Pope stresses "fundamental" value of women in Church

[onehandle]

Source: Reuters

ROME (Reuters) - Pope Francis stressed the "fundamental" importance of women in the Roman Catholic Church on Wednesday, a message hailed as a significant shift from the position of his predecessor Benedict.

"In the Church, and in the journey of faith, women have had and still have a special role in opening doors to the Lord," Francis told thousands of pilgrims at his weekly audience in S. Peter's Square.

He said that in the Bible, women were not recorded as witnesses to Christ's resurrection because of the Jewish Law of the time that did not deem women or children to be reliable witnesses.

"In the Gospels, however, women have a primary, fundamental role ... The evangelists simply narrate what happened: the women were the first witnesses. This tells us that God does not choose according to human criteria," Francis said.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/pope-stresses-fundamental-importance-women-church-131722873.html

[MotherPetrie]

1. But if he had to choose between saving your life or your fetus, ladies, he'd go with your fetus

[forestpath]

3. You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Canuckistanian]

24. +100

I think he needs to *ahem* clarify his true position on women.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

59. Yes. Rather than applaud a small step in the right direction, you choose to make a cheap shot.

Classy.

[MotherPetrie]

61. Emphasis on "small." Meanwhile, women will continue to die. Nothing's much cheaper than the regard

the Catholic church really holds women in.

[HERVEPA]

2. As long as they're not equal, other stuff is OK I guess.

Actions speak a hell of a lot louder than works, Pope.

[progressoid]

4. But let's face it, God made man FIRST

And in HIS own likeness. And he chose to make Jesus a MAN. And Jesus picked MEN as his 12 disciples. etc.

So, ya know, watch yourselves ladies. You know where you belong.

[midnight]

6. Some women in the Catholic church don't see it that way..

"The Vatican's official stance on banning women? They've always been banned, so they will continue to be banned. Pope John Paul II wrote in 1994:

"[The Church] holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."


Catholics advocating the inclusion of women into the priesthood disagree with that stance and that version of history."

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2007/08/24/catholic-women-ordained-priests-minneapolis.html

[Voice for Peace]

10. "and her living teaching authority"

"her" authority.. God is a He, the Church is a She, and God told Her Women can't be priests, something like that? I am confused.

[midnight]

29. Many years ago while attending Mass, a male priest, declared God was both man and woman...

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:16 AM - Edit history (1)

I smiled ear to ear....

[Voice for Peace]

31. women plural? that would be a good one

[Voice for Peace]

32. "God is defined as being made of one man and an infinite number of women"

[midnight]

46. Sorry it must of been a Freudian slip... Meant to type woman....

[MellowDem]

13. Then they should join the multitude of Christian churches...

that allow women priests. Well, many have, and good for them, they're being consistent and intellectually honest with themselves.

[midnight]

30. I agree...

[SharonAnn]

16. Christ chose his apostles only from circumcised Jewish males. So therefore .......

No one should be a priest unless they can meet those criteria.

And, just because we've always done it that way is not a reason.

[TygrBright]

38. Actually, one of Christ's most important apostles was a woman, Mary

And for the first few decades of the Church's existence, women had many leadership roles and positions. Far beyond anything in the Jewish practice of the era, although also far short of many Pagan sects.

A good case is being made by a number of historical scholars that teachings of the women apostles, references to them in the Gospels, and the records of their leadership, were systematically and deliberately suppressed.

It may not, in fact, be the case that Christ chose his apostles based on the shape of their genitalia.

interestedly,
Bright

[Flying Squirrel]

5. Stupid question...

{In choosing all-male disciples} "Jesus was merely conforming to the customs of his time" - so Jesus is now a conformist? If he's really God in human form, why not go out on a limb, hell he's gonna get crucified either way.

[MADem]

21. But what about his wife, who was described as a prostitute by the fiction writers a few hundred

years after the fact, so some say?

Was she not a disciple, too?

No question is stupid.


