Female Altar Servers Part 2 - Burke is at it Again
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,713
    was ONE of the primary drivers of currency devaluation


    Yup. The other (at that time) was the Guns-And-Butter spending of LBJ, although no President since has actually reduced spending.

    As a counter-argument, some are saying that we are in a period of DEflation now, despite the classical Econ theory that umpty-bazillion dollars in circulation should produce INflation.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,765
    PGA started this thread with this quotation:
    In the interview, Burke also blamed gay clergy for the church's sexual abuse crisis, saying priests "who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity" were the ones who molested children.
    But why present the Cardinal's words in such a small quantity when the interview is readily available?

    Here is a more complete quotation, from the source:
    We can also see that our seminaries are beginning to attract many strong young men who desire to serve God as priests. The new crop of young men are manly and confident about their identity. This is a welcome development, for there was a period of time when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns.
    So the larger context here is the character of seminarians as men, and in particular their affective maturity. The Church has a definite policy about the discernment of priestly vocations which calls for that maturity in men who are to take on the role of spiritual fathers.

    The Cardinal recalls the wave of abuse cases in the postwar era, and he attributes at least some of it to the lack of such affective maturity. There is considerable dudgeon being directed at the Cardinal today over these words, but anyone who read the John Jay College report about sexual abuse cases among the U.S. clergy knows that the vast majority of the abuse was same-sex abuse, directed at males; directed at post-pubescents (page 68 of the report). So the Cardinal has reason to consider same-sex orientation a component of the abuse cases during the peak period studied in the John Jay report.

    As it happens, down in the comment box on that interview web page, a non-believer made that very point: Burke dared to present an unwelcome truth:
    As an atheist, these church issues could not interest me in the slightest; however, as a clinical psychologist, I cannot help but wonder if Burke is being demonized by the press precisely because he refuses to run with the politically correct pack.... All these intramural, "tempest in a teapot" and, frankly, boring Catholic issues apart, Burke is 100% correct in his assertion about the sexual orientation of the predators. [emphasis added]


    Have you noticed? Very little of the Cardinal's actual words are being quoted above by his critics in this thread. Maybe a more thorough engagement with the sources is needed.
  • Yes, I would say a more thorough engagement with the sources is desperately needed.
  • Charles,

    I'm sorry I misunderstood you on the subject of Cardinal Burke.
    On the subject of Abp Wenski, I'll do further digging. I've more important things to follow, right now, but I will get to it as soon as I can.

    Cheers,

    Chris
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,757
    I'll just note the the erstwhile historical economic speculation offered here is quite off-topic, and doesn't flatter the genius of anyone here for that matter..
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    Well, it's certainly as deep into economics as you'll ever see me tread. But I think that this particular phenomenon is true. Ability to pay more for real estate pushes the price up. Many families could afford to pay more for real estate at a certain historical moment for certain sociological reasons. And now we are stuck with the problem.

    I was in the ladies room at an office I worked in once, and the lady next to me in the mirror was doing her hair in preparation for her evening class, which would prepare her for a new and more lucrative (and pretty boring) career. She was married. In addition to her home responsibilities and work, she had school. We shared a rueful laugh about the wonderful gains of the liberation movement.

    By the way, I saw the funniest thing on Facebook the other day. It said every family should have one child named "Gotham." That way, if the babies needed attention in the night, the mom would just have to roll over and whisper in her husband's ear, "Gotham needs you." Hahaha.

    Responding to Chonak's comments above, I wonder if there is any similar contextualization/ softening that is possible regarding the third quote, on parish life and the liturgy. I made it clear above that in my comments at least, I was responding only to that particular part of the interview.
  • I saw that Gotham thing. It would totally work on me, being such a huge comic book geek.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,007
    I heard Rand Paul speak on economics recently. He noted that there hasn't been a fixed value for our currency for some time. It is, essentially worth whatever those in charge want it to be worth. Our government - say Fed - seems to think wealth is what happens on Wall Street. Wall Street is speculation, not the creation of wealth, or so I think, even though I make and have made money on that speculation. Wealth is the production of things of measurable value which seems to be forgotten among many of the current crop of economists. So we do have problems with monetary policies. How much that affects other components is also ... speculation.

