Catholics and Women's Ordination 1

Scot,
If you are hunting down little know facts about women in ministry here are two from Scotland.
As far as we are aware the Church of the Nazarene (which was indigenous to Scotland) was the first denomination to ordain a woman in Scotland.
Secondly I remember reading a book of essays by FF Bruce about various subjects in which he included the story of a very bold woman in the North East of Scotland who refused to be silenced in the meetings of the so called "closed brethren" in that region and whose contribution was eventually accepted.
Its very sad the way the contribution of women in ministry has been sidelined and forgotten. I remember reading a history of missions text book which managed to tell the whole story of the missionary movement without mentioning the contribution of one woman! We need more of these kinds of works to redress the balance.
I also wonder how "firm" some of these RC doctrinal positions are, here in the UK they seem to be able to accommodate married former Anglican priests in their ranks while insisting celibacy is the position of the church.

Actually I think you'll find that Roman Catholic women can and are authorized in various circumstances to "distribute" the already consecrated eucharist (though are not ordained for that role), but they cannot consecrate the eucharistic species as priests.

I would think that the thornier question -- both theologically and historically -- would concern women and the diaconate.

D C,
I've not read Torjesen's stuff. Macy's a medievalist and is carrying on in very readable prose an investigation of the shift in how "ordain" was understood and how it was shifted to consecrating the bread and wine. In some ways, it is more "objective" than it is directly concerned with what to do today.

if women were (and are) incapable of being ordained, then they cannot have been ordained in the past

Can't it be "they shouldn't have been ordained in the past? Or does that raise problems with infallible tradition?

Oh! Excuse me. Somehow I missed that important word (married) in your original post, which would make your question a viable one.

I have no knowledge of this practice, and thus can't really comment. My apologies.

James, Mark, and Chris B.,

Perhaps I (a former active Roman Catholic and the daughter of a fanatical Roman Catholic) can offer a tidbit that can shed light on the issue of married former Anglican priests and the doctrine of infallibility.

In Roman Catholicism, marriage and celibacy are not mutually exclusive. In fact, abstinence from intercourse is considered one of two ideal states for married couples (the other is attempt to conceive; whereas "recreational" intercourse is not forbidden in official RCC doctrine, it is strongly discouraged and viewed as a sign of weakness).

Married men who choose to enter the priesthood are not forced to have their marriages annulled, particularly if they are converts from another faith (though they are permitted to do so if they like). They are, however, required to remain abstinent and thus undefiled. This is also what is required of married men who become deacons.

This is in part an adaptation to cultures in which a woman's being unmarried places her in danger—she is able to retain her status as married and thus the protection and provision of her husband, though he decides to enter the priesthood.

"Can't it be 'they shouldn't have been ordained in the past?' Or does that raise problems with infallible tradition?"

In practical terms, RCC theology trumps historical fact. If it is deemed to be correct today, then it has always been correct, and thus any evidence to the contrary simply isn't. Because they shouldn't be ordained, they never were. This is the same logic by which the papacy "can be" traced back to Peter. Also, this has little to do with the doctrine of infallibility, which is a specific "right" of the presiding pope that has only been invoked twice in history (to declare the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of Mary). It is called an ex cathedra declaration, and only when this "right" is invoked is the pope infallible.

As far as I understand it, the former Anglicans are married and carrying on a sexual life as part of their married life and so I can understand why some Catholic priests who have been forced out after getting married are a bit miffed

"required to remain abstinent and thus undefiled"
If that is the official RCC position, that raises a whole lot of other questions. Where did they get the idea that married sex defiles? This is more Greek than biblical.

Paul's recommendation against marriage wasn't based on the legitimacy of marriage but on the necessity of kingdom work, and it was aimed at all believers, not just clergy.

I'm not quite sure of all the details of how the EO influenced the Eastern Rite Catholic churches (EC for short), but that was the faith in which I was raised. I believe there are a number of EC "rites" - mine is called the Byzantine Rite - for no reason apparent to me, we were also known as "Greek Catholics". I give that info so that those who are better church historians than I might possibly shed more light.

Anyway, in a nutshell, it seems to me that the EC, while technically very "catholic" and certainly under the pope, had many customs that looked just like the EO - fasting, face to face confession, icons, bread and wine communion mixed in one chalice, the 3-bar cross, the mass of St. John Chrysostom in the language of the people rather than Latin, no Ash Wednesday, chrismation rather than baptism + confirmation. I'll stop there.

But the kicker here is that their priests could marry. Yes, it is true - catholic priests, married. That's no longer the case today and I don't know exactly when it ended for the Byzantine Rite - sometime in the 20th century for sure. And I don't know if it still exists as an option for other eastern rites or in other countries. But the priest who performed the marriage ceremony for my parents (1945) was the son of a married priest.

Given that Jesus Christ has invested his very Being in the Catholic Church. he really can't afford for it to be wrong on this issue.

There's about as much evidence for the ordination of women in the New Testament as there is against same sex complementarity.

how did a discussion on ordaining wome priests turn into a debate about married priests?

curious

Dianne P,

Eastern Catholic priests are still allowed to marry. When our local ECath priest goes on vacation, his usual substitute is a married priest, and one of his dear friends is an archpriest, also married.

ByzCaths started out Orthodox under the Greek Patriarchate but came under the Pope as a result of the Union of Brest in 1595.

Dana

you are a good man scot mcknight

i have learned that whatever is most sacred in terms of ministry in a faith community is denied to women. if it is serving the eucharist, then that is denied to women on the basis of her femaleness. if it is the word, or preaching the word in the congregation, then that is denied.

The church needs to take a serious look at its attitude toward what a woman is. it still feels as if a woman is somehow less or inferior or somehow unclean or unworthy of the high call of Christ. i don't care how it is said... with sweet words or harsh... a woman is still thought of as something inferior in the body of Christ.