant pastors and 100% of Catholic priests are male. But Leon Podles put it best: “The modern church is an army of women led by a few male generals.”

churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men-2/

davidk on March 11, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Part of the “patriarchy” misconception comes from a failure to note the fundamental changes in the view of vocations in the church.

The secular media drives too many misconceptions.

The secular media is also made up of many non-Catholics who don’t know the first thing about Catholicism. So no only do they project their political du jour onto all things Catholic, they do so in utter ignorance.

LetsBfrank on March 11, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Here is what I have always considered one of the ironies of all church’s who think women should not be in leader ship roles, or in the pulpit…

The most precious among us, the children, as dictated by Jesus…and who overwhelmingly teaches the children? Natures the children, the one group we allow to give Sunday school to, the ones who first introduce children to Jesus (yes, I know men teach Sunday school, I have, but the numbers of women in early age fare exceed men)…it’s the women. We allow the women to teach our children, Jesus’s most precious, but not adults…

How foolish are the Baptists, Catholics, some Lutheran’s, good grief…they read the bible, but the application is a little more difficult. Give up authority is a little harder for mere mortal men.

right2bright on March 11, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Change is not going to come by Papal decree that suddenly it’s okay to abort one’s child, use contraception, or be a married priest.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Anyone who thinks that aborting a child and a priest being married are on the same level of discourse is a little more extreme than I am used to…wow!

right2bright on March 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Carolina, who has a degree from Notre Dame

Now I’m cautious as I recall from Donna Steichen’s book on radical feminism within the Church and I ponder the unCatholic midsets of folks like Rosemary Ruether and Mary Daley who from their Catholic offices openly sought to take over the structure of the Church, but only for radical femism to infiltrate and control it….
Notre Dame?
I suspect she and a few others may have escaped Notre Dame’s theological confusion under Richard McBrien.

Don L on March 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM

So the solution is for the church to become more secular? Good luck with that.

I’m all for a non-European but whoever the white smoke is for is going to be charged with upholding Catholic doctrine not destroying it. Change is not going to come by Papal decree that suddenly it’s okay to abort one’s child, use contraception, or be a married priest.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM

What the hell are you talking about, because it’s not to me.

I didn’t state any of that.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Who run Church Town?

Bishop on March 11, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Anyone who thinks that aborting a child and a priest being married are on the same level of discourse is a little more extreme than I am used to…wow!

right2bright on March 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Not as extreme difference as you claim. My point was simply that there is this undercurrent of thought that a new Pope is going to sweep in and execute radical change within the church. That is not going to happen if for no other reason than the electors are on the conservative side thanks to those most recently elevated by the past Pontiff.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I ponder the unCatholic midsets of folks like Rosemary Ruether and Mary Daley who from their Catholic offices openly sought to take over the structure of the Church, but only for radical femism to infiltrate and control it….

Don L on March 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Is the cult of Mary wrapped up in all of this?

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Anyone who thinks that aborting a child and a priest being married are on the same level of discourse is a little more extreme than I am used to…wow!

right2bright on March 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Yep.

Happy doesn’t understand the rule of celibacy is still in place because if you allow marriage, how do the priests who don’t get married explain it away?

Marriage is a sacrament, a sign of Trinity and “Be fruitful and mutiply” were both suggested by someone significant.

So how does certain priests pass on that, unless they’re not that into da girlz?

Please. It’s time for the congregation to wake up. It didn’t hit me until Benedict stepped down and the Cardinal from England got outed.

We’ve got a ghey/nambla ring across Europe and deep inside the Vatican. It’s why they’ve done so little to combat the sexual abuse plague, because no one is watching the watchers.

I say hand it over to the guy from the Phillipines, because the Catholic Asian population is the newest and farthest, which is what Benedict was alluding to when he said the next pope needs to be able to travel. He wasn’t advocating tourism. He was saying the Vatican/Italy are corrupt to the core and the real church is among the people.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

It is not only over the last two decades. My entire Catholic formation was done by Salesian nuns and my mother. And they have also taught me the role of women in the world. To say women play a minor role in the Catholic church is to know little about the Catholic church.

ojfltx on March 11, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Happy doesn’t understand the rule of celibacy is still in place because if you allow marriage, how do the priests who don’t get married explain it away?