    Burke never gets a fair press. He's a good man who wants the best for the Church. He doesn't back down and upholds truth, whether anyone else likes it or not. I think he would make a great pope capable of reforming the Church, but the smiling empty shells and whitewashed sepulchers who prevail in Church governance will never let that happen.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • The "unwelcome truth" he seems to present is that sex abuse had anything to do with sexual orientation. Contrary to the unnameed, unidentified psychologist who weighed in on the comments, I've heard more experts say that the two are unrelated.

    Then there's the quotes about femininization. Well, if men REALLY don't want to be around things that are "too feminized," amd thus that is the reason men are not as involved at church, I suggest that for those men it's time to grow up and get out of 5th grade.

    Someone mentioned how the media used to use Pope Benedict's words to make good headlines and compared Burke's situation in that regard to Pope Benedict's. The big difference is that when I used to read a headline about Pope Benedict, I would usually go to the source and discover that his words were quoted selectively and over simplistically or that he was taken completely out of context. In the case of Burke, finding the original context usually does little to change the meaning, and although he might have been quoted selectively in most cases, the meaning of the material quoted is usually substantially the same.

    To be a "centrist", a "moderate" or whatever, means that you're eschewing extremes, and yet you blast Cardinal Burke not on the substance of what he says, but on the grounds that he's crazy. What, EXACTLY, do you think is crazy in what he wrote?


    Also, to address this, I was speaking of being "centrist" ON THIS ISSUE; I rather dislike the American political terms thrown about to describe Church and people in it, and find that they generally don't fit well. But on this particular issue, one could say that I sit squarely in the middle of the two extremes, with some sympathy for all male altar servers.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    The thing I like most about Rand Paul is the way he is not afraid to offer new paradigms and solutions. His ideas may not always be 100% viable, but he does present them well and encourages folks to think outside the box.

    The thing I like most about Cardinal Burke is measured but charitable way of speaking. He leaves no doubt as to what he believes and is very careful to present the teaching of the Church with precision, which is an act of charity in itself. In his recent interview with The New Emangelization blog (that is not a typo) he was asked to address specifically "the state of Catholic men in the United States and how we might draw more men into the New Evangelization."

    Cardinal Burke reminds me so much of the old-school priests and nuns in the Midwest that I grew up with. They were no-nonsense, disciplined thinkers, but besides the staunch backbone they had kind hearts.
  • The thing I like most about Cardinal Burke is measured but charitable way of speaking. He leaves no doubt as to what he believes and is very careful to present the teaching of the Church with precision.


    You can't be serious. Almost nothing he says is "measured." I suppose it might be considered "charitable," because I've never heard him speak with vitriol. But "measured?" In the same way Rush Limbaugh is, I suppose.

    I'm also not sure he is always presenting the "teaching of the Church;" It often seems to be his own opinions he's presenting.

    In his recent interview with The New Emangelization blog (that is not a typo) he was asked to address specifically "the state of Catholic men in the United States and how we might draw more men into the New Evangelization."


    What an odd concept. Because, you know, the whole world, and Church, isn't centered around men.

    Cardinal Burke reminds me so much of the old-school priests and nuns in the Midwest that I grew up with.


    You do know that Midwest Catholicism is notoriously LIBERAL, right? (There's one of those "American Political labels" I so despise; but you know what I mean.) All of the ideas and styles that you seem to be wistfully remembering are much, much more stereotypical and idiomatic of EAST COAST Catholicism of yesteryear, and to some degree, even today.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    Well, PGA, I guess I'm older than you think I am. As a little girl growing up in Denver, I was fortunate to know some priests and nuns in my parish and school who were very old-fashioned and could have walked straight out of a Baltimore Catechism.

