Putting a positive spin on sex-selective abortions
Pro-abortion ideologues are fretting after one of their own went off the reservation and publicly decried sex-selective abortions.
On September 22 feminist columnist Laurie Penny (pictured right) could almost have been mistaken for a pro-lifer when writing at New Statesman:
[A]ll over the world, from eastern Europe to India, millions of baby girls are missing.
There is a gap in the census. It howls with the ghosts of girl-children who died young, or who never lived – tens of millions of potential human beings, neglected to death, murdered at birth or (in increasing numbers) terminated when an ultrasound scan showed that a woman was due to come into the world….
After acknowledging the killing of preborn girls has indeed spilled over from Asia into Eastern Europe, feminist blogger Hannah Mudge (pictured right) still worried more about “playing into anti-choice hands”:
How can we encourage effective, productive debate on sex-selective abortion?…
[W]hat poses a problem here is the extent to which any discussion is obviously going to provide fuel for anti-choice fires.
The way in which discussion on all of this is likely to become unproductive was demonstrated perfectly by Laurie Penny…. writing of “missing girls” and the “howls” of the “ghosts of girl children”….
[S]everal people commenting chose to attack Laurie for what they saw as her “hypocrisy”, writing that she “can’t have it both ways” and insinuating that her belief that abortion should be safe and legal is an enormous contradiction of her stance on sex-selective terminations. Obviously this is untrue, but I know it made a lot of people wonder how, as feminists, we can move forward in discussing the issue without falling into the trap of using phrases that wouldn’t be out of place in anti-choice literature and playing into the hands of those who are quick to call “hypocrisy!”…
Stop. It is not “obviously untrue” that one can be pro-abortion and anti-sex-selective abortions. If you are pro-choice, you cannot oppose a woman making the choice to abort for a reason with which you disagree. It’s her choice, right? Keep your nosaries out of her ovaries. It most certainly is hypocritical to support abortion for reasons acceptable to the Western European culture but not for reasons acceptable to other cultures. That’s sexist, ethnocentric, and racist.
Pro-abortion feminist writer Sofie Buckland totally got the problem. Every one of her tweets is spot on…
Pro-lifers commenting on Penny’s piece indeed called her on her hypocrisy, but pro-aborts piled on as well, such as…
Penny actually does appear schizophrenic, particularly after writing a scathing pro-abortion piece only one month ago.
Glossed over by most on the other side was Penny’s point, which I give her credit for making – the incalculable tragedy of over 100 million missing females worldwide due in large part to abortion.
Instead, there was much more concern about consistency and appearances. I was fascinated to read just how paranoid pro-aborts are about what pro-lifers think and how we might use any breaches of their party line against them, which we would and do, but why should they care? We’re just misogynist, Bible-thumping, cave people.
Nevertheless, Mudge’s solution was for abortion supporters to more carefully wordsmith…
I think what this demonstrates is the need to be careful with our choice of words, not relying on imagery – such as “ghosts” and “howls” that can easily be turned into an attack from the “other side” and look pretty suspect when we know that we would be quick to criticise the same language if it came from elsewhere.
As the world around them becomes increasingly patriarchal, now not just by brute force but also by numbers, the lopsided demographics of which have never before been seen in the history of the human race, liberal feminists are navel-gazing themselves into servitude or extinction, all to protect the right to abortion.
And all the while they show they really don’t care about women at all.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“As the world around them becomes increasingly patriarchal, now not just by brute force but also by numbers”
The anti-choice movement is of the patriarchy, by the patriarchy, and for the patriarchy. And BTW, I agree with Buckland.
Yes, CC, all hail the mighty abortion and it’s liberating powers! Never mind that girls are slowly becoming extinct. And in the process, the girls who are allowed to live are so outnumbered by men that rather than being cherished and prized as gifts from God, they are used and oppressed more than ever before.
Yeah, you’re totally the one who truly cares about women. Not that patriarchal Church that says every human life — even a girl’s — is a precious gift to be protected and valued.
“Not that patriarchal Church that says every human life — even a girl’s — is a precious gift to be protected and valued.”
For the world’s oldest all male club to deny a woman the right to determine her own reproductive destiny is hardly protecting and valuing that woman.
“Reproductive destiny?” That’s a new one.
Your reproductive “destiny” can be whatever you want it to be. Just keep your forceps and suction machine off the bodies of others who ALSO have destinies, which should not be erased by those who have power over them.
Women do not win by becoming murderers and oppressors like the “patriarchy.” Nobody wins in abortion. Abortion is a tragedy and a symptom of a sick society, not a healthy one.
Oh, also, laughing out loud at this: “Keep your nosaries out of her ovaries.” :D
Well, if we were just talking about removing ovaries here, I wouldn’t care. But contrary to pro-choice idiocy, the fetus is not a woman’s body part.
“Never mind that girls are slowly becoming extinct.”
“Slowly” is right. Really, really slowly, because according to the UN’s 2008 World Population Prospects data, women account for roughly 49.5% of the world population, and in most of the Western world, outnumber men.
Ugh, pro-aborts just DO NOT GET IT. It’s not about preference. It’s not about patriarchy. It’s not about simply disagreeing with someone. It’s about an action that is destructive, selfish, bloody, and horrific, that has far-reaching consequences. We don’t live in a vacuum. Baby girls are being aborted. They’re not “girl-flavored” or “potential girls”….they are girl babies. The onus is on pro-aborts to prove that these little ones are not human….NOT because they say so, and not because they want them NOT to be human. Until these babies are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt NOT to be human babies, then I will pick up my “abortion rights” sign and march with them.
They cannot prove it because it is not true. This is not about controlling women and women’s bodies. This about NOT KILLING PEOPLE. It is wrong to kill people, no matter how small they are.
the women in china that were forced into abortions they DID NOT WANT on babies THEY WANTED would disagree with any pro abort here.
Abortion has taken millions of lives, including the lives of UNBORN BABY GIRLS who did NOT deserve the death they were given!
Women’s rights? HA! Not if you’re in the womb, obviously!