From a distance, I find all this commentary and outreach by Francis interesting and suggestive of great change--but who knows, really? The guy could just be throwing a few fish to the sea lions, to make the whole show more interesting...or he could be on the cusp of "fundamental" changes.

This remark about women is the latest little hint, and before that he was washing women's feet (and a muslim woman's feet, to boot?)...maybe there's something big on the horizon.


Maybe he'll change that "woman priests" rule, and admit that the word "celibate" was a misspelling of "celebrate" or something like that...?

He might have actually noticed that the Catholic faith is hemorrhaging parishoners, and thus, a new approach is in order. It's plainly not sustainable in its current iteration--I can't tell you how many "former Catholic" friends and acquaintances I have, who used to be the kids who always took the fish in the cafeteria on Fridays a half a century or so ago.

Time will tell!

[MellowDem]

7. Tea Party conservatives are more progressive than the Pope...

when it comes to leadership roles of women. They were more than willing to vote Palin in as President. Meanwhile, the Pope won't allow women any positions of leadership in the church.

The Pope is a homophobe and a misogynist, and this is condescending tripe. Women have a "special role" in the church alright. It's called second class status. Are women supposed to lap up this crap as some sort of substitute?

And yet quite a few recs from DU? Sad.

[onehandle]

11. 89+ recs.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014438326

Sucks to be naysayers.

[MellowDem]

15. Actually, it's great to be naysaing

homophobic, misogynist bigots of all sorts. It happens all the time on DU. But for some reason it "sucks" when it involves religion according to some?

[Bluenorthwest]

43. This OP has 25 recs, not 89 and it sucks to be a mendacious promoter of homophobic sexists

What's the difference between the Pope and Fred Phelps?
When the Pope says 'God hates fags' he says it in Latin.

[niyad]

8. "fundamental" (what a great word)--just not equal.

of course he has to say something. women do all the scut work that keeps that woman-hating organization going (and I say this as a former-now excommunicated--catholic)

[pennylane100]

12. Of course they are important to church leaders.

In a good catholic family they can cook and clean the house, bear the children and when they get older, they can be replaced with no expectation of sharing any income that was accrued during their marriage without being considered gold diggers. This has traditionally been the church view of what makes a a good catholic wife.

They must never expect to be considered an equal member in the church leadership. Discussion of women priests is not allowed, talk of a woman pope would get them excommunicated. They must never be allowed to control their own bodies and if they die an early death because of bearing too many children or a pregnancy that dangerous, too bad, that was the will of god.

However they are needed as the bearers of future members of the church and the revenue that will bring in, so yes, they are important.

[bitchkitty]

49. Replaced?

Did something change in the Church while I was sleeping? They now allow divorce? Or is it just that you don't know what you're talking about?

[pennylane100]

50. Thousands of catholics get divorced each year

and thousands more that can afford it bribe the church to receive the annulments. So, the answer to your question is yes I do know what I am talking about.

[bitchkitty]

55. They might get divorced but when they do,

the Church does not consider them divorced. There is no divorce in the Church. There are annulments, yes. As to whether or not you have to bribe the Church into it, I suppose you have some documentation of these thousands of annulments?

No, you do not know what you're talking about.

[pennylane100]

56. I think 60,000 annulments a year is quite a significant number.

Too many for even them. They are even thinking of closing that little racket down: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/05/loose-canon-vatican-may-tighten-rules-on-annulments/

and apparently, a divorced catholic can, under the very special circumstances that would technically meet all the archaic rules they rely on so much, RECEIVE COMMUNION. I am shocked.

"The fact is, the Church does not teach that Catholics are forbidden to receive Holy Communion if they are divorced. Rather, it teaches that a Catholic who has been divorced and remarried, without having first obtained an annulment of the first marriage, is not permitted to receive the Eucharist"

http://catholicexchange.com/divorced-catholics-and-the-eucharist/

I am getting more sure that I do know what I am talking about.

btw, I hope you consider this to be a lighthearted back and forth. I am an ex catholic and I know that the church brought a lot of joy to my mother and father as well as to many other members of the family. So I am glad it did that but my faith is long gone.