    Re: Cardinal Burke, I would like to make my own the thoughts of our beloved pope emeritus, Benedict XVI. To the Latin Mass Pilgrimage in Rome in November he praised Cardinals Pell and Burke as "great cardinals" which indeed I believe they are.

    Cardinal Burke, an eminent canonist and jurist, has always been to me a model of the hermeneutic of continuity so ardently championed by Pope Benedict XVI as the only reliable means of interpreting all that has gone on in the Church for the last 50 years.

    I've always been struck by Cardinal Burke's carefully measured words and his willingness to put himself on the line in taking positions that are currently out of favor. Cardinal Burke's words need to be interpreted in the light of the culture and lived experience of the Extraordinary Form. In the EF, there is a distinct emphasis and "accent" on the masculinity of Christ, the High Priest, which is something that, rightly or wrongly, is not part of the OF.

    In this liturgical culture of the old rite, the ministers on the altar, are exclusively male. This is not in any way to diminish the radical equality of men and women but rather to highlight the fact seen in all liturgical traditions of the Church (except the OF) dating back to Old Testament praxis that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not only the representation, but also the iconographic expression of the fact that Christ, in the ancient Judaeo-Christian tradition, is indeed a male High Priest.

    For those used to the culture of the OF, I can well understand how Cardinal Burke's sentiments and sensibilities are foreign to them as it clashes dreadfully with everything that Archbishop Bugnini's reform is known for. That does not belie the fact that Arbp. Bugnini's reform carries with it significant problems as it is from beginning to end his attempt to, in his own words (cf. L'Osservatore Romano, March, 1965) "to strip away from the liturgy everything that is an obstacle to Protestants."

    So, Cardinal Burke's remarks are perfectly understandable in the culture of the EF, and are incomprehensible in the culture of the OF, but that leads to one final question: Does the problem lie with Cardinal Burke, or rather, does it lie with Archbishop Bugnini's work, and is this one of the many reasons why our beloved pope emeritus (with whom Cardinal Burke is closely identified) wanted so much to effect "a liturgical reconciliation", or "reform of the reform"?
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • PGA,

    I grant that political labels serve internal questions of the Church poorly, because the one is engaged in the art of the possible and the other is charged to teach the truth.

    Centrist (your term) means not in either "extreme". What are those two extremes? (Here are some possibilities

    1) all male altar servers (boys and men) and the abolition of the priesthood --- if the problem is maleness itself, or the priestly cast so wrapped up in being male.

    2) ....... um..... (crickets) I'm trying not to present moderate, centrist positions, and #1 seems the most extreme set I can create.)

    Because we believe (as Catholics, moderate or otherwise) that God Himself created the Church as His chosen means of bringing men to salvation, we must consider the truth being taught (or proposed).

    Could one be "moderate" in opposition to rape? Of course not. Could one, nevertheless assert that an accusation is not the same as a finding of guilt? Sure. "Moderation" could be a good thing.

    I have a tee-shirt, a gift from my son, which quotes G.K. Chesterton: "In Catholicism, the pipe, the pint and the cross all fit together" -- he tells me that the end of the quote is, "none is good for the body, but all are good for the soul". Is this the sort of moderation, centristical position you mean?

    Sure, it's easy to hide behind the term "centrist", or "moderate" -- on one issue or on many. Still, what is the content of a moderate, centrist position? "I'm not an extremist"?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    Julie,

    Our beloved Pope Emeritus has never once, to my memory, spoken like this.

    Women are not put on the earth to make men comfortable with their masculinity. Certainly our ecclesial roles should not be defined by male insecurities about manhood and fears about the presence of women.

    If we're talking about 9-12 year olds wanting to be in a boys-only group, about altar servers, ok. I don't think these feelings are necessary, but I accept that there's a window of opportunity that should not be missed.

