Who would Jesus excommunicate?

I read about this yesterday on Broadsheet, and from what they say it's worse than just excommunicating women who get ordained.

First, they excommunicate both the woman and the bishop who ordains her (so who is going to be willing to risk excommunication to help women to become ordained?).

Secondly, apparently this is an offense worthy of automatic excommunication. That is to say, it's not the act of getting caught that gets you excommunicated. "The second it's done, the people involved have irretrievably fallen from grace and are no longer Catholics, whether the Vatican ever finds out about it or not." Great. That puts ordaining a woman on the same level as heresy and laying violent hands on the pope. And I can totally see the logic behind that -- God forbid women threaten the patriarchy of the Catholic church!

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 women have already been excommunicated in the U.S. (it may be more, I'm not sure), and more worldwide, for being ordained. In St. Louis a woman rabbi hosted the ceremony. The big deal here is that the excommunications have largely been performed by local authorities, without much acknowledgment from Rome. It was only a matter of time, I suppose. But Catholic women will keep on keeping on. Maybe the visibility of blatant papal womenhate will wake some people up.... but probably not.

Some theological background: excommunication is not a punishment imposed from without, it's a state of being that individuals enter into themselves. If an individual's beliefs are out of sync with the beliefs of the Church (understood not as 'the Vatican' but as the entire body of believers) then that person is "out of communion" with the rest of the Church. The Vatican views itself as only pointing out what already exists. Also, excommunication is not the same thing as saying one is damned to hell. While from the point of view of the Church it certainly isn't a good thing as concerns one's prospects for eternity, the Church can't know the individual's soul and the mind of God.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of the ordination of women, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. I honestly don't understand the Women's Ordination Conference and other like-minded groups. They're essentially saying they value the traditional structures of the Church (priesthood, apostolic succession through validly ordained bishops, etc) but then they reject those structures by performing ordinations that are not recognized by the rest of the Church... what am I missing?

Kevin Smith (the film director) related a personal anecdote as to why he does not take his daughter to Catholic church (he considers himself a Catholic). He stated that his wife Jennifer said "Why would you enroll your daughter into an organization that would never let her be the leader?"

I couldn't agree with her sentiment more.

Good. The Vatican deserves credit for sticking to their guns. It shows that they are honest in their beliefs and are willing to act accordingly, even if it does put them a bit more out of sync with mainstream morality and so will ultimately hurt them in the long run. Their stance is also good for feminism, because it shows their true colors, and by refusing to budge even further away from the morality that their religion was founded upon, they may yet push some of their more modern-minded members to reject the Church outright.

If they don't agitate, how are they ever going to get what they want?

I am confused about that too, LizB. Why don't they all leave the catholic church and start their own, or join the Episcopal church, which is similar liturgically but does ordain women? I'm sure they have reasons, but they are lost on me.

I am not astounded in the least.
There is an ancient mysoginist tradition of old, sexless men choosing over women's lives and rights in the Catholic church.

The church loves to speak of charity and tolerance as basic principles.
But obviuosly my understanding is a different one:

Trying to convince others of my view of the world as the only right one, to "save" them is neither charitable nor tolerant.

Dictating men and women how to live and express their sexuality, denying women the right to make decisions concerning their own bodies, discribing homosexuals, transgenders and the like as dangerous and harmful,... Not so tolerant to me.

And then all these decisions and rules are made by a couple of elderly men, who have been living celibately for decades, and would do anything to avoid women in their club.

Someone like that has no right at all to tell me anything about the natural structure of a family, female sexuality, nor marriage, because: They don't know shit about it.

What's so confusing?
Tradition does not justify hundreds of years of systematic sexism (and, sometimes, downright misogyny). Tradition is not an excuse to continue the practice(s), either.

I got married – very traditional - but I did not take my husband's name, a huge part of the marriage tradition for women. It is possible agree with the structure/institution without agreeing with or while working to change some of the traditions/practices associated with it. By ordaining capable, competent women, that's how change is effected (a big effect, the pope had to issue a public statement excommunicating them –their cause is now very public). Just talking about how unfair it is that women are not treated equally in the church doesn't really accomplish much.