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

That’s absurd. There are plenty of single Protestant clergy who do not have to “explain it away” because they are gay or something.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Not as extreme difference as you claim. My point was simply that there is this undercurrent of thought that a new Pope is going to sweep in and execute radical change within the church. That is not going to happen if for no other reason than the electors are on the conservative side thanks to those most recently elevated by the past Pontiff.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

And as I said, you’re talking for yourself when you claim anything other than your perspective is secular.

No one called for a change on position regarding social issues.

What’s needed is a change in the clergy’s culture, because the inner ring is a cesspool.

The only way to course-correct that is to give up on the tenets that are used as a veil to hide what’s really going on.

A priest that can marry means unambiguously putting a hetero couple in place and recognizing the strength of sacramental marriage.

To keep up with the celibacy charade means we might as include the Vatican on the ghey cruise tour.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 11:05 AM

That’s absurd. There are plenty of single Protestant clergy who do not have to “explain it away” because they are gay or something.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Because Protestant clergy have been allowed to marry for generations. It’s not a reversal of doctrine.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 11:07 AM

So women do all the real work but get none of the credit? Not too surprising.

red_herring on March 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

To clarify – I’m not talking aobut priests-in-training. I’m referring to the guys who’ve been at it for sometime.

The real old guys may pass, because, well, they’re old, near retirement and they’ve gone celibate for most of their lives, so why change now?

But anyone else…if you have a 50ish year old priest and he says “no”. Why? Why would he not want to be an example to his community of the power of sacramental marriage?

I see it all the time in my local born-again churches. The married couples who operate the facilities are great people. They are apart of the community.

But this middle ground of “social monks” doesn’t fly anymore. I’ve been taught by different Catholic orders my entire life. Some monks were great people, but they even kept the “odd birds” in the monastery because they knew why they like to be around “the kids”.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Don L on March 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Maybe Carolina was one of the lucky ones who escaped that mindset or saw through it to what is really was and rejected it.

I have the book “Ungodly Rage” by Donna Steichen myself and it was a real eye-opener when I first read it. The women “religious” she profiles in her book certainly bore no resemblance to the nuns who taught in my elementary school many years ago. Thankfully, they are becoming fewer and fewer with each passing year. This was yet another fallout of some dissident religious’ and theologans’ misinterpretation of Vatican II and is another unfortunate manifestation that the Church needs to rid itself of.

PatriotGal2257 on March 11, 2013 at 11:16 AM

So women do all the real work but get none of the credit? Not too surprising.

red_herring on March 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Who said they get none of the credit for the work they do?

tommyboy on March 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Is the cult of Mary wrapped up in all of this?

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM

You are talking about two different things here. The doctrine of Mary, mother of Jesus is explained here.

I ponder the unCatholic midsets of folks like Rosemary Ruether and Mary Daley who from their Catholic offices openly sought to take over the structure of the Church, but only for radical femism to infiltrate and control it….

Don L on March 11, 2013 at 10:44 AM

These ladies, on the other hand, have been a scourge on the Church in that they actively try to subvert traditional Catholic teachings and in the process, lead and have led innocent people astray for decades. They are pro-abortion, very likely lesbians, believe women should be priests in the Catholic Church, and a whole host of other traditional matters of the Church that they find problematic. One would wonder why they just don’t leave, if they hate the Catholic Church so much, but therein lies their motivation: they want to help destroy it from within.

PatriotGal2257 on March 11, 2013 at 11:30 AM

I thought GOD was head of the church?! Maybe thatg is the problem these days – why we are heading to where Gays & Lesbians are allowed to be Pastors/Priests, embracing homosexuality as equal to traditional marriage, ‘abortions are acceptable/the norm, etc…..

easyt65 on March 11, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Who run Church Town?

Bishop on March 11, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Mister Sister runs Church Town!

(Sorry, but I couldn’t think of a better way to feminize and Catholicize “Master Blaster”)

JimLennon on March 11, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Yes – WOMEN DO run the Catholic Church – at least in the U.S.A. they do.