    If we're talking about potential candidates for the priesthood, that is another story. They should get beyond their insecurities on this level before applying to seminary. I'm not in favor of "gate-keeping" at the seminary door for meaningless reasons, but collaborating with people who are markedly different from yourself is a major part of being a priest. It has to be an ability of priestly candidates.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 632
    I think a lot of the feminization that I've seen is more how much of what occurs at church (during Mass and anything else) is directly related to the how much it drives the emotions. Because that kind of view is more generally associated with women (not to say men can't be emotional in their own way) it tends to be looked upon as "feminization."

    Or perhaps they are also referring to the fact that it seems the majority of people up around the altar are women whether they are lectors, EMHCs, servers, or whatever else? Seriously, at my parish when the use of EMHCs was being reduced, the major complaint was that it was an attack on the women of the parish.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I'm going to make my own opinion regarding "emangelization" with two short points-
    *All the males represented in this forum, in other ecclesial blogs, in parish RE, Youth, Recovery, Philanthropic etc. programs, not to mention who do occupy the pews daily and on Sundays are proof plenty of neither a feminization nor emasculation of the OTHCAChurch.
    *Let God sort this out. Whether one listens to Sr. Chichester or Cdl. Burke is of no lasting consequence to the deposit of faith and our own personal testimonies.
  • Jani
    Posts: 386
    This has been an interesting and disturbing conversation. There are several interwoven themes that are far beyond my ability to even fully understand, much less contribute anything useful to. But just to make myself clear before I ask one question, I will say this: it is disconcerting when you grow up to find that there are people who think the Church is "broken." It was even more disturbing after gaining enough insight to understand that She is broken, for lots of different reasons, but Cardinal Burke isn't one of them.

    I don't know what happened in the seminaries beyond "Goodbye, Good Men," but I do know what it's like to work with women in a variety of settings. When egos and power are involved it isn't pleasant, and were I a man, I would avoid working with them as much as I could. That said, I have no problem being subordinate to men - as long as I'm treated kindly and courteously I say let them do the work to support me and my family. Because I was blessed to marry a wonderful, supportive man, I grew to heights I never dreamed existed for me.

    Women have been given the gift and privilege of bearing and bringing new life to the world, and nurturing those lives. I don't understand the generation of women just ahead of me - I'm 55 soon- who made this vocation difficult to say the least and impossible for some.

    My question is this: why are women so enraged that they are still pushing all of this?

    Does your daughter really need to be an altar server, or play football on the boys team? Does she really need to have a career where she gets six weeks off to spend with her newborn, then turns her over to daycare? Isn't it enough that you can bear children; do you really need to be a priest, too, in order to be fulfilled?

    Btw, this diatribe isn't directed to anyone here, since I don't have inside information on you all...just some thoughts in general.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 632
    I still say that all feminists need to enroll in the hair club for men if they truly are for equalization of all things.
    Thanked by 2Kathy melofluent
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,234
    ... and get a couple of other things rearranged.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    I agree. Put the toilet seat up permanently, for a start.

    j/k
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    The last four remarks (including mine) all seem to be saying the same thing: women can either be butch and manly, or they can take a lower place in the life of the Church and the world.

    Are those really the only two options that our God-given brains and imaginations can develop?
  • Jani
    Posts: 386
    Why do you consider being a traditional wife and mother to be of lower status, value, place in the world?
  • TCJ
    Posts: 632
    A high place in the world isn't all that it's made up to be. It's probably a hindrance to getting to heaven if anything. Sure you still want it?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    Jani,

    Sorry, I agree, that part of your comment was not about being lower.

    TCJ,

    I think (and the last two Popes, with Pope Francis, have said) that women have contributions to make to the life of the Church and the world that are not being realized. That is my concern here: the sheer waste of half of the talent of the Church. And why? Because of immaturity and fear.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,234
    Kathy:

    Not at all. I think the real problem is an identity crisis; for both genders. Women, for some reason wanted equality (but it wasn't in human respect which is where the priority should have been) but in the roles that differ.