Bethany: Instead of working to change the religion that they love, your response is to tell them (these women that are so devout and faithful that they want to be religious leaders in their church) to find a different church? Is the choice to lock-step behind everything the pope says or completely change religions? No middle ground, like say, treating women like equals within the church?

What's so confusing?
Tradition does not justify hundreds of years of systematic sexism (and, sometimes, downright misogyny). Tradition is not an excuse to continue the practice(s), either.

I got married – very traditional - but I did not take my husband's name, a huge part of the marriage tradition for women. It is possible agree with the structure/institution without agreeing with or while working to change some of the traditions/practices associated with it. By ordaining capable, competent women, that's how change is effected (a big effect, the pope had to issue a public statement excommunicating them –their cause is now very public). Just talking about how unfair it is that women are not treated equally in the church doesn't really accomplish much.

Bethany: Instead of working to change the religion that they love, your response is to tell them (these women that are so devout and faithful that they want to be religious leaders in their church) to find a different church? Is the choice to lock-step behind everything the pope says or completely change religions? No middle ground, like say, treating women like equals within the church?

Why any woman would want to be heavily involved in Catholocism, or any of the major Abrahamic religions, or really (with a few exceptions) any religion around the world is beyond me. But whatever yanks their chain.

TBH - to me the Catholic church is a private club, and I'm inclined to say they can adopt whatever crazy entry criteria they wish. At least they're being honest about their beliefs, which will hopefully show people exactly how highly *cough* they view women.

This is going to come out hostile, and I truly don't mean it to sound that way, but I do get really, really tired of the, "Why don't they just abandon their religious beliefs and affiliations? I mean, sooo easy, and way more logical, in my completely-removed-from-their-personal-experience opinion." It just sounds so insulting. It seems clear to me, that for whatever their personal reasons are, the Catholic church resonates with them, and they want, not to leave the church, but to elevate women's status to equal within it, and you don't do that by jumping ship. I admire that these women want to change things from within, and I don't see that as being incompatible with appreciating and having respect for the traditional structure. They just want women included in that structure, which doesn't seem wacky to me.

I understand that many, many feminists are atheistic, agnostic, secular, whatever, but I get tired of the condescending attitude that comes out when women and feminist women who participate in religion are brought up here and elsewhere. You don't have to understand it. They are the only ones who have to reconcile their feminism with their faith, and whether or not other people get it is not the point.

The Vatican is right about one thing though. The Catholic religion is indeed inherently hierarchical and (hetero)sexist, existing to justify and mete out the punishment of those who buck the system. This is true of most if not all religions, and a cursory glance at Western European and United States history will give a perfect example of how societies' scientific and anti-hierarchical advances are usually in direct opposition to and in spite of their faith, abundant in times when religious institution is experiencing a decline.

Shortly put, these women would do better to leave the Catholic church than to try and rationalize it into something not patriarchal. Religion can be mitigated with liberalism, but it's still designed to oppress women.

"Why don't they all leave the catholic church and start their own, "
Logic. Who knows where that would lead? Next they'll be questioning the evidence for the holy writing of the bible, I expect.

One of the happiest days of my life was when I found out that I have auto-excommunicated myself from the Catholic church because I helped rape victims get abortions. Pretty convenient, huh?

Here are a couple reasons why it is important for women to be eligible for ordination in the Catholic Church.

1. Women should not have to leave the Catholic church to fulfill their call to ordination. For a lot of Catholic women, the Catholic church is home- no matter how much they disagree with some of its teachings. Your home might have problems, but you shouldn’t be forced to leave it if you don’t want to. It upsets me to hear feminists telling Catholic women who are working for ordination to just quit fighting and join a different church. If a state outlawed abortion, should all the pro-choice people just stop fighting for choice in their state and move somewhere else? Of course not. Then why tell Catholic women that they should just become Episcopalian if they want to be ordained?
2. People are always going to be Catholic, so it is important to fight for justice within the church. Whether people like it or not, there are always going to be little Catholic children, and it’s important that one day little Catholic girls aren’t taught that they are intrinsically inferior to their brothers. As long as women are not eligible for ordination in the Catholic church, a significant sign of misogyny and gender inequality lives on in the minds of Catholics.