I don’t think these two perspectives are mutually exclusive, and I applaud Penny Red for taking the truly feminist, compassionate, and world-conscious perspective here. I’m sure that pro-choice people would, by definition, be against the kind of forced sex-selective abortions that take place in China. But what is going on in China is state-controlled, which I think is the difference here; she can be pro-choice here and anti-state-controlled sex-selective abortions elsewhere, no problem.
Unfortunately, the pro-life versus pro-choice debate in America has become extremely simplified, boiling it down to just bumper-stickerified arguments that demonize the other side but ignore the crucial details of practicality. For example, can you be pro-life but not support a federal law banning abortion? How about just removing federal funding? Can you be pro-choice but believe it’s up to the people and not the government to fund it? What about the states, should they make laws surrounding abortion instead? These are all important details that make something more complex than just “pro-choice” and “pro-life.”
Yes, it appears that the abortion supporters have jumped the shark.
“It howls with the ghosts of girl-children who died young, or who never lived”
Yet another pro-abortion denial that a fetus is a living human. Cognitive dissonance.
CC: “For the world’s oldest all male club to deny a woman the right to determine her own reproductive destiny is hardly protecting and valuing that woman.”
Tell you what, CC — when y’all begin respecting the right to life, the conversation can begin about what kind of life such living people are entitled to live.
First things first. Right?
The women you’re talking about — their mothers chose life. Otherwise you’d have no one to talk about. Your point depends on life. But you’re not polemically entitled to that precondition, because you don’t presuppose life.
Interesting.
“Slowly” is right. Really, really slowly, because according to the UN’s 2008 World Population Prospects data, women account for roughly 49.5% of the world population, and in most of the Western world, outnumber men.
So, it’s all good, then, right? Keep killing female preborn children as much as you want! Can’t possibly affect society in the slightest. I mean, sex trafficking and all that couldn’t possibly affect us here in America or any nation that really counts, right?
Makes me want to create a bumper sticker that says “I’ll keep my rosaries off your ovaries if you can keep your head out of your rear.”
Instead, there was much more concern about consistency and appearances
I read ALOT about sex-selective abortions and believe me there is a real paranoia among “pro-choicers” that this issue will be used as a wedge to divide radical pro-aborts and “soft” pro-choicers. A Zogby poll found about 86% of Americans would like sex-selective abortions prohibited so pro-aborts would love to sweep it under the rug as much as possible.
CC,
“For the world’s oldest all male club to deny a woman the right to determine her own reproductive destiny is hardly protecting and valuing that woman. ”
For you to support abortion means to deny unborn girls the opportunity to choose their own destinys, you are hardly protecting and valuing those women. It’s not fair to say you stand for women/girls if you don’t stand for all of them.
It looks like Ms. Penny’s real mistake here was letting her conscience show, there is no room for that kind of compassion in the pro-choice community. Pro-choicers like Sofie Buckland do not want to hear about all of the missing women in the world because that would be bringing attention to the consequence of abortion. Pro-choicers hate to talk about the consequences of abortion because it makes them look bad.
“Slowly” is right. Really, really slowly, because according to the UN’s 2008 World Population Prospects data, women account for roughly 49.5% of the world population, and in most of the Western world, outnumber men.
Oh, Joan, you really deserve an “obfuscation of the truth” award for this one. Sex ratios in Asia did not start to become skewed until about 30 years ago, so to look at the world population as a whole is pointless. Look at the younger generation and the numbers are truly frightening. The numbers of girls being born in most Southeast Asian countries goes down significantly every census so this is a brewing problem with the worst yet to come. Also, there is a “class issue” that is associated with sex selection, especially in Northern India, where the rich and middle class have few or no daughters and their sons then poach women from poorer areas. So the danger to women is even much worse than even the sex ratio numbers suggest as even places where sex ratios are normal have daughters who are likely to be kidnapped and sold into a life of servitude/slavery. An example of this is the poor country of Nepal where sex trafficking of girls into India has become pandemic.
Many demographers think that sex-selective abortions are going to become more common among Muslim communities as their fertility falls. Two Eastern European countries, Albania and Bosnia, which both have significant Muslim populations have birth sex ratios as skewed as China. There has even been an uptick in male births in Western European countries, such as Sweden and Italy, as native births fall and Muslims from North Africa constitute a significant percentage of new births. See, Joan, we are just on the cusp of this problem and the most horrific effects have yet to be felt. Those who are honest and pay attention to this issue know what is happening and know something needs to be done.
Decades ago the fledgling abortion industry used highly emotional stories of women who couldn’t bear to be pregnant and how if they hurt themselves it would be worse than killing their babies. That wedge might have been called “compassion for women in extreme emotional distress.” If you did not toe that line, you were decried as not having compassion for women, not caring how many died in the so-named ‘back alley abortions.’ And the wedge functioned so efficiently, we now have more than 50 million little bodies in landfills and laboratories all over this nation.
Guess what? This new wedge, sex selective abortion, is the tool WE CAN USE to push the abortion industry back into oblivion. Yes, abortion fans, you are absolutely correct: We will use this wedge to pry the naive-well-meaning-misled pro-choice and fence-sitting people apart from the abortion extremists. Your ranks will be thinned, and your leadership will become even more demoralized than it already is. You will funnel more and more of your money away from actual abortions as you desperately try to control public opinion. The millions of dead baby girls all over the world would have died in vain if we did not use this wedge to dismantle the pro-abortion support system.
You have painted yourselves into a mighty tight corner, abortion industry, and it will be a good thing for all the world when you fail.
All glory and honor to God.
CC: “For the world’s oldest all male club to deny a woman the right to determine her own reproductive destiny is hardly protecting and valuing that woman.”
I only hope that someday you will really do some serious and extensive research into the Catholic Church, so you can see how It truly does value women. The beauty is undeniable. I’ve been a Catholic my whole life, and I have never felt that I was a part of an “all male club”, and I have always felt valued. People choose to see what they want to see, and choose to eat what they’re fed, whether it’s Truth or not.
I wonder if Penny watched “China’s Lost Girls”…truly eye-opening documentary. I don’t see her as a hypocrite…just someone who is beginning to see the truth! Praying that her eyes continue to be opened!