    The underlying modernist agenda within society (and now the church) also played into this equality, diversity, tolerance BS. It's all rooted in atheistic communism. The only thing that counts is moving materialism forward for the state. All things become subserviant to that end. This is why America is now dying as we know it. It has given way to accepting all philosophies, religions, gender preference, etc., etc., etc., with no regard for a supreme law set forth by God (and on earth the Church and her traditions).

    In a sense, we have abandoned God and the faith, especially those of us who represent THE faith (OHCA) and have thrown our pearls before swine.

    All notions and beliefs in the traditions and values of the Catholic faith have been abrogated en mass, and no one is better, or 'righter' than anyone else.

    So, with a level playing field in every sphere of life; religion, politics, employment, entertainment, etc., there are no rules. Everything is fair game and no particular 'way' is better or more right than the next opinion.

    Paris is the example at hand. No sense of what came before, what is or where things should be going. There is no condemnation of the Muslim belief of "a Trinitarian God is excremental", and that philosophy rattles around within society and class as a 'possible way of exisiting' with nothing to challenge it or expose it as erroneous. In fact, NOTHING is erroneous this day and age. Subjectivism has reached its pinnacle on a global scale.

    God has given us over to our own thinking.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    Francis,

    I agree with you that relativism is not the way forward.

    I think that one way to begin moving forward well is to recognize that what St. Pope John Paul called "the feminine genius" is a gold mine waiting to be tapped.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 632
    TCJ,

    I think (and the last two Popes, with Pope Francis, have said) that women have contributions to make to the life of the Church and the world that are not being realized. That is my concern here: the sheer waste of half of the talent of the Church. And why? Because of immaturity and fear.


    Let's see...

    Women are now servers, sacristans, organists, in the choir, hold roles as liturgy directors, preside over communion services, are EMHCs, are lectors, hold positions as head of the ODW for some dioceses, run many CDD/RE curricula and do just about everything else EXCEPT be a priest. So just what are these contributions that are not being realized? Priestesses? Look, if they are already doing everything but then you can come to two conclusions:

    1. Their contributions to make aren't being realized because the focus is wrong. Being all those things I listed above isn't working.

    2. Women have to go a step further and be priests.

    Which one is it?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,482
    To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors, and holidays; to be Whitely within a certain area, providing toys, boots, cakes, and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone? No, a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute.


    I don't see why women need to try to be men to be "fulfilled" ?
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,234
    Feminine genius is not the goldmine. The Faith is.

    Masculine and feminine genius must work together like two halves of a sphere, completely different, unique with varying roles to fulfill. That combined genius must carry forth the faith and proclaim it one in mind and heart.

    That is divine genius.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    This thread is not about women wanting to be priests.

    We actually aren't supposed to talk about that. It is also a red herring.

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • TCJ
    Posts: 632
    Actually, that's just dodging the question. I pointed out that women already do in the Church everything that men do aside from being priests. How are their contributions not being realized?
  • Re: Cardinal Burke, I would like to make my own the thoughts of our beloved pope emeritus, Benedict XVI. To the Latin Mass Pilgrimage in Rome in November he praised Cardinals Pell and Burke as "great cardinals" which indeed I believe they are.


    One of those cardinals is still a rising star, even as he approaches retirement age. The other has been banished to a non-position long before retirement age. I wonder why that is. It might have something to do with the fact that every time I turn around, I don't read a news article about the former shooting off his mouth.

    Really, I love the argument made by public figures that the press takes their comments out of context to get sound bytes; perhaps such figures should stop making lightening rod statements in public that lend themselves to becoming sound bytes.

    Actually, that's just dodging the question. I pointed out that women already do in the Church everything that men do aside from being priests. How are their contributions not being realized?


    By the continuing conversations and remarks such as those that were the original focus of this thread.
  • Jani
    Posts: 386
    Shooting off his mouth? That's his job.
    Thanked by 1Ruth Lapeyre
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    I pointed out that women already do in the Church everything that men do aside from being priests.