I have several more. As a feminist, queer Catholic working for church reform- this is a very important issue for me. Thanks for reading…

If they were logical, would they be trying to enter the priesthood?

Sorry, but as an atheist, feminist and former Catholic (inasmuch as I was baptised in that faith) I'll never understand how a woman can support any of the Abrahamic faiths. If god exists and he loves you, you would think by now he would have done something about the millenia of oppression women have experienced at the hands of 'his' churches. The whole thing is b*llshit.

Although, the further Benedict drives the church from the membership's attitudes, the better. He'll make the church as irrelevant as it deserves to be.

ShelbyWoo: Great response.

“Shortly put, these women would do better to leave the Catholic church than to try and rationalize it into something not patriarchal. Religion can be mitigated with liberalism, but it's still designed to oppress women.�

Why should I leave a faith I believe in? Why should I not try to stay and create change? Why should I leave and go to another religion/church/belief system that is not who I am? I am a queer woman and yet I have found a community of Catholics, and a church community, that is accepting of who I am and is working to break down the greater barriers put down by the Pope and those in Rome.

As women, we are trying to fight the greater systems of oppression that exist in our daily lives. Isn’t that a big thing to try and fight against? And yet we still do. Why can’t I take a stand against the authority of the Catholic Church? I should step down simply because you don’t think change will happen? That’s where change happens…when someone stays and tries to make something happen. I might not see change in my lifetime, but Vatican II happened and created change. Perhaps we’ll have a Vatican III or IV within my lifetime that will push for more reforms within the Church.

I tend to think that the question of how theology and the modern church accommodate social change deserves a more nuanced treatment. Comments like "lovely" and "snap!" are just trivializing and sound shallow and uniformed... Religion is different than some sexist show NBC is putting on, or a tampon commercial that uses the word 'beaver.'

Penny-- How hilarious! Your parody of tired stereotypes of Catholicism is spot on.

It is a parody, right?

Wow, I'm really surprised at the trivialising response some comments are taking - all this "if they were smart they'd be atheists/splitting from their own church/doing what I personally would do" stuff. People were amazingly nuanced and willing to acknowledge differences between their own experiences/worldviews and others' when it came to genital mutilation in other countries. Maybe it's easier to suspend one's own snap judgments the more distant and "exotic" other cultures are.

Comments like "any of the major Abrahamic religions" - as if they were essentially interchangeable in most practices and beliefs - really reveal. I think the easier you think the solution to this problem is, the less you probably know about the religion in question, or the people seeking to change it.

For example, I understand that there's the notion of priesthood being a "call" from God which one cannot or should not refuse - it's highly, highly important (and personal). If women believe they are being called by the Holy Spirit for service in what is to them the true Church, but that human beings are troubling that divine will, why WOULDN'T they seek to correct things?

Anyway, I think these women have ovaries of steel to engage their own traditions in a meaningful, positive, and feminist way.

kakodaimon: Comments like "any of the major Abrahamic religions" - as if they were essentially interchangeable in most practices and beliefs - really reveal.

There are nuances, of course, but practices and beliefs are somewhat besides the point. They're still fundamentally the same sort of thing. To expand beyond just those religions, I used to hold Buddhism in higher regard than the Abrahamic religions, but the more I study the religions of the world, and their history, the more I come to believe that, while maybe members of one are more or less likely to be a problem for you at any given time, it's all basically the same thing underneath: supernaturalism and faith.

I'm a feminist, but I don't have a problem with the Catholic Church excommunicating women who have been "ordained" as priests. Women cannot BE ordained as priests in the Catholic Church. Even non-Catholics know this. By doing so, they are thumbing their noses at the hierarchy of the church, telling them that they don't have any authority. Well...they do. It's their church, their religion. They make the rules. Cannot live with it, then go join another church, such as the Old Catholic Church, which permits married and female clergy, or form your own. I understand that many or most dissatisfied Catholics want to reform their religion from within, but ordaining women in defiance of canon law is not the way to do it. What the way may be I don't know, but then I'm not religious so it's not my problem.