Oh so Mary, here is a great example of the “all male club”- I am teaching 6th grade confirmation classes, and we had a meeting with all the catechists last month. 30 catechists. 2 male. Out of all the catechists at my parish, 93% of them are female. I wonder if they realize that they are outnumbered by me and some other dude…
I wonder if Penny watched “China’s Lost Girls”…truly eye-opening documentary. I don’t see her as a hypocrite…just someone who is beginning to see the truth! Praying that her eyes continue to be opened!
Yes, we should stop jumping on anti-sex-selective abortion pro-choicers and accusing them of being inconsistent. It may just be that they are in a transition period after a lifetime of pro-abortion brainwashing.
China’s Lost Girls is a really good documentary. I highly recommend it.
“Oh, Calvin, you are my density!!”
Keep your nosaries out of her ovaries.
:) Great line…!
CC, I was a Catholic for a few years. I dont agree with all Catholic doctrine so I certainly am no Catholic defender, but there is no way they hate women or are patriarchal. I never felt anything but respected. So try again.
What goes around comes around. An excellent book that describes a society which used abortion as a tool for male dominance is Rodney Stark’s “Rise of Christianity”. The book describes ancient Rome, with its men who did not want to marry, who did not want children (unless sons), who forced the women into abortion or abandoned newborns. Christianity was very attractive to the women of the time. And the Christians saved a lot of babies, including girl babies.
Abortion enslaves.
“93% of them are female. I wonder if they realize that they are outnumbered by me and some other dude.”
But they will never be priests which is the top echelon of the church. If the Catholic Church were an American company they would eventually close up shop after all the money spent on defending EEO suits. Consider this, Vatican City, which is a sovereign country with standing at the UN, has a ruling class that is all male. That makes it no different from the Saudis and other fundamentalist, patriarchal Islamic states. While it’s nice that your catechists are female, they will still be relegated to the status of handmaidens and that’s sad considering the wealth of experience and education that women could bring to the all male Majesterium.
“Christianity was very attractive to the women of the time. And the Christians saved a lot of babies, including girl babies.Abortion enslaves.
Source? And BTW, putting women into a situation where they risk having an illegal abortion or having a child that they either don’t want or can’t care for is the epitome of slavery. Women as brood mares which is the basis for the patriarchal anti-choice movement.
Source? She gave you the book and the author. Why are you so consistently dense while at the same time bragging about your edjamacation??
Does abortion enslave? Well, it’s certainly got a tight hold on YOU doesn’t it? You hate babies so much you help kill them for free weekly and daily, DAILY you come here and rail against people who value life. Slave, thy initials are cc.
But they will never be priests which is the top echelon of the church.
Bwhahaha! Shows how little you know of Catholicism. Priests are servants.
Ardent Choicers who turn their back on reproductive sexism just love big women over little women. They side with the strong over the weak. Because women are big enough to pay someone to destroy their girl fetuses makes it ok.
I’m not feelin’ the love in that.
I think what this demonstrates is the need to be careful with our choice of words, not relying on imagery – such as “ghosts” and “howls” that can easily be turned into an attack from the “other side” and look pretty suspect when we know that we would be quick to criticise the same language if it came from elsewhere.
Ummm…something that would help with that is to not espouse a sick philosophy that makes one human being ok to kill and another not based solely on what sort of label you give them.
Kinda makes you think twice about “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Words apparently kill roughly 3,000 young human beings every day in America alone.
Come to the Pro-Life side. We have logic, science, reason, and cookies.
While it’s nice that your catechists are female, they will still be relegated to the status of handmaidens and that’s sad considering the wealth of experience and education that women could bring to the all male Majesterium.
Did you miss where Bobby state that 93% of the educators in his parish are women? Who the heck do you think these women are sharing their wealth and experience with?
I received a personal reply from the head honcho when I wrote him a letter recently so believe it or not CC, we lowly handmaidens are allowed to communicate with the all-mighty men’s club.
Our Papa is known as The Servant of the Servants of God.
And talk about the power of influence: Mother Angelica is the genius behind EWTN!
Come to the Pro-Life side. We have logic, science, reason, and cookies.
I always knew I was on the right side. :)
“Come to the Pro-Life side. We have logic, science, reason, and cookies.”
Pfft! we pro-choicers have logic, science, reason, truth and pizza, beer and chocolate cake :-p
Slow down on the beer Reality. It has been proven that too much alcohol kills brain cells. Which would explain why the logic, science, reason and truth on your side differs from ours.
CC – you think that priests have POWER? LOL! Just goes to show how little you do know about Catholicism. If priests, bishops, etc. had as much power as you seem to imagine, there would be zero dissent.
Try reading this to get the real story: http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/11/pope-is-not-as-powerful-as-you-think.html
Always in moderation Praxedes, and for myself it’s wine not beer.
Ah, so anti-choicers are heavy drinkers are they?
I also wonder what special additives are in your cookies ;-)
“Consider this, Vatican City, which is a sovereign country with standing at the UN, has a ruling class that is all male. That makes it no different from the Saudis and other fundamentalist, patriarchal Islamic states. ”
No different? CC, if you had to live in Vatican city, Saudi Arabia or Iran, which would you choose?
I think CC is paid by PP, this person with so much hate and emotional thinking makes me think so. may be lobbing or something. if true what a nasty job!!
Sigh – your no Catholic bashing resolution sure didn’t last long, did it CC?
Many women work in the Catholic Church in positions of great influence, including more and more at the Vatican. Here’s a fascinating link.
http://saltandlighttv.org/blog/general/cns-vatican-report-women-working-at-the-vatican
This video is from about a year ago. I think there have been more developments since then, including some women on the staff of the Supreme Apostolic Signatura (the Church’s Supreme Court) probably as lawyers; they were photographed together with Pope Benedict XVI during his talk to them in February this year, where he addressed the whole staff as “brothers and sisters.” Wish I could find that photograph.
Many, many women work in the Vatican in positions relating to justice, peace and development. A woman works in the International Theological Commission.