    They don't, actually.

    Pope Benedict mentioned that some jobs in the Church are always going to be held by men, because part of the requirement of the job is that the person be a priest. And that makes perfect sense.

    But, among those high level jobs that do not require that the person be a priest, women are underrepresented.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 632
    perhaps such figures should stop making lightening rod statements in public that lend themselves to becoming sound bytes.


    That's what I tend to think about a certain other prominent churchman.
    Thanked by 2francis irishtenor
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,007

    That's what I tend to think about a certain other prominent churchman.


    Do you mean Francis Biden? LOL.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 632
    But, among those high level jobs that do not require that the person be a priest, women are underrepresented.


    Whenever that argument comes forth is when I know that a person can no longer be reasoned with.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 632
    Do you mean Francis Biden? LOL.


    Shhhh! You might let out the secret!
  • Shooting off his mouth? That's his job.


    And I think everyone agrees that he's doing one hell of a job, especially the Holy Father.

    Whenever that argument comes forth is when I know that a person can no longer be reasoned with.


    What? Because you can't win the argument?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017


    Whenever that argument comes forth is when I know that a person can no longer be reasoned with.

    What? Why?
  • GA,

    I grant that political labels serve internal questions of the Church poorly, because the one is engaged in the art of the possible and the other is charged to teach the truth.

    Centrist (your term) means not in either "extreme". What are those two extremes? (Here are some possibilities

    1) all male altar servers (boys and men) and the abolition of the priesthood --- if the problem is maleness itself, or the priestly cast so wrapped up in being male.

    2) ....... um..... (crickets) I'm trying not to present moderate, centrist positions, and #1 seems the most extreme set I can create.)


    To answer your question:

    On this issue, the two extreme positions are:

    1. Female altar servers should have never been allowed and should be outlawed now. They are damaging the Church and since being a server is a "foreshadowing" of ordination, it's just wrong, wrong, wrong, because females can never be ordained.

    2. No priest or bishop should even be allowed to disallow female servers since the law allows them. Those who would try to ban them are just male pigs.

    I do not agree with either position. I'm in the middle. I can see good reasons, especially in particular circumstances, for a bishop/pastor to keep servers as male only. On the other hand, statements such as "it is objectively wrong," hold no water because a competent authority (the Pope) allowed it. And any boys/men who claim they will not serve with females need to get a grip and grow up.

    Hence the two extremes and the middle ground on this particular issue.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,234
    When one stands for nothing one falls for everything.

    Other similar quotes:

    There may have been a time when people found it easy to believe in anything. But we are finding it vastly easier to disbelieve anything. [Illustrated London News, March 21, 1914]

    The nineteenth century decided to have no religious authority. The twentieth century seems disposed to have any religious authority. [Illustrated London News, April 26, 1924]
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    Francis, you are not being very specific. No offense.
  • JonLaird
    Posts: 206
    But, among those high level jobs that do not require that the person be a priest, women are underrepresented.

    Whenever that argument comes forth is when I know that a person can no longer be reasoned with.

    Knowing Kathy, I don't think she is advocating for gender-based quotas.

    Ultimately, the point here is for each person to discover and realize his or her vocation by the grace of God. Part of that is making known to everyone the possibile avenues that are open. In some places, no men are entering the priesthood simply because no one is inviting them to investigate it. If there are positions in the church that are open to women are not made known to them, perhaps it is a similar problem. (Personally I have no opinion about whether women should be in certain church positions apart from what has been defined by the Church as true; namely that the priesthood is not a vocation open to women)

    I do not take lightly the question of "spiritual prerequisites" for church positions, particularly in "high level jobs," whatever they may be (to be honest, I'm not completely sure what all falls in this category). Men and women alike must have a humble submission to all church teaching and discipline, have a spirituality grounded in seeking and doing the will of God. Devotion to the Eucharist and to the Blessed Mother are good signs. Expertise in Buddhist meditation or the enneagram are not. But there may be many wonderful, holy, humble, spiritually grounded women who are blocked off from certain positions simply because they believe their feminity prevents them.