This is going to be an unpopular post (or at least as controversial as those which echo the same feeling), but one can expect no less when attacking something as pervasive as religion.

Religion is the most effective control mechanism ever devised. Once you indoctrinate children into accepting claims without evidence, once you condition them to view sexuality as entirely controlled and doled out by the Church, once you make them believe in a Heaven that can only be reached through following Church doctrine, it becomes so much easier to pull the wool over their eyes.

Tell me, who do you think is more likely to believe that "It is God's will that men will have dominion over women." Those who've been taught to believe in that God, or those who've been taught to question things and to demand evidence for claims?

I fully agree with posters here who think it's good that the Vatican is sticking to its guns. It makes it clearer for everyone what they really stand for.

"Religion can be mitigated with liberalism, but it's still designed to oppress women."

I'm going to echo some other posts and say that I am really, really tired of this kind of argument. There isn't a single scholar of religion who agrees with another 100% about what religion is. To completely jump over that point, looking at all of the different beliefs and practices classified "religion" in this world and say that "religion," as a whole entity, was "designed" to do something, is simply ignorant of human and religious history. I used to spend so much time in class fighting with people who declared, "The Bible was written to oppress women!" Not only does that assume that the Bible is a whole, coherent entity (which is as inaccurate as saying the same thing about religion), it imposes a modern viewpoint on something that, in some cases, is 2500 years old. Is the Bible particularly feminist? No. But most of the authors (and here I leave out the dudes who wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were worried about things besides women.

As far as "Abrahamic" religion is concerned, I can only speak for Christianity, but the Catholic Church didn't start Christianity. Some of the earliest Christian groups allowed and even encouraged women leaders. Some of Paul's most trusted companions were women. Many of what we now refer to as the "Gnostic" Christians had women leaders, and many of those groups turned to a woman (Mary Magdalene) as a figurehead, quite opposed to the burgeoning Catholic church's Peter. Again, I'm not arguing that they were feminist by today's standards, but they certainly weren't "designed to oppress women."

So, say "the Catholic Church was designed to oppress women." It's still not fair or accurate, but it's far more defensible than "religion was designed to oppress women." Off the top of my head I can name Unitarianism, Wicca, neopaganism, many Jewish congregations, and huge parts of the Methodist and other Protestant churches--and even some Catholic ones--that would take great offense at that statement, and that's not anywhere near the whole list.

/rant

Also, for everyone who's insisting that Catholic women who want to be ordained should leave because, to quote BluePencils, they are "in defiance of canon law":

It can be changed. It has been changed. Celibacy was not created ex nihilo, and neither were the Eucharist or the rite of baptism or ordination or marriage, and neither was the priesthood, and if you'd like I can give you a pretty good rundown of the history of the Holy Trinity (hint: not in the Bible). The Catholic Church is an institution, and as such has developed and continues to do so.

Okay, for those of you who *still* can't grasp why anyone would actually want to be a priest in a patriarchal Abrahamic religion, here's a good practical reason for you.

The Catholic Church has enormous power. And while it uses its power to the benefit of the poor and disempowered in many ways, it also uses its power to harm women. It is *directly* responsible for anti-abortion laws that kill women in South America, *directly* responsible for restricting birth control in Ireland and Poland, *directly* responsible for permanent harm and/or death to mothers in Catholic hospitals where the life of the baby is prioritized over the life of the mother.

This virulent strain of misogyny *cannot* be fought from the outside. Marginalize Catholics, and they will just fight harder to retain power and harder to maintain their beliefs. But add women to the priesthood, and you just might see a higher degree of compassion toward women introduced into Church teaching. Maybe not much more, because if they keep the celibacy part, the women priests will not be sexually active and may think of issues of abortion and birth control as "not their problem". But our only *hope* to change the Catholic Church is for women to acquire power in it.

Criticizing these women for wanting to be Catholic priests is like criticizing women who want to be elected to Congress on the grounds that Washington is a cesspool of special interests and it corrupts people and why would you want to go there? The answer is: power. Power to change the world more toward what you believe in. And if you're a woman who thinks you should be a priest, you already hold at least *some* feminist beliefs, because you already believe you should have an equal right as a man does to be a conduit to God. We need women Catholic priests for the same reason we need women Supreme Court justices, women Senators, women Representatives, women Governors... PRIESTS HAVE POWER. And the Episcopal Church is not nearly as powerful worldwide as the Catholic, and also, not being as anti-woman to begin with, not nearly in as much need of a dose of feminist change.