I don’t understand the insistence that the powers of the priesthood are the only important ones in the Church. The power to “bind and loose” that is to decide doctrine is one that was given to the all-male college of the apostles. (For some reason everyone wants to blame the Church for this decision — they never blame Jesus for choosing all male apostles to begin with). The power to making binding decisions on doctrine has been passed down only to men, true. The reasons why God did this are totally mysterious to me. But the fact that those women who want this power only want to change the doctrines until they are unrecognizable as belong to the Church Christ founded (including of course, sanctioning abortion) makes me very glad they can’t have them!
But there are tons of other ways of being influential in the Church. Women work on parish staffs and diocesan chanceries throughout the world. They have degrees in theology and teach at Catholic universities (one such professor, a laywoman, taught me theology at Fordham). They are authors and artists and teachers and catechists and philosophers and sociologists and others who contribute to spreading the Gospel all over the world.
I am pleased to put my talents to work for the Church of Christ as an author and filmmaker, and my talents have been gratefully acknowledged by many in the Church. I wouldn’t be any less happy if I never got any recognition for them. Power is not what it’s about, as Jesus reminded us again and again.
So sorry, CC, that you are so ignorant. Now the rest of you are going to have to fight it out, because I have work to do.
I think the total is $55 now. . .
The science that pro lifers have includes 4D ULTRASOUNDS and EMBRYOLOGY. Humanity of the unborn.
I’ll stick to the truth….and the truth is that the PREBORN BABIES that are growing in a woman’s womb are HUMAN! They are not clumps of cells or blood clots. Their hearts begin beating as early as 18-21 days! That’s SCIENCE!
When you compare CC’s reaction to the puzzlement of many Catholic women to her kind of diatribes about patriarchy, you realize that this is about CC’s own demons — not the church’s.
We have a joke of the day winner, well done rasqual!
“For the world’s oldest all male club to deny a woman the right to determine her own reproductive destiny is hardly protecting and valuing that woman.”
Yes, CC. We see that destiny in full flower with your mind and heart.
Barren.
Sterile.
Cold.
Indifferent.
Yes, that’s quite a destiny. To think the all-male club has a vision that is the photographic positive to your negative.
Those old boys are waiting to lavish God’s love and mercy on you whenever you decide to come in from the cold.
“Women as brood mares which is the basis for the patriarchal anti-choice movement.”
Ah…
The key to CC and her ilk is to envision the opposite of what they rant about. CC is really bitter because she closed her own womb after killing her child. She’s enraged because she actually got what she wanted, what she went after. Barrenness.
As with all who throw in with darkness, she curses the light of truth which does not allow her to airbrush away her self-inflicted scars.
“Those old boys are waiting to lavish God’s love and mercy on you…” – in all seriousness good doctor that statement itself reeks of patriarchy.
The rest just sounds like whitewash to be honest.
And I am not trying to be rude just for the sake of being rude.
well let’s see here, God chose Mary [wait, wasn’t she a woman?] to
bring the Salvation of the world to Earth. He then exalted her as
queen over all of heaven and Earth, the most powerful intercessor and
mediatrix of all mankind. innumerable miracles have been worked
through her prayers and intercessions. devotions to Mary abound,
please at her feet neve cease for we know that her Son can never
refuse anything that she might ask, so great is His love for her and
her for Him. oh wait, and what was that little thing about her
crushing the heel of Satan under her foot? A woman? given the power
through her righteousness to prevail over the source of all Evil?
yup, sure sounds like the Church can’t stand women.
@bobby Bambino,
though i understand your point, i would counter that the extremely
skewed ratio of female/male catechists across the country is not a
good thing, but a bad thing. many of these children, as i’m sure you
have firsthand knowledge, have no faith formation at home, and have no
father figure in their lives, or the have a male figure who changes as
mom dates and breaks up etc. what these boys need desperately is a
male role model to model the love and example of Jesus Christ and to
teach these future husbands and priests how to tap into their
increasingly attacked masculinity, to cultivate within them the desire
to protect and provide and to sacrifice their lives for us
handmaidens. :)
” You hate babies so much you help kill them for free weekly and daily, DAILY”
Ah, the sweet smell of Ninek’s histrionics in the morning. Right, help kill babies for free. Yup, I’ve got a bunch in a bag which I’m bringing down to the beach so I can throw it in the ocean. I would have dumped it in my pool but it’s closed for the season. Man, I would so love to see Ninek doing her “counseling” outside the clinics. I wonder if she’s a screamer or just a rosary canter. Hey Ninek, got any videos of your “baby saving” activities?
“(For some reason everyone wants to blame the Church for this decision — they never blame Jesus for choosing all male apostles to begin with”
According to your scripture, Jesus chose married Jewish men to be his homies. So wouldn’t that mean that only married Jewish men can be priests? If there was active participation by women, which is doubtful given the times, it could have been edited out of the final version of the New Testament. It is interesting to know that ancient graves have been discovered, in Italy, of women with the word “episcopa” inscribed after their names. That would suggest a priestly function (and the person who “ordained” Jesus was a woman) for women in the early church.
Obviously, you would disagree with the basis on which the Episcopal and Lutheran churches ordain women priests; but they feel that their positions are also based on a solid examination of the Christian canon which they read as more inclusive than does the RC church.
And Lori – how’s your cinema career going. Any Oscar’s yet?
“As with all who throw in with darkness, she curses the light of truth which does not allow her to airbrush away her self-inflicted scar”
Now this dude should get into screen writing for Catholic films – or better yet something for the comedy channel!
“They are not clumps of cells or blood clots. Their hearts begin beating as early as 18-21 days! That’s SCIENCE”
Funny how “science” isn’t clamoring for recriminalizing of abortion. Oh, right, they’re slaves to Satan or something – c’mon Dr. Nadal, help me out here.
Actually, I’d have to disagree with Ninek as well, CC. You’re among the more callous voices here, showing more contempt for unborn life than most. In that way I think you’re a turn-off, philosophically speaking, for anyone considering the merits of the pro-choice view of things. In representing it the way you do, you portray its boorish contempt for life so well that those who regard the unborn with at least some respect are likely to wonder, “If being pro-choice is consistent with being that way, maybe I’ll reconsider this whole thing.”