    It's usually pretty simple to spot power-hungry people who are trying to carry out their own grand schemes and designs for the Church; such people should not be permitted in church positions, whatever their gender.

    Finally, one thing to keep in mind is that at every time, in every age, God is in charge. There is never ever ever any reason to freak out about anything at all. What God does not ordain in his Wisdom, he permits by the same Wisdom, even if it seems incomprehensible. Trust in God, thank him for all blessings and crosses alike, seek his will for yourself, let his grace overflow to others, and you can be at peace with the world, regardless of what anyone else says or does.
    Thanked by 2Kathy melofluent
  • TCJ
    Posts: 632
    What? Because you can't win the argument?


    No. Because of the utter ridiculousness of the argument. Being a woman does not merit a person employment somewhere. The argument that fifty percent (or somewhere close) of all jobs should be held by women is insane. Think about this situation:

    A company has fifty positions available. They interview five hundred people, both men and women for the job. In the end, the company goes with the fifty most-qualified interviewees and it just so happens that forty of them are men. Now, with the mindset that there has to be equal representation, that company will have to go back and get rid of fifteen of the top-rated workers they just hired so they can go hire women.

    In the end, those fifteen women hired after the fact were not hired because of their qualifications (though they might be good, just not as good) but solely because they are women. Now THAT is an extremely demeaning thing -- to be wanted not because you're good at something or that you're qualified for the job, but SOLELY because of WHAT you are.

    Do women really want that?

    Furthermore, one can look and see that not all jobs are suit for men, not all for women. Why is there not equal representation in the childcare business? Why are there not more men? Why don't women clamor for jobs in the mining industry?

    Argue all you want for women to be work in whatever job it is, but don't use the argument that "There aren't enough women represented."


    P.S. For those sensitive about this issue, please go back to my example situation and reverse the numbers. Say that forty women were hired and only ten men. Oh, wait. Nobody would be complaining then!
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    Thanks, Jon, for your reasonable voice.

    I don't mean quotas, but I do mean representation. If none of the many qualified women in the entire Church are ever in particular senior-level positions, without a good reason (such as the need for a cleric to be in that role), then I do think it's time to ask why.

    For example, this past summer the very first woman Rector of a Roman seminary was nominated, Sr. Mary Melone. The first ever. In history. She is extraordinarily well educated and accomplished, and has a balanced view of the mysteries of providence and vocation and identity, much as Jon voiced above. But I find it hard to believe that she is the first ever woman who has been the most qualified in her university to fill that role.

    So, why was she the first ever woman Rector Magnificus of a Roman seminary in history?

    Edit: Above should read "Roman Pontifical University" for "Roman seminary."
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,757
    Circular firing squads are so, well, Catholic.
    Thanked by 1Chrism
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,017
    In other news, the International Theological Commission, an advisory commission that works on various theological topics in depth for the Pope, had their reappointments in September. A decade or so ago limbo was in the news, for example, and that had been one of the Commission's projects.

    Anyways, now the Commission is up to 16% women. Sixteen! Out of a group that is fifty percent of the world! And--this is considered a breakthrough.
    Furthermore, there is a notable increase in the contribution of female theologians. In the two previous terms, the Commission benefited from the presence of two renowned theologians, Sister Sara Butler, M.S.B.T., (U.S.A.), and Professor Barbara Hallensleben (Switzerland, of German nationality). Five other female theologians have been appointed for the new term: Sister Prudence Allen, R.S.M., (U.S.A.), Sister Alenka Arko, Com. Loyola (Slovenia-Russia), Moira Mary McQuenn (G.B. – Canada), Tracey Rowland (Australia), Marianne Schlosser (Germany – Austria). Women now constitute 16% of the Commission’s members, a sign of growing female involvement in theological research.