A lot of women Catholics already have no problem with birth control, and less problem than the Vatican does with abortion. Opening the door for these women to be priests would very quickly flood the priesthood with women -- because right now American culture says that it's totally unmanly to want to live without sex, so there is enormous pressure on men to not be celibate. For women, however, the "Madonna/whore" dichotomy may make a socially sanctioned way to give up the demands of sex something of a relief. (I don't think this is a good thing, but it is a true thing.) Women are already the backbone of layperson Church operations and the majority of Churchgoers, so I think the majority of people who would feel called to the priesthood would *be* women if women were allowed. (Not the same in the Episcopal Church, where the fact that you can be married has prevented them from losing priests.) Right now the average age of a Catholic priest is dead. They *need* new priests, and since our culture puts such pressure on men to be sexual, they can get them from three places: homosexual men, or they can ordain married men, or they can ordain women. They've already decided to go on a jihad against homosexuals because everyone knows that no little girls were *ever* abused by priests, and that homosexuality is synonymous with pedophilia. Ordaining married men would probably provoke a backlash among the old priests who sacrificed their own hopes of marriage and family to become priests. There's plenty of African and South American male priests but USans are insular and egocentric and won't really listen to foreigners. The only way to beef up the population of American priests in a way that won't lose the celibacy requirement and won't make them seem like a refuge for gay men, is to add women. So I think it will happen, but not until Papa Ratzi's dead.

"We need women Catholic priests for the same reason we need women Supreme Court justices, women Senators, women Representatives, women Governors"

YES! You don't change things by running away from them.

Leaving your church home is not like deciding to get a new winter coat. I am a feminist today because of my Catholic values--you just don't hear about those teachings very often because they're not so 'sensational' as excommunication.

The following text is part of the press release done by the Roman Catholic Womenpriests, the organization of Catholic women ordained:

"The Catholic Church teaches that a teaching or law of the church is authoritative only if it is “received� by the sensus fidelium, the community of faith. 70% of U.S. Catholics favor women’s ordination and a growing majority of Catholics worldwide also favor women’s ordination.

Recent scholarship affirms that women were ordained in the first thousand years of the church’s history.

It's their church, their religion.

With all due respect, BP, that's just wrong. The church belongs to the people who make up its congregation, not just the men at the top. Church law has changed, drastically, in the past, and it can again. I'm really flabbergasted at the attitude that constantly comes out when religion comes up. And flippant responses like, "I'm not religious, so it's not my problem," when there are women who are trying to shape a powerful institution to benefit women is outrageous. If that's how you feel, why did you bother commenting? Just to make sure everyone knows that you think religion is a pile of horseshit? Good for you, although, not entirely relevant to what these women are doing. Change is slow, but it can happen, and has before, but it certainly won't if people don't support its agents.

I don't totally understand. WHY can't women be ordained?

I've read the bible, but not cover to cover, so if it's in there and someone could tell me where I'd appreciate it. I understand that according to Catholic laws women cannot be ordained, but no one has been able to tell me why that is.

Also, and interesting tidbit about priests: originally, they were allowed to be married. The reason they are now not: money. Inheritances traditionally went to the eldest son. Now they go to the church, although with the whole vow of poverty thing I'm not sure that's such a useful policy. From what I've heard the first dozen or so popes were married.

This was all in a documentary called "Deliver Us From Evil", following the career of a priest and examining how the structure of the church contributes to sexual abuse. Very interesting.

Alara R., you are so right, as is so often true.

Kissmypineapple, your post rules.

And flippant responses like, "I'm not religious, so it's not my problem," when there are women who are trying to shape a powerful institution to benefit women is outrageous.

And never seems to come up in OTHER situations where it's ostensibly not the problem of the poster. For example, I never see responses to women's rights in Iran dealt with by saying "Why don't those idiots just MOVE?" Actually, scratch that, I think it does sometimes come up in issues of race and culture, the "Why can't they be more like me" phenomenon. Ugh.