Sister Carol Keehan of Catholic Health Association runs the Catholic Church in the U.S.A.

It was she that endorsed ObamaCare and the Bishops were too impotent to do a damn thing about it. Now they have themselves a big fat mess!

HondaV65 on March 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM

So, we get a story about how meaningful the contribution of women is to the Catholic church, and so much of it is about how “fabulous” the women are and how they dress and are so fashionable?

I’m not sure that’s helping….

Not as extreme difference as you claim. My point was simply that there is this undercurrent of thought that a new Pope is going to sweep in and execute radical change within the church. That is not going to happen if for no other reason than the electors are on the conservative side thanks to those most recently elevated by the past Pontiff.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

And as I said, you’re talking for yourself when you claim anything other than your perspective is secular.

No one called for a change on position regarding social issues.

What’s needed is a change in the clergy’s culture, because the inner ring is a cesspool.

The only way to course-correct that is to give up on the tenets that are used as a veil to hide what’s really going on.

A priest that can marry means unambiguously putting a hetero couple in place and recognizing the strength of sacramental marriage.

To keep up with the celibacy charade means we might as include the Vatican on the ghey cruise tour.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 11:05 AM

As I recall, there was a significant group of former Catholic priests in the mid to late 19th century who made the case repeatedly for the abolition of forced celibacy. I think it’s a very harmful practice to require men to be celibate as a condition of the priesthood, and I think it is the cause of some of the problems in the Catholic church. Which is why I thought this group of reformers were right.

What I know, though, is that the New Testament does not teach forced celibacy for anyone. It was always an option for those who wanted to dedicate themselves more fully to their ministry. But it was always voluntary, and a matter of conscience between the individual and God. As Paul said, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas (Peter)? If the apostles were not required to be celibate, why are the priests required to be celibate?
Of course, as former Catholic priests, they felt an attachment for the Catholic church that I didn’t share.

tom on March 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM

I thought GOD was head of the church?! Maybe thatg is the problem these days – why we are heading to where Gays & Lesbians are allowed to be Pastors/Priests, embracing homosexuality as equal to traditional marriage, ‘abortions are acceptable/the norm, etc…..

easyt65 on March 11, 2013 at 11:31 AM

And when was the last time you saw and spoke to God? Does he come and have dinner with you often?
Did he empty the trash? Open the doors? Did he give the sermon on Sunday? Good grief…

right2bright on March 11, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Of course, as former Catholic priests, they felt an attachment for the Catholic church that I didn’t share.

tom on March 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Wasn’t their Popes that were married, and some had children, even one I think had a child that also became a Pope…

right2bright on March 11, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Not as extreme difference as you claim.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

ummmm…pal, there is a huge difference between aborting a child and marrying a woman…if you don’t see the difference, you are just plain out there in some other planet…no offense.

Killing, destroying a human being, or taking part in a marriage that is condoned, even promoted by every church, one that honors God…and you don’t see much of a difference…oh my…

right2bright on March 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM

In an interview with me this morning from the Vatican media center, Ashley reaffirms that women hold an increasing number of powerful positions in the Church, and not just here at the Vatican:

Hey, the WaPo ran an article a few weeks ago that asserted the next Pope should be a nun. Maybe it wasn’t as far off the mark as I first thought.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Silly.

Priests perform a particular function in the Mass that women cannot perform.

Basic…biblical…traditional.

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM

My point was simply that there is this undercurrent of thought that a new Pope is going to sweep in and execute radical change within the church. That is not going to happen if for no other reason than the electors are on the conservative side thanks to those most recently elevated by the past Pontiff.

Happy Nomad on March 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Yes, that is the prevailing pop-MSM notion, that the new Pope will just wave his hand and voila!, the Catholic Church is now “modernized.” Well, it won’t happen, and it’s not because there are many conservative electors in this conclave, although that certainly helps. It is that the Pope cannot change Church doctrine. At all. A pope is many things: the bishop of Rome and the head of the worldwide Catholic Church and he is also the guardian of Church doctrine — he can explain it, expound upon it and so on, but he can’t change it.