[DonCoquixote]

14. look Francis

The Anglicans proved you can have Women as pirests within a similar structure. If you cannot stand with women as equals, you will nto stand at all.

[musical_soul]

17. Back when Paul said that women should be silent......

Back when Paul said that women should be silent, society was anti-woman. They were not going to listen to women in regards to converting to Christianity, and those are the type of leaders that the early church needed.

I think it's very possible that the RCC needs women leaders now. Context is everything.

[dimbear]

39. To be completely fair, there were competing religions at the time where women played the key roles.

The Cult of Isis would be the best example. It's an interesting note that many of the statues of Isis were re-used as statues of the Virgin Mary after the changeover.

[MsPithy]

18. Did any other woman just feel

a pat on the head?

[JDPriestly]

25. How about this?

"God does not choose according to human criteria"

From the OP's quote of Pope Francis.

What "human criteria"? Not mine.

He means by the criteria of the Catholic Church -- as if that encompassed the total of "human" criteria.

Another Catholocentric Pope.

Protestants got over this long ago. Boy is the Catholic Church behind the times.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. I was shocked at the fact that no Pope had washed a woman's feet, in Protestant Churches they sure

do. In fact, the ritual was impressed on me in my sister's congregation in which some members were looking down on a single mother of very low income. The minister intentionally and personally washed her feet and handed the basin to the primary hater to follow suit. The message was clear. This was the 70s.

[hrmjustin]

19. I hope this spirit leads to women clergy.

[onehandle]

28. Me too. nt

[SkyDaddy7]

41. No way!!

This Pope is just doing a little damage control & then it will be back to normal. IMHO.

I have always had huge questions as to why any woman would want anything to do with the Christian religion when it is obvious according to the Bible women are NOT equal to men in any way. They are not to speak in church, teach men, hold authority over men, obey their husbands, etc.,...The same goes for the LGTBQ community. And African Americans as well...They were forced into this religion by their slave masters so one would think that would be enough to discard it not to mention the Bible including Jesus himself was 100% in favor of holding slaves!

...But that is just.

[AngryOldDem]

58. I think the seeds may be planted...

...but whether or not they take root is another question.

Change of this magnitude won't happen overnight, but what a lot of people don't see (or care to admit, if they're staunch Catholics) is that the pope could change the rule on the male-only priesthood today, if he so chose. It's tradition, different from dogma.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

20. Hopefully something big happens in the news soon.

Like Aliens invading or Atlantis being found so OP doesn't have to continually spam the LBN section with continuous Pope non-news news. I kind of wish they'd go back to using this section for free Apple advertisements.

[840high]

23. So don't read.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

27. Don't be silly.

If I don't read it then I obviously wont have anything to complain about.

[840high]

52. You made me smile. Hugs.

[Beacool]

22. The Church moves very slowly.

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Pope Francis washing the feet of women and stating that women are of fundamental importance to the Church is quite progressive by papal standards.

"The address was the second time Francis had spoken of women's role as witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, a subject of bedrock importance to the Catholic faith.

His Easter Vigil address on Saturday made prominent mention of women and urged believers not to fear change.

Francis's decision a week ago to include women in a traditional foot-washing ritual drew ire from traditionalists, who see the custom as a re-enactment of Jesus washing the feet of his apostles and said it should therefore be limited to men.

Marinella Perroni, a theologian and leading member of the Association of Italian Women Theologians, which promotes female experts on religion and their visibility in the Church, said the pope's words marked a significant shift from the previous pope."

Baby steps............

[snooper2]

26. My mythology isn't really as hateful as the holy books describe it..

In 200 years the Church will be like...

Oh, us being against gay marriage, that was so old fashioned by people not correctly understanding the "scriptures" LOL

[intheflow]

33. Actually, Mary Magdalene was the first witness but the male disciples didn't believe her.

This is according to a Catholic version of the bible:

Mark 16: 9-11
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene

9 Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11 But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.