Hi all, long time reader, first time commenting :)

I just wanted to point out that yes, many religions are inherently sexist or patriarchal in nature. The societies that created them were, also. But that doesn't mean that that can't be changed by updating them to our current cultural context. I think that the chafing happening now in the Catholic Church is a good sign. Religions are constantly evolving because they are a product of the society they exist in. I don't think telling these women to leave the church will help. To say to hell with it and chucking the whole system is like
throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you know? I think that what these women are doing is exactly what religion needs: a good shake up.

Galatians 3:28
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Didn't the early Church ordain women? Or was that before it became officially Catholic?

Not counting Pope Joan, whose existence is debated and who, in any case, disguised her sex.

There is definitely a problem of the church hierarchy being disconnected with the majority of Catholics. As a student at a Catholic university, I see that in the ridiculous policies that stray from what a university would normally consider correct, just, and safe, in order to follow Catholic doctrine-the ban on contraceptives being just the tip of the iceberg.

I was so glad to read this post and Taylor's excerpt. People need to stand up against the backwards doctrines and force the Church-trying too long and too hard to keep its "strict morals" in place-to stop fighting against positive change and listen to its own people.

ShifterCat:
There is no evidence that shows that the early church ordained women as priests in the Sacrament that we understand today.

There were women helpers and perhaps even in the diaconate-- which itself wasn't always formal. And there were some suggestions that this or that (usualyl isolated, geographically) identified a woman in the community as administering sacraments. Even perhaps a bishop who "ordained" them.

But, so far, nothing but "readings" of the scant historical evidence to postulate on the possibility.

Maggie--

I didn't say they should necessarily leave, I said that ordaining women is not the way to change the Catholic church. I happen to know a lot about church history--concentrated on ancient and medieval history in college and read a lot of original Latin texts. I know that the liturgy and the laws of the Church have changed radically over the last 2,000 odd years. Vatican II in the last century was the largest change in the church in more than 1,000 years. What I did say was that ordaining women is not the way to change things. I do think it will happen someday--but not with the current conservative Pope. Catholicism is not a democracy. The church hierarchy truly believes that they are working with the will of God (or so I'd like to think.) But they do worry about losing believers, which what led to Vatican II. If the next Pope is not so conservative, if he believes that women are equal to men in all ways, and he truly believes that the church demands female priests, he may decide that there needs to be a change. How to get to that point? First, by supporting feminism in general, so that children are raised with the belief that women are equal to men. Secondly, mainstream Catholics need to let the church know that they want women priests. Radical sections of Catholicism going ahead and ordaining women in defiance of church hierarchy are, in my opinion, just hurting their own cause by offending mainstream Catholics. I think they should try to work from within, by showing what women can do. However, as I said, I'm not religious, so this isn't my fight. Half my family is Catholic, but I was raised Episcopalian (and I left it behind as a young teen.)

kissmypineapple--I didn't say that religion is a pile of horseshit. I'm not religious, but I understand how important it is to people. And whether the Catholic church belongs to its parishioners or to the hierarchy is immaterial--the point is that individuals or individual parishes cannot decide what Catholicism is, except for their own personal beliefs. A priest couldn't just decide that he doesn't believe in transubstantiation and stop teaching it to his parish--he'd be recalled, or excommunicated if he refused to recant. It's the same thing as female priests. And I didn't say that I don't support the efforts of Catholics to change their religion, I posted because I think that ordaining women is the wrong way to do it, as I said several times. I'm not Catholic, so I don't know any specific ways that such reformers can try to effect change, but what I do think--knowing more than a few Catholics--is that ordaining women is just going to put off the more moderate, average Catholic, and those are the people whose support is needed.

I'm a feminist, but I don't believe that being a feminist means that I have to support or agree with everything that other feminists do. Especially if I don't think it is helping the cause. I have a brain, and I have judgment, and I use them.

BTW, does this situation remind anyone else of how some Protestant denominations were formed?

Given these quotes:

"70% of U.S. Catholics favor women’s ordination and a growing majority of Catholics worldwide also favor women’s ordination."