The pop-MSM elements can suggest that he can until they are blue in the face or perhaps beyond, but the fact of the matter is that it ain’t gonna happen.

PatriotGal2257 on March 11, 2013 at 12:43 PM

I assume this is news to the mainstream, anti-Catholic media…for those of use who are of a certain age or have some historical perspective it is not news…the sisters ran the hospitals and schools for over 100 years…

ironmarshal on March 11, 2013 at 12:48 PM

A priest that can marry means unambiguously putting a hetero couple in place and recognizing the strength of sacramental marriage.

To keep up with the celibacy charade means we might as include the Vatican on the ghey cruise tour.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 11:05 AM

In the Eastern rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Further, in the Latin rite there are a few married men, converted ministers from other faiths, who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood. This, however, is not common. Finally, in neither the Latin rite nor the Eastern rites do priests (or deacons) marry after they have been ordained, except in extraordinary circumstances.

The reasons Latin rite priests can’t marry is both theological and canonical.

Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ. As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.

As Christ himself makes clear, none of us will be married in heaven (Mt 22:23–30). By remaining unmarried in this life, priests are more closely configured to the final, eschatological state that will be all of ours.

Paul makes it very clear that remaining single allows one’s attention to be undivided in serving the Lord (1 Cor 7:32–35). He recommends celibacy to all (1 Cor 7:7) but especially to ministers, who as soldiers of Christ he urges to abstain from “civilian affairs” (2 Tm 2:3–4).

Canonically, priests cannot marry for a number of reasons. First, priests who belong to religious orders take vows of celibacy. Second, while diocesan priests do not take vows, they do make a promise of celibacy.

Third, the Church has established impediments that block the validity of marriages attempted by those who have been ordained. Canon 1087 states: “Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage.”

This impediment remains as long as the priest has not been dispensed from it, even if he were to attempt a civil marriage, even if he left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, and even if he apostatized from the Christian faith altogether. He cannot be validly married after ordination unless he receives a dispensation from the Holy See (CIC 1078 §2, 1).

While Protestants have married clergy…their clergy also perform fundamentally different functions within their denominations when compared to Priests in the Latin Church.

Demanding that Priests be married is to demand that the foundational function of the Priest in the Mass be changed.

Married priests in the Latin Rite won’t become common practice and these priests will never be promoted to Bishop.

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Priests perform a particular function in the Mass that women cannot perform.

Basic…biblical…traditional.

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM

And what is that? What “particular function”, I can only thing of one function as man can have that a woman cannot…and that is part of the problem with “celibacy” for priests.

right2bright on March 11, 2013 at 12:59 PM

As I recall, there was a significant group of former Catholic priests in the mid to late 19th century who made the case repeatedly for the abolition of forced celibacy. I think it’s a very harmful practice to require men to be celibate as a condition of the priesthood, and I think it is the cause of some of the problems in the Catholic church. Which is why I thought this group of reformers were right.

What I know, though, is that the New Testament does not teach forced celibacy for anyone. It was always an option for those who wanted to dedicate themselves more fully to their ministry. But it was always voluntary, and a matter of conscience between the individual and God. As Paul said, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas (Peter)? If the apostles were not required to be celibate, why are the priests required to be celibate?
Of course, as former Catholic priests, they felt an attachment for the Catholic church that I didn’t share.

tom on March 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Celibacy is a requirement of the vows to be ordained to the Priesthood just as it is in the convents and orders.

It isn’t forced…it is a chosen condition among other conditions contained in the vows. It is a sacramental gift of God’s Grace.

Priests or Nuns that break any of their vows for any reason place their souls in jeopardy and risk formal excommunication or schism. They bring scandal to themselves and the Church.

There is nothing new under the sun.

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Priests perform a particular function in the Mass that women cannot perform.

Basic…biblical…traditional.

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM

And what is that? What “particular function”, I can only thing of one function as man can have that a woman cannot…and that is part of the problem with “celibacy” for priests.

right2bright on March 11, 2013 at 12:59 PM

posted upthread

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 1:05 PM

I wasn’t clear as I should have been toward the distinction between religious and diocesan as to vows…This link explains some of the differences. I apologize for the error…

“As Catholics we have believed for two thousand years that at the last supper on Holy Thursday night, the night before he died, Jesus instituted two sacraments, Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders. He made the twelve apostles priests and gave them the commission or the power to change the bread and wine into his body and blood. It was to be a perpetual memorial act of love and life, the gift of his body and blood in the Eucharist.