It's like they can't read their own book.

[MellowDem]

35. More like they don't want to...

cause it's a nasty, nasty book that's impossible to reconcile with progressive viewpoints without a whole lot of cognitive dissonance.

The answer for most is to just not think about it.

[NastyRiffraff]

53. Actually in Catholic schools

Children are discouraged from reading the bible. (Or were, back in ancient history when I went to Catholic schools). We were told that parts of the bible were "hard to understand" and to leave it to the priests to read it as part of the mass.

Yeah, there are lots of uncomfortable (to the Church) things in the bible. Not to mention the many contradictions.

[indivisibleman]

34. What? Really?!

I did not know that about women.
How kind of a man to tell us all that women have a role in the church.

[MellowDem]

36. A "special" role...

where you're treated like a second-class citizen and excluded from any leadership whatsoever.

Now, that's special! What woman doesn't glow with pride at being told that by the Pope?

[Peace Patriot]

37. "God does not choose according to human criteria." But that is exactly what...

...all the popes, cardinals, bishops and priests before him have done--presumed that God chooses THEM because they are men and does NOT "call" women to "holy orders" BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN.

So this is, quite remarkably, a statement that opens the way for women priests. The banning of women from the priesthood is one the most colossal sins of the Catholic hierarchy. It is nothing less than self-worship, by men, who quite hypocritically condemn the worship of false idols. This is what has led to all the abuses, to all the crimes, recent and past--male clergy enchanted by their own 'superiority" and worshipping not God, but their own image.

Popes and other prelates HAVE said, before this, that "women are important, blah, blah, blah." Of course they meant, important as baby-makers--to swell their congregations and fill Church coffers--important as servants, important IN THEIR PLACE. I found this insulting, from a very young age. I could be important as long as I was humble and subservient, and as long as I modeled myself on the 'Virgin Mary' or some other submissive female figure. It has always bothered me. I've done a lot of research on how this "original sin" of the Church first got committed and then infected the entirety of the Christian world, but most especially the male clergy of the Catholic Church, for well over a thousand years.

In any case, this Pope's statement IS different. Whether he really means it or not--whether he intends to expiate this great sin--remains to be seen. But--as with any inscrutable, secrecy-obsessed, power-hungry institution--you have to learn how to pick up the subtleties in statements like this. He CANNOT say, 'We are going to atone for this sin NOW and welcome women to the priesthood," or he would be dead tomorrow. That is how attached some men are to their notion that God prefers them. They would murder him. He has to be careful, lay ground work, send 'signals,' gain allies--a process that may have to go on well beyond his tenure before there is substantive change--and he also has to address the entrenched corruption that underpins and reinforces distorted, un-christian, and VERY long standing sins such as the Church's hatred of women (and its correlative, the Church's hatred of the Goddess). Reforming the Church--for instance, its very corrupt finances--is quite dangerous in itself. But the two things go together--vast, long-standring financial corruption and vast, long-standing spiritual corruption.

I'm willing to keep an open mind. The Church is like China, you know. Outsiders have trouble fathoming what is going on, because the decision-making processes are so completely foreign to what we know. I am utterly baffled by China, with its weird combination of "communism" and predatory capitalism. I know a lot more about the Church, and can explain some of its strangeness. For instance, it is a monarchy--and a monarchy of a unique kind; it has invented a sort of spiritual DNA ('back to St. Peter') that substitutes for a physical hereditary monarchy--ahem, which requires a woman to make a king; the Church leaves the woman out--the mother of the king--and believes in a strictly male 'line of succession' (of Popes)--and have distorted the "Holy Trinity" (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in the same way, removing the mother entirely from the notion of God, and relegating the mother of Jesus to 'an instrument' of God--a mere human.

This is a male-worshiping and monarchical theology. That is the theoretical basis of it all--and of course this male-worshiping, monarchical institution doesn't call it "theory" but rather "dogma." You MUST believe it to belong to their Boys' Club, and even to be a servant to the Boys.