"There is definitely a problem of the church hierarchy being disconnected with the majority of Catholics. As a student at a Catholic university, I see that in the ridiculous policies that stray from what a university would normally consider correct, just, and safe, in order to follow Catholic doctrine-the ban on contraceptives being just the tip of the iceberg."

and this definition:

"If an individual's beliefs are out of sync with the beliefs of the Church (understood not as 'the Vatican' but as the entire body of believers) then that person is "out of communion" with the rest of the Church."

It really sounds like maybe the Pope and other Church leaders have excommunicated themselves!

Crazylady-
"There is no evidence that shows that the early church ordained women as priests in the Sacrament that we understand today."

You'll have to define "early church." Before 300-ish CE, and even going much later than that, there was no coherent "church." And the sacraments as we understand them today weren't solidified in the Catholic church until nearly the medieval period, as far as I know (I'm a biblical scholar, not a Church historian). Women founded and funded churches in the first few centuries of Christianity. Paul mentions several of them, and there's plenty of extrabiblical evidence. There are some scholars who theorize that women at least contributed to the authorship of a couple of the canonical gospels, and I recently had a conversation with a PhD student who proposes that the book of Judges was at least partially authored by women. Also, as I mentioned before, many of the "Gnostic" churches had women leaders.

BluePencils--

I'm curious, then: what's the right way to do it? Should women wait until they're fully accepted and equal in the Church, and then push for ordination? It seems to me that in every other sphere of society--politics, academia, the sciences, and even religion (Reform Judaism and the Episcopalian church come to mind)--women have taken on leadership roles in order to prove that we can do it, and that has been at least partially what makes it possible for more women to follow. If these women just said, "Well, I'll just wait until the Pope decides I'm/ the Church is ready," they'd be waiting a long time.

Aside from the silliness of my previous post, I strongly admire the women who are "fighting from within", if only because of the effect on the girls growing up in that faith.

In many areas of feminism, the decision to leave a community/institution or stay and try to change it is not simple. It's extremely important that feminists are supportive of either choice, because both methods have a positive influence. Always choosing one way over is actually impossible. To always apply the strategy of LEAVING is asking for women to relinquish all social ties, pretty much, (and, as said earlier, all potential POWER in existing communities). To always choose to STAY means constantly capitualting and compromising, since there is no real threat that you will withdraw the benefit of your engagement with the community.

This is an issue that has always bothered me. I've just completed 13 years of Catholic education and in my last two years at school the 'female priest' issue has been one that I could never quite get my head around. I am about to quote a few lines from a booklet I was given this year by the religious education department of my school:
"One only needs to look at the motive of the majority of the proponents of women priests. Who are these people and what do they believe? They believe in abortion, contraception, fornication, divorce, homosexual unions and pagan worship. The last one is usually more common among their more prominent leaders along with their veiled adherence to Marx's Communism and Foucault's deconstructionism. The ultimate attack, the 'end game', as military strategists say, is morality itself because if one changes the masculinity of God - a revealed truth- morality is not too far behind."

That was written by a female teacher at my school. I think that if Catholic - State funded (I'm from Scotland)- schools are force feeding young men and women this sort of sexist bullshit then no wonder the Vatican are allowed to continue making up the rules as they go along. The Vatican is basically a tarted up boys club that hide behind a facade of morality.

rant over.

"...because if one changes the masculinity of God - a revealed truth- morality is not too far behind."

Yes, because obviously "God" is an all powerful humanoid male (we're created in *his* image, after all, *wink*).

Oh, religious literalists, is there anything you can't justify with your truthiness?

Arrgh, it's kind of frustrating reading this. Let me put it this way: the reason this is an important issue, and probably the reason this article was posted, is that women's ordination benefits all women, not just Catholics. Likewise, sexism within the Catholic church hurts us all, and the people best positioned to challenge it are those within the church. I don't care what your issues with religion are, these people should be applauded.

The church is home to a lot of people. They were born into it, they grew up with it, they turned to it in hard times. To say that disgruntled Catholics should just find a new religion is astounding. Some people leave the church, others stay. It's a highly personal decision and has much, much less to do with Vatican policies than that statement implies.