That’s just a guess on my part, since I can’t get inside unknown parties’ heads. But sometimes, in these parts, you seem hell-bent on scoring callous rhetorical points without realizing how contemptuous of unborn life your remarks end up being. I just don’t think most people regard that kind of posture with a neutral spirit.
Oh you have the respect of other pro-choice folk, I’m sure. But anyone on the fence? I can’t imagine them being persuaded by you of much. I can’t imagine what you’d bring to a discussion other than evidence that you despise others and deem unborn life disposable.
So Ninek, no, I don’t think CC is much help to the abortion industry.
Well, CC, you almost made it without bashing Catholics. So close, yet so far away…
Feeding trolls = rabbit hole.
I say let putrid anti-Catholic rants wave in the air. Those comments, plus the gross ignorance of fetal development, make a certain commenter so behind the times, so out of touch, so sadly bitter and warped, that it’s best to pray for such people and move on.
Besides, Catholic Church-loving women commenting here, raise your hand if you have one or more living children! We can smile in that our influence will last longer. :)
“In representing it the way you do, you portray its boorish contempt for life so well that those who regard the unborn with at least some respect are likely to wonder.”
Point taken, Rasqual. But Ninek’s use of hyperbole, which is also a turn-off to those on the fence, can be a bit snark inducing. Oh, right – tu quoque and all that. But here’s the thing. While I actually can respect the heartfelt convictions of those who are pro-life, this respect is certainly not reciprocated by those who accuse us of being “baby killers.” I’m afraid that at this point there is no bridging the gap between sides. Your thoughts?
CC: Point taken as well. When people advocate for those they deem vulnerable to “the other side’s” felt disregard of them, emotions flare.
But this regard/disregard dynamic plays out asymmetrically, IMO. Pro-lifers have an advantage in something they share in common with pro-choicers, and a disadvantage in something they do not share.
Pro-life share with pro-choice a care for people. “If you really cared about women” is a hollow accusation because caring about women, men, dogs cats birds and everything else is not a pro-choice/pro-life issue — it’s just part of being human. We’re social critters.
This obvious truth is an advantage for pro-life and a disadvantage for pro-choice, though. The latter seek to impugn the former by framing concern for the unborn as disregard for the mother. And yet nothing in the lives of pro-lifers credibily suggests that they’ve abandoned the fundamental human trait of caring for other people. Observers can only see that pro-lifers — e.g., in CPCs — are interacting with mothers in caring ways, belying the slander. These observations vastly outnumber the rare nut job ranting incoherently in front of a clinic.
So this is an advantage to pro-life and a disadvantage to pro-choice because the latter’s charge rings hollow.
The disadvantage pro-lifers face, that pro-choice does not, is reconciling regard for bodily autonomy with regard for unborn life. This is obviously because pro-life introduces something in tension with bodily autonomy. Pro-life doesn’t take something away from the calculus; it adds something.
But I think human intuition sees it the other way around, and rightly so. I think most folks would see pro-choice as removing something — of oversimplifying a problem by gratuitously removing terms that seem essential to it. Yes, the moral situation is easily resolved if, by fiat, we accord the unborn no moral status or, as you might have it, moral status only by fiat of the mother. But this “easy resolution” looks horrendous even at a distance, and when lensed through pro-life public relations it seems as barren as a post-abortive womb. Pro-choice has aborted something from a fully human view of human reproduction. It’s aborted the soul of what it’s all about. It’s discarded the value of the fetus, and adopted a lonely view of the mother/child pairing — the value of the unborn resides only in the epiphenomenon we call “opinion,” its locus a mass of gray matter parked a couple feet north of this inchoate what-is-it.
I think this so violates healthy human intuition that pro-choice is doomed as a view of things to the extent that pro-life folk are effective in educational efforts. And I think educational efforts by pro-choicers will backfire precisely because what they’d be educating about, is precisely what a pro-life educated intuition would reject. To the extent that both sides educate well and clearly, the stark objectionable character of pro-choice will be thrown into more relief.
Pro-choice “wins” its argument simply be removing what’s troublesome to it — the value of unborn life. It’s not a rational triumph, it’s a rational cheat.
The “disadvantage” pro-lifers have is that they need to reconcile the philosophical issues raised by pro-choicers concerning bodily autonomy, with the real value of unborn human life. That’s difficult, to be sure. But I think to fence-sitters, it seems more honest and realistic about reality and life. Life is complex. Those who face it, rather than declare it simple by fiat, are to be admired and, I think, will be.
I said that pro-choice seeks to impugn pro-life by framing their concern for the unborn as disregard for the mother. I think that’s because pro-choice suffers from a deficit of imagination — an incapacity to appreciate what it would mean to embrace life’s complexity, rather than reduce it to a choice that’s entirely neutral, and to do so by gratuitously simplifying life’s equations.
Indeed, pro-choice advocates oversimplifying life itself by gratuitously removing something essential to it — LIFE. Just as pro-life embraces life in its complexity, mothers embrace life in its complexity instead of removing “the problem” by fiat.
I think y’all will flunk history’s big math test.
“though i understand your point, i would counter that the extremelyskewed ratio of female/male catechists across the country is not agood thing, but a bad thing. many of these children, as i’m sure youhave firsthand knowledge, have no faith formation at home, and have nofather figure in their lives. . . .”
I agree with this as well. I recently worked on a painting, drawing project with a group of adults (only one male) and middle schoolers and the girls took right over and the boys were left to mess around, which in turn gets the boys in trouble for messing around. Which in turn causes the boys to be angry at women who corrected them for messing around.
Girls (and women) need to be gently reminded to include the boys (men) and boys (men) need to be gently reminded to participate in sharing their talents and faith.
Abortion has only further divided the gully between the genders, not brought equality in the least, like many had hoped.