As history unfolded, these priests lived out in the world with the people they were serving. The Latin word for “world” is “saeculum”, and there’s the derivation of the expression “secular priests”, those out in the world, ministering to God’s people. As the years passed, there were men and women who voluntarily decided to go apart from the world, taking the three vows of religion, namely, poverty, chastity and obedience.

Any man or woman who makes the three vows is called a religious—a religious priest, sister or brother. This essentially is what makes a “religious” different from a “secular”. The secular priests never take the three vows of religion. They do make a promise to their bishop at ordination to obey him as their spiritual leader for a particular diocese, and they also make a promise to remain celibate—not to marry. It bears repeating, to say that diocesan priests do not take the three vows of religion—poverty, chastity and obedience. The promise of celibacy is not the same as the vow of chastity….”

http://www.the-journals.org/dah/difference.htm

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Workingclass – That’s very informative, but we have a problem.

The bois in the Vatican are not going out to be among the people.

They’re dressing up and playing with their man-servants, while living on a large pot o’ gold.

What does any of their lifestyle have to do with Holy Thursday?

In fact, they live the exact opposite lifestyle of Christ.

So here’s my trade – if you can get them to give up the fortune and stop buying gawdy things like the Crystal Cathedral so someone can play Father Liberace, then I’ll buy back into the vow of celibacy.

But – I have a feeling if you could show anyone involved in the early days what’s become of the Vatican, they’d recoil in disgust.

Again, I’m not pinning the local priest or even people like Dolan. It’s a corrupt circle that controls the machine.

If we on the outside still play their game, then don’t be shocked when the stories start flooding the news.

These guys do not care about, or even believe, in eternal damnation. They want money, bois and to play dressup. It has more in common with the heritage in the Roman part of “Roman Catholicism” than Christ.

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist are competing in the American Bible Challenge…

Here’s the info and the clip.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2013/03/the-dominican-sisters-of-mary-mother-of-the-eucharist-are-such-joyless-dour-creatures.html

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 2:03 PM

budfox on March 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM

*sigh*

I doubt Bishop Vann from Ft. Worth Texas will be a Liberache.

workingclass artist on March 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Yes. Well, A woman. Her name is Jezebel, aka “THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” (Revelation 17:5)

Gordy on March 11, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Women in the Catholic church? Face it, the first “feminists” were the Catholic nuns – remember those women who RAN hospitals, colleges, universities, etc.. As for becoming priests, I still prefer my clerics to be male. Talent? No, simply the role. If you look at the protestant denominations that allowed women to become ministers, they’re losing ground. Of course some can succeed and do well but most, no.

This phrase: Carolina, who has a degree from Notre Dame, is wearing floral skinny jeans, black suede boots, purple cat-eye glasses, and her voluminous blonde waves are tied up in a chignon do not indicate a professional woman – skinny floral jeans???? Give me a break. This is hipster dress and does not belong in any office, period.

MN J on March 11, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Here is what I have always considered one of the ironies of all church’s who think women should not be in leader ship roles, or in the pulpit…

The most precious among us, the children, as dictated by Jesus…and who overwhelmingly teaches the children? Natures the children, the one group we allow to give Sunday school to, the ones who first introduce children to Jesus (yes, I know men teach Sunday school, I have, but the numbers of women in early age fare exceed men)…it’s the women. We allow the women to teach our children, Jesus’s most precious, but not adults…

How foolish are the Baptists, Catholics, some Lutheran’s, good grief…they read the bible, but the application is a little more difficult. Give up authority is a little harder for mere mortal men.

right2bright on March 11, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Actually right2bright, in ages past it used to be the man’s job to teach the faith, specifically the father. That is (in part) why priests are known as father.

The feminization of the church from an ecclesiastical standpoint is actually one of the modern age’s greatest failings.

BKennedy on March 11, 2013 at 7:07 PM