On Thursday, Reuters reported that the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano included a decree that women priests, and those who ordain them, will automatically be excommunicated.
The Roman Catholic Church, which already bans the ordination of women priests, now forbids those who participate in such activities from receiving the sacraments or sharing in acts of public worship.
Why does the Catholic Church ban women's ordination? Because Christ chose only men for his apostolate, the pope says.
There are two serious problems with this assertion.
First, Jesus also selected women apostles. In fact, Jesus selected Mary Magdalene for his original apostle. At the tomb scene, Jesus deliberately did not appear to his male disciples, including Peter and John; he waited until they left before appearing to Mary Magdalene (John 20). Then he commissioned her to tell his followers he had appeared, making her the primary witness to the Resurrection. This transformed her into the unique role of first apostle, the earliest person sent to tell Jesus' followers he had risen from the grave. If Jesus could entrust a woman with the status of primary apostle, why can't the Vatican?
Even the Apostle Paul commended a female apostle. In Romans 16:7, he commended the woman He HJunia (later translated into a man "Junias" during the 13th century) as prominent among the apostles.
Update. In a related post, Cincinnati vocations director Fr. Kyle Schnippel reminds us "It's not enough to say 'Lord, Lord'":
we must also act out our faith in the world.
One easy way:
Go HERE
click yes
submit vote.
Let's throw their expected results out the window!

8 comments:
What in the world makes that woman think that Jesus's appearing to Mary Magdalene made her his "primary apostle"? How does she think did the other apostles got away with usurping her supposed spot? And why would you want to belong to a church whose founders were such rotten guys, anyway?
Like all the accounts of women in the gospels, it does show that Jesus respected and loved women as well as men. Mary Magdalene has gotten a bad rap over the years, but she wasn't an apostle, priest, or bishop, and neither were any of the other women mentioned. As a woman, I have no patience this sort of silliness.
http://fatherschnippel.blogspot.com/2008/05/it-is-not-enough-to-say-lord-lord.html
There's a more fundamental misunderstanding implied here. While she, as a disciple of Christ, is a witness to his resurrection, and the first to tell the Apostles of that, that does not make her a ministerial priest.
The duty of witnessing to Christ and his resurrection is incumbent on all the faithful. We are all, in that sense, called to do what Mary Magdalen did, and indeed many women perform valuable work in the vineyard of the Lord.
But that is different from the Ministerial priesthood. Part of the reason for the obstinate rejection of the nature of the priest as personal Christi has to laid at the feet of the Cartesian Dualism and, sadly, even the materialism of some in this effort to force a falsehood upon the Church. It is because of the body/soul dualism proposed by Descarte and its gnostic rejection of the body as being the material accident of the soul that is the root of the notion that a woman can be a "Priest" and not utterly demolish the marital and divine meaning of the male priest.
Well, I thought an angel appeared to several women and the others ran off to tell the apostles but Mary Magdalen stayed behind and then saw Jesus. I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on this but it does give a different slant on the matter.
Jane M
Part of the problem here may be that Mary Magdalene is sometimes referred to (with no feminist agenda implies) as the "Apostole to the Apostles," in that she shared with them the news of the Resurrection. Obviously it's not meant in the sense of holy orders or apostolic succession, but for those easily (or willfully!) confused...
Margaret
Even by the standards of an MSM survey, that MSNBC poll linked by Father Schnippel is appallingly bad, even assuming that such a survey could make any meaningful point (and it couldn't).
I uses the terms "female priests and the bishops who ordain them" -- in other words assuming by the wording that such things exist. But again, that's par for the MSM course. And it's actually a pleasant surprise that they wording of the "Yes" answer at least gives a fairly accurate reason, but that keys you into the two transcendently awful things about this survey:
(1) Why give reasons at all? How do you vote if you think one way but not for the reasons stated.
(2) The reason given for "no" (i.e., ordain priestesses) is actually not a reason to do so, given the *even stated here* reason for "yes." Solving the priest shortage is a reason why ordaining women may be beneficial if you could. It does not establish that a female priest is possible. And frankly I don't even think it's why most people who favor priestesses do so, and I'd bet New York to a donut it's not the motivating factor for those who engage in such "ordinations." I think most such opinion is motivated by feminism and the belief that the current rules are sex discrimination. It wouldn't significantly diminish (nor, to be fair, should it) if every priest and seminarian were tomorrow to duplicate and triplicate himself like Hugo Weaving in THE MATRIX.
Once again this is not about who is right and who is wrong. This is simply about the advancement of the Kingdom of God. God plainly said that He would pour out His Spirit on all flesh and that means ALL FLESH! What general in his right mind would completely ignore half of his army? We are talking about the Lord of Hosts, The Great General, the wisest General of them all! God has assigned whosoever will because this authority comes from God and God alone, man can not give it nor take it away. As a woman who has been given an assignment God and commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ, it is not important for me to be validated by a human institution. Our focus should be on the King and His Agenda.
Anon 3:56 wrote, "What general in his right mind would completely ignore half of his army?"
Sorry, don't know. Do you have a particular general in mind? Or are you trying to make a point?
Joe K
Post a Comment