CC: I’m going to add something at Doug’s expense. In numerous exchanges with Doug, we established that advising a woman to carry her child to term is not in the least antithetical to a pro-choice ethic — and yet Doug does not regard offering such advice with much interest. The fetus, to Doug, apparently has no value sufficient to warrant such advice. It’s laissez faire all the way — despite the fact that in any other area of life, humans give each other advice all the time. It’s as if in the case of abortion, some purist regard for the sacredness of the act obliges pro-choicers to back away in deferrent reverence, lest they interfere with a novitiate’s sacrificial introduction into their order.
I mention this because this too is abhorrent not only to reason, but to natural human intuition. It’s a point of interest to people like me because it shows how inhuman the pro-choice world view really can be. And it surprised me to see that someone as apparently genial and rational as Doug, would turn out on close inspection to harbor views indistinguishable from your own more stridently expressed ones.
I think I have more respect for your bluntness than for Doug’s genial sugar coating.
If I were facing an enemy, I’d prefer an honest face to a disarming one. If someone’s going to kill me, I’d just as soon they do it with a snarl than with a smile.
According to your scripture, Jesus chose married Jewish men to be his homies. So wouldn’t that mean that only married Jewish men can be priests? If there was active participation by women, which is doubtful given the times, it could have been edited out of the final version of the New Testament.
CC, have you ever actually read the New Testament? Just wondering. Your ignorance, and certainly your inaccuracy are woeful. Active participation by women is doubtful? In what sense? There is abundant evidence of active participation of women in Jesus’ ministry in the NT. They were his students and disciples. Mary of Bethany sat at his feet to listen to his teaching, the position of a pupil with a rabbi, and Mary Magdalen called him “Rabboni,” rabbi or teacher (John 20:16). In other words, Jesus taught women as his disciples as the rabbis did, which is startling, given the fact that rabbis had all male students. The Gospels record many instances of Jesus’ support for women and even his breaking some ironclad social barriers of the time in regard to them (such as talking to the Samaritan woman at the well). This was all honestly recorded by the evangelists. This makes it unlikely that if Jesus had chosen women among the twelve apostles who were the first priests and bishops, it would have been omitted by the evangelists.
And if by “the final version of the New Testament,” you mean there was some new edition by Constantine, don’t even go there. That is Dan Brown historical fiction.
As far as I know, we have no information about the marital status of any of the twelve apostles except St. Peter (we know only that his mother-in-law lived with him. His wife is never mentioned, and we don’t know if she was even still alive). For the others, nothing is mentioned. Probably some of them were married, but religious celibacy was certainly known at the time among the Essenes. Jesus certainly didn’t foresee having only married men in the apostolic ministry; in fact he actually recommended celibacy to them — remember him telling them that there are “eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven?” (Mtt. 19:12). So the evidence seems ironclad that Jesus chose only men for his inner core of disciples, the ones who became sacramental ministers and final arbiters of Christian teaching.We don’t know why he did it, but we accept it as something Jesus did. To say he didn’t is just foolishness and wishful thinking.
It is interesting to know that ancient graves have been discovered, in Italy, of women with the word “episcopa” inscribed after their names. That would suggest a priestly function (and the person who “ordained” Jesus was a woman) for women in the early church.
Interesting, maybe, but completely irrelevant, unless we know the date of the graves and the historical circumstances. In ancient times, the Greek episkopos (and its Latin derivative) was a very general word meaning “overseer.” A woman episcopa could have been the overseeer of a vineyard or some other enterprise for all we know. Among Christians, the word eventually came to mean exclusively “bishop” (not simply priest, which is presbyter or sacerdos).So whether these graves were Christian and the date and circumstances are important.
The person who ordained Jesus was woman!!?? You got me there. What on earth do you mean?
The vagueness of everything you write suggests Dan Brown or Elaine Pagels somewhere in the background. At any rate, stuff you’ve regurgitated without thinking or investigating for yourself, as usual.
37 Seconds on Vimeo:Gendercide in China:
http://vimeo.com/28955802
Elaine Pagels… LOL. When I was an undergraduate, I had to read and write a review of Pagel’s “The Gnostic Gospels” for “Introduction to Christianity” class (because no Intro to Christianity would be complete without giving a fair hearing to heresy, right?) I tore that book to pieces, bringing in quotes from Athanasius, Irenaeus, and a host of other early Church fathers to demonstrate the rejection of Gnosticism by the early Church. My professor seemed personally offended at my paper. Turns out she was a student of Pagels. Bwahaha!
I had a wise old nun tell me that the first disciple/priest was Mary. After all, Mary was chosen before any of the men, married or not. She did what He told her and asks us to do the same. Look at how Christ chose to come into the world CC! By way of a woman! Mary was humble and did not want power and control.
There are people of both genders and of all religions that abuse their authority and hide behind their religions. The Catholic church is no exception. But, in my opinion, the Catholic church is the best we have.
I actually think its kind of ironic when pro-choicers are worried about appearing inconsistent or hypocritical. Even if they try to be more careful with their words they cant avoid looking inconsistent. To me the whole pro-choice philosophy seems inconsistent when you think about it.
- Pro-choicers believe a child only has value when they are wanted and if they aren’t wanted then it is okay to kill them. The child is only valuable if the parent decides they are? It’s the same human being. I mean we have laws in this country to protect unborn children from homicide if someone tries to hurt them, yet it is okay for a doctor to kill them in a clinic, thats pretty inconsistent.
-the “mercy” argument is also inconsistent. Pro-choicers say it is better to abort an unwanted child than to let them grow up in an orphanage BUT no one would ever argue to kill a born child who is in an orphanage. When the child is unborn abortion supporters will believe it is more humane to abort them than let them be an orphan but they would not support anyone killing orphans because it is inhumane.
Whats even worst is that some argue that a child should be aborted because if they are abandoned they may grow up to be a criminal, and often times these pro-choicers are against the death penalty. So they would kill a child for something he/she might do but they don’t want to kill a murderer for a crime they actually did.
Theres also the attitude pro-choicers have towards abortion pictures. They are furious when pro-lifers show pictures of abortions in protests. Why are they so mad when pro-lifers shiow these pictures? Its something they support yet they are too disgusted to look at a picture of an abortion and they don’t like to talk about it., thats very inconsistent.