Total nonsense--that has led to many horrors and to the distortion of many, many peoples' lives, both women and men. But you need to grasp it to some extent to begin to fathom Church statements and policies, and its rather mind-boggling inertia, as to recognizing its own crimes and CHANGING--abandoning its sinful ways and becoming a truly Christian religion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. Yes. The same thing struck me.

His statement in no way equates with fundamental changes in the Church, nor does it promise that they might be forthcoming, but it quietly removes a bolt from the door even while the door remains closed. It is subtle, but it creates potential theological underpinnings for changes later.To point out that this Pope's language in this instance does not even remotely qualify as progressive in the secular world totally misses the point He is not engaged in a secular discussion. Revolution is not viewed as an option inside the Church. Change is only possible if achieved within the framework of dogma. That is what makes these comments interesting - it hints at how that may be possible regarding the future role of women in the Church. I am struck by the specific reference Francis made to historic bias as described here:

"He said that in the Bible, women were not recorded as witnesses to Christ's resurrection because of the Jewish Law of the time that did not deem women or children to be reliable witnesses."

He decouples Biblical tradition from "God's teaching". He acknowledges human fallacies that are reflected by what was recorded and what was not recorded in the Bible by men of that historical era. That strikes me as potentially theologically profound. Christ brought a "New Testament" that updates the Bible for practicing Christians. Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene as his witness etc.

By choosing this as a topic for some of his earliest statements (and actions as in the foot washing) Francis is essentially asking the Catholic Church to reflect further on the role of women in the Church that it may be freed from long lingering historical prejudice against women dating back to the time of Christ (and earlier). That in itself in no way promises that someday women will serve as Catholic Priests or even Popes, but it may become the theological camel's nose under the Catholic dogma tent.

[dimbear]

40. Compare Apollonius of Tyana, who has a comparable story arc to Jesus, but who chose as his chief

companion a very lovely lady. The same time period.

[madrchsod]

42. fundamental....

there really is hope that this guy is trying to bring the church into the modern world. i guess it will take time to change a couple of thousand years of treating women like property

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Anti Choice and Anti Gay this Pope is like Fred Phelps.

I think the only difference between RCC and Westboro Baptist is that RCC employs more criminal defense attorneys for their clerics.

[Ter]

60. Honestly, a pro-choice Pope would be kinda weird

I'd rather he speak out against it, but not demonize others or try and change laws.

[PATRICK]

48. You have the Gospels

and then you have historical speculation. Guards were scared away by the event- if guards were actually posted all night. The women at the crucifixion helped by a bold insider Joseph of Arimethea got away with a rushed but respectful burial in a decent crypt. The women returned for a proper preparation(cleansing,better anointing) of the body troubled by the size of the rock they remembered at the tomb. The men had good cause to fear arrest. The issue of giving a decent burial was a big one lost in the empty tomb story but still there, as in the pre-anointing story which Judas found so wasteful.

Now we come to Mark's Gospel with special issues and axes to grind we vaguely see under modern scholarship. The women saw an ampty tomb and told no one. Or in other versions were simply not believed- for the usual reasons. Once on the way to check it out Peter(and John) probably began to feel the chill of possibility and memory of Jesus' own words. Seeing the empty tomb they believed. The possibility of a stolen body seems to be played down from the side of the Sanhedrin and the predictable disbelief of the close disciples but this is overshadowed and obviously redacted especially in Mark's Gospel. the obvious addendum in another's style, words and content jumps to the glory of the Resurrection. To my mind that looks both like lopping off some lost ending to the rather bitterly critiquing of the men apostles and a correction of redemption by the Cross for topdown triumphalism.