Alexandr--No, no there really isn't. Sigh.

Also as far as the "masculinity of God" is concerned, I'm pretty sure one of the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity is that Jesus is male = God is male. Or it could just be based on the common practice of referring to God as "he." Because common practice is the same as revealed truth, right?

Also, early on there was a resistance against groups (who were grounded in Platonic philosophy, btw) that believed that the perfect state was androgyny, because God is completely and utterly nonhuman and has no body or anything even resembling one and therefore can't be categorized into a sex, because sex is physical.

"BTW, does this situation remind anyone else of how some Protestant denominations were formed?"

yes, it does. great comparison

BP: I understand much, much better where you are coming from than I could have based on your previous post alone. I do apologize for jumping to conclusions, and I hope that you'll forgive that with the understanding that I very often see commenters jump on the bandwagon just exactly so that everyone will see how much they shun religion. I also don't mean to imply that everything a woman does is feminist or that being a feminist means that supporting everything women do is compulsory. I do enjoy reading what you have to say! Though, I will respectfully disagree that waiting for a more progressive Pope is a better course of action, and I personally think that what these women are doing is something worth my support.

Slightly OT, but here's a link regarding God and gender: http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/a/gender.htm

...women's ordination benefits all women, not just Catholics. Likewise, sexism within the Catholic church hurts us all...
As much of a feminist as I am, and as much as I want to see women in a position of power, I'm more worried about the spread of false beliefs, like the scientifically unproven idea of some deity sending some of us to heaven and some of us to hell. How does no one think this idea of supposed superiority is dangerous?
The church is home to a lot of people. They were born into it, they grew up with it, they turned to it in hard times. To say that disgruntled Catholics should just find a new religion is astounding. Some people leave the church, others stay. It's a highly personal decision and has much, much less to do with Vatican policies than that statement implies.
Uhm, didn't the Protestants do it? Besides, almost all of the Catholics I know just kind of pick and choose what they believe. How is that religion?

...women's ordination benefits all women, not just Catholics. Likewise, sexism within the Catholic church hurts us all...
As much of a feminist as I am, and as much as I want to see women in a position of power, I'm more worried about the spread of false beliefs, like the scientifically unproven idea of some deity sending some of us to heaven and some of us to hell. How does no one think this idea of supposed superiority is dangerous?
The church is home to a lot of people. They were born into it, they grew up with it, they turned to it in hard times. To say that disgruntled Catholics should just find a new religion is astounding. Some people leave the church, others stay. It's a highly personal decision and has much, much less to do with Vatican policies than that statement implies.
Uhm, didn't the Protestants do it? Besides, almost all of the Catholics I know just kind of pick and choose what they believe. How is that religion?

Oops, sorry for the double post.

"The church is home to a lot of people. They were born into it, they grew up with it, they turned to it in hard times. To say that disgruntled Catholics should just find a new religion is astounding. Some people leave the church, others stay. It's a highly personal decision and has much, much less to do with Vatican policies than that statement implies.
Uhm, didn't the Protestants do it? Besides, almost all of the Catholics I know just kind of pick and choose what they believe. How is that religion?"

I get the impression that it's like being secular Jewish - not believing the doctrine and still having a cultural affiliation with a group that has a denomination or an entire religion in common.

For further reading, might I suggest this post http://youngadultcatholics-blog.com/2008/06/09/what-feminists-could-learn-from-priests/

The Young Adult Catholics is the official blog of Call To Action, a progressive organization for young catholics. What follows this post (an informed and personal discussion starter) is just that, an informed and personal discussion in the blogs. It is a great example of the knowledge and grokking outsiders lack of the very difficult fight leftleaning Catholics grapple with and would be good reading for anyone curious about the historically verified role women have had in the past in the Catholic Church and, IMO, will have in the future.

Ordination of women will not only benefit women, it will benefit the whole community. Everyone is lacking without a balance of both men and women in the priesthood

Ordination of women will not only benefit women, it will benefit the whole community. Everyone is lacking without a balance of both men and women in the priesthood

Ordination of women will not only benefit women, it will benefit the whole community. Everyone is lacking without a balance of both men and women in the priesthood