Instead of being upset at this woman for sounding hypocritical, pro-choicers should look at how inconsistent they sound in general.
Yes, because no educated person would ignore their education to line their pockets. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
JS: “So they would kill a child for something he/she might do but they don’t want to kill a murderer for a crime they actually did.”
Good grief. Yeah, that’s a mind-trip alright. :-/
Lori Pieper, once again, shows that she is quite the expert on Catholicism – yet
“There are several biblical examples that support the adoption of the celibacy for priests by the Catholic Church. With regards to the first apostles, early writings of the Church suggest that all of the Twelve apostles were married when called by our Lord, except the young beloved apostle, St. John….Celibacy was not typical of Judaism in OT times, except for short periods or very specific reasons, and so it is no surprise that our Lord would choose apostles from among those who were married, which was the norm.” Jesus was considered a rabbi and rabbis have traditionally been married men. But that doesn’t fit with the narrative.
And this is from EWTN which, I believe, is a Catholic website.
So all either of us have is conjecture. But your conjecture is, by virtue of its being from the ”fathers,” is considered truth. If there ever is any doubt about why the Catholic Church is criticized for its smug arrogance, your comments, full of righteous “truth,” provide some certitude. Apart from a couple of mentions in Josephus, there are really no primary sources for the existence of your ”Savior.” But because St. Paul was a great PR agent, the legend became truth. And while you casually dismiss Pagels and Brown, the truth is that in several hundred years, the possibility of editing according to the prevailing political meme was real. There was that “Donation of Constantine,” right, Lori? Meanwhile, the Jews didn’t believe a word of it and sadly, they were persecuted for that. Wonder who’s right?
And BTW, when are we going to see some of your moviemaking? Surely some NY art house must be willing to show your stuff. Maybe Sundance?
“because no Intro to Christianity would be complete without giving a fair hearing to heresy, right”
What the Roman church considered heresy, others regarded as truth. Constantine had the power and might does make right as shown by the things like the Inquisition and the Crusades – both of which were brought to us by a sweet combination of church and state. Oh well, the pope apologized for those nasty bits of history.
Cue Lori Pieper to defend the Inquisition and the Crusades….BTW, Lori, have you ever read “The Kidnapping of Edgardo Motera?” It’s written by a Brown University scholar. I’d be curious to read your defense of Pio Nono who brought us infallibility as an official doctrine as a result of a papal conference.
But your ability to fit your facts around your narrative is quite – uh – stunning. But if you need to cling to something, I understand that your faith can be sustaining.
More information on women as “episcopa” here.” From the website: “In 1903 bible scholars found a fourth century tombstone on the mount of Olives with a Greek inscription which read: “Here lies the minister and bride of Christ, Sofia the deacon, a second Phoebe. She fell asleep in peace on the 21st of month of March…” Ain’t no women deacons in today’s RC church.
The great Catholic scholar, Lori Pieper dismisses this or chooses to ignore it. At any rate, stuff she’s regurgitated without thinking or investigating for hersself, as usual.
Ain’t no women deacons in today’s RC church.
Ain’t no male nuns in today’s RC church either.
If abortion hasn’t made you feel equal to men yet, CC, female deacons sure ain’t gonna do the trick.
CC, please quit jumping to conclusions about me. You know nothing whatever about my opinions on the Crusades, the Inquisition, or anything else. Do not put ideas in my head or words in my mouth. Whatever the truth about these institutions, you will never be able to figure it out or even approach it rationally. No, I do not defend the Inquisition or the Crusades as a whole. But I am t going to talk about that here.
You keep missing the point about what I wrote. The question with the apostles was not about whether or not they were married. I was simply speaking to the NT evidence, which doesn’t really say. Later (more uncertain) traditions of the Fathers would say they were all married except John. This is something about which we will probably never know the complete truth. The point that I was getting at was Christ laid down a pattern of celibacy for his followers and he did. Thus your insistence that priests should be all married men after the example of the apostles is contradicted by our earliest historical evidence – the Gospels and epistles. Oh by the way, quite a cute trick of the skeptics, to deny we have historical sources for Jesus by denying that the Gospels themselves are primary historical sources, though every historian with a lick of sense knows that’s what they are.
I should point out that EWTN is something like a third-hand source for all this, and certainly not the last word on history. I go by my own studies of the sources.
I never denied that there were female deacons in the early Church. I simply never discussed them, as they weren’t part of what I was talking about. The EWTN view – I do listen to some of their radio shows while working – is that there were deaconesses, but never any ordained ones. They also tend to downplay their role excessively – oh, they were only there to help women while they were being baptized, etc. Many reputable historians disagree. But I would
not trust either FutureChurch (obviously pretty partisan) or EWTn to tell me the whole truth about this. I know that the Holy See has studied the issue. There has been no authoritative by the Pope on the matter. So there you are.
So I finally find out what your episcopa was all about, and it’s medieval (9th century) and not ancient at all, which puts quite a different color on things. To summarize for everyone else; CC is referring to the Church of St. Praxedes or Prassede in Rome (not Praxedis as your source has it – slopping mispellings seem to be quite the thing in amateur feminist historians and I’ve read plenty.) A woman named Theodora is supposed to have been a bishop
because she has the word episcopa over her head. Now it’s pretty well agreed (though your FutureChurch site doesn’t mention it) that the Theodora in question is the mother of Pope Paschal I, who built the church. So he is most likely called episcopa because she is the mother of a bishop. Your source swears up and down that these cconnections are false and that women had these titles in their own right and not by connection with a male. If this is the ase, why hide the connection that actually existed between Paschal and Theodora? No, this evidence doesn’t impress me at all. I will believe there were women bishops in the medieval church when we have some actual evidene of their episcopates – like atual documents and decisions by them or mention of them in contemporary letters and chronicles, where they are actually spoken of as bishops and did bishop-like things.
Thanks for your sarcastic words about my film. I finally have the score in hand after waiting over a year for the composer to get it done. The film will be out on DVD in November, if not before. No thanks to you; if I didn’t have to constantly correct your errors, I’d get more work done. :-)
Now I’m very weary. Good night all.