So no one "saw" the event. The corpse is gone and no one on any side wants to talk much about that. It didn't merit an investigation- or a purge- in the eyes of the establishment and the Church had the appearances, no Oedipus at Colonus empty awe ending. Meaning, mission, glory and not a ghost story, nor the typical hysteria cult cloud. It still is something like a blow between the eyes to the world as it is and human illusions as they really are not. Not historically satisfying even in the meager ways we would like, but not overwhelmingly mythologized or easily dismissed as the naturally hostile would judiciously scrutinize.

The irony is the situation has not changed much. We have perhaps a stunningly unique relic in the Shroud of Turin or maybe not. The real issue- it is still a piece of cloth after all- is how science and belief fumble all over themselves to create a state of murk over the whole thing. That in itself keeps at bay the facile positions of anyone, even the astonishment that reason and logic can't tame our sad state of affairs and simply do the job.

As a believer I have let myself doubt and examine all the possibilities and credibility with the little we can know with a corrupted thumb nail sketch of the history subject to the extrapolations of the sorry human condition. I have no belief in the absolutism of my own judgment. So it makes it comforting? if not ever comfortable to have a religion where the Absolute has entered the muck and mire and pulled us out despite everything.

Despite the lavish glorification bestowed by human theology upon the meaning and the painful picking away at the historical crumbs on the Judaeo-Christian china, you still only have a bitter out of hand dismissal with rather extreme prejudice and an experience of awe that only can be maintained and non-verbally understood by living out the entire mission.

Then when you say in the same movement of personal realizarion "He is Risen," you will get the same treatment as the perennial second class citizens. Crazy, hysterical, naive, mistaken- which is strangely usually the case when you put enthusiastic faith in any of our wonderful heros and leaders nowadays, strangely the ones not very much at all like Jesus. And far dumber, less daring and less humble. Even statutory leaders of his own Church.

Other cloudy details: the young man(men) at the tomb saying he is not there in a question form used also by third person questions and lack of recognition of the Risen Jesus in the Emmaus and Magdalene story. This confusion of recognition and belief/disbelief and words. There is sort of a protracted second "going" announced with a coming of the Spirit. No simple apotheosis or departure. No sense of finality or closure but of the real beginning. Decades later the next generation bridges the historical gap where commonly mythologizing buries history and changes the meaning so much that it must have some fundamental value greater than most human imagination to survive.

That said, I think the Pope, in what some would consider "shrewd" Jesuit fashion is paving the way for women in all posts of leadership in the Church by stressing the most important issues and leaving aside the biggest objections without mentioning anything- now- about advancing their status in Church ministry. The issue is, as in the Gospels, that women have taken the initiative already and that is in itself inspired already, even while Jesus was preaching with the traditional coterie of men disciples beginning with the rules of Scripture and culture but never ultimately constrained by them.

This has to driving the supposed "conservatives" of the Church mad with anger, which in itself puts them on the losing side. Conservatism everywhere seems to represent lies, hypocrisy, authoritarian arrogance, enmity toward the Spirit- and that is a charitable hypothesis.

[bklyncowgirl]

51. I'm interested in seeing how conservative Catholics react--I hope he watches his back

He's already stirred up consternation in those circles with the female foot washing thing--and a Muslim woman no less! I'm sort of seeing a flashback to John Paul I, the potentially rather progressive pope who died under mysterious circumstances after seeming to address the same sort of issues.

The fact that he's also talking about reforming or closing the Vatican Bank is even more worrying. Some very ugly people seem to regard that as their private laundrymat.

Maybe that's why he hasn't moved into the Papal Apartments. "No thanks, guys, I'll just stay here at the hotel with the rest of the guys and eat with them or call for take out."

[justhanginon]

54. Cardinal parade

As an old guy who watched with rather detached interest, being non- religious, I was really struck by the oddness of seeing all those cardinals marching into the conclave and it just seemed so strange in this day and age to see not one woman. Not even in the surrounding entourage. No women anywhere. I am several generations removed and it still seemed just wrong on so many levels. How can a religion be relevant and govern their kingdom with no input from a high percentage of their believers. Seemed almost eerie.

[burrowowl]

57. AND ......!/?