Rats! I tried to correct that to “sloppy misspellings” twice and twice my demon-possessed touch-pad mouse navigated away from the page all on its own and forced me to retype things. Then editing time ran out. It’s really bad form to rant about sloppy misspellings and then misspell the words. But that’s how it happened.
Other errors: “she was called episcopa” and I needed to mention that we are talking about a mosaic, not a grave, as CC originally claimed. She generally remembers things very badly.
PS. CC, you’ve got to tell me who the woman who ordained Jesus was. It’s driving me nuts! At least the answer will probably be good for a laugh.
Oh, even more interesting news. according to romancatholicwomenpriests.org, Theodora was actually “the bishop of St. Praxedis [sic] Church.” I nearly choked with laughter when I read that. In the Catholic Church, dioceses are based in cities, not churches. There is no way anyone could have been “the bishop of St. Praxedis Church.” If they can’t get either their spelling or their ecclesiastical terminology right, how are we ever going to trust their history?
What they may have been thinking of is the college of cardinals, where those who are bishops outside Rome have a titular church assigned to them in Rome, making them honorary members of the Roman clergy. In this case the formula is “the bishop of such and such a see with titular church of St. Praxedes.” But I wouldn’t spend any time searching for Theodora’s actual diocese; I’m sure it doesn’t exist.
Shameless Popery just had a nice little couple of blog posts about female deconesses
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/09/can-catholic-church-ordain-female.html
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/09/does-council-of-nicea-reject-womens.html
In short, very good reasons to reject any ideas that deaconesses in the early Church were in any way a Holy Order, or even equivalent to male deacons.
Bobby, thanks for the links — fascinating discussion there in the comments, including some well-informed diverse opinions. One of them did confirm something I wrote but that was excluded when the time ran out – that a document by a Vatican commission did admit there had been at one time a “laying on of hands” for deaconesses, which would suggest that they were ordained (decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Chacedon). No definitive word on this have ever been given by Rome though.
One of them did confirm something I wrote but that was excluded when the time ran out – that a document by a Vatican commission did admit there had been at one time a “laying on of hands” for deaconesses, which would suggest that they were ordained (decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Chacedon). No definitive word on this have ever been given by Rome though.
As a bit of detail on that point: the Sacrament of Confirmation also involves the laying on of hands, and even the Sacrament of Penance can involve it; the laying on of hands was a classic gesture of blessing/commissioning (which need not imply a Sacrament at all, though several Sacraments use it), so it’s not really possible to deduce much from that, even with all other things being equal. However: given that Pope John Paul II declared, infallibly, that the Church has no authority to (that’s Church-speak for “has absolutely no power to”) bestow the Sacrament of Holy Orders upon women (cf. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis; some of the reasons for that are unpacked in the Theology of the Body), it’s not known for certain that the past gestures cannot possibly have been ordinations; if the Church has no power to ordain women, then that’s the case in any age of the Church.
Paladin, as some of the commenters on the thread pointed out, John Paul II was speaking specifically about ordination to the priesthood, — it’s in the title of the document. Not about ordination to the diaconate. Nothing specific has ever been said definitively restricting the diaconate to men by the Pope or in an magisteral document I know of. As I understand from what I’ve read, the reasons that pertain to the Theology of the Body – Christ as Bridegroom, Church as bride — don’t pertain to the diaconate, because the deacon doesn’t specifically act in persona Christi in any of his functions. But do read the whole of the links and the arguments — they are fascinating.
My purpose here isn’t to argue one way or another about the diaconate, but to explain what the situation in the Church actually is.
Lori,
You’re right about the title and specific wording, of course; I’m really chafing under the time constraints which force me to type quickly, and leave off (or forget, in the midst of a dozen distractions) the qualifiers that I had in mind! A dozen or more apologies! :)
However, the Holy Father’s statements about priesthood ordination were relevant for this reason: Holy Orders is Holy Orders. It has differing *degrees*, certainly (diaconate, presbyterate, episcopate), but the Sacrament is the Sacrament, and the conditions for validity and invalidity remain the same. Let me explain, as best I can (with the limited time)…
First, there’s a difference between a Sacrament being LICIT, and a Sacrament being VALID. Liceity refers to whether it was done properly and well, and without violating canon law, moral law, etc.; while validity refers to whether or not the Sacrament actually WORKED. One might think, as an unrelated example, of trying to acquire a lap-top computer; in that case, liceity would refer to whether it was gained “legally” and ethically, and validity would refer to whether or not it was gained at ALL. Examples:
1) getting a part-time job to earn the money to pay for the laptop: licit (earning your own money is legal and ethical) and valid (it actually gets you the lap-top)
2) begging the store-owner to give you a lap-top for free, but he/she refuses: licit (begging, in most cases like that, is neither illegal nor unethical) but invalid (you don’t get the lap-top)
3) successfully stealing the lap-top: illicit (theft is certainly illegal and unethical) but valid (you do acquire the lap-top)
4) knowingly trying to purchase a lap-top with counterfeit money, and getting caught: illicit (knowingly using counterfeit money is illegal and unethical) and invalid (you don’t get the lap-top)
Secondly, there are five conditions which must be met in order for a Sacrament to be VALID (i.e. to work at all):
1) a valid form
2) valid matter
3) a valid minister
4) valid intention
5) lack of invalidating impediments
For example: Baptism requires that one use the correct and valid form (pouring water over the head, while using the precise words “I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19]), valid matter (one must use water; and the recipient must be human, not a dog or cat or what-have-you), a valid minister (for Baptism, anyone can validly baptize… even an atheist), valid intention (you’re not simply pretending, or acting; for example, one who is “baptized” as a character in a play does not truly receive the Sacrament), and a lack of impediments (e.g. willfully refusing Baptism, having received prior valid Baptism, etc.).
The very definition of a Sacrament is “an outward sign which effects [i.e. brings about] what it symbolizes”; but if you change the symbol, you can destroy the validity of the Sacrament altogether. Think of signing a personal cheque: for it to be valid, you need to sign your legal signature to it… or else it’s worthless. There’s room for some small variation, of course (e.g. if your hand-writing is shaky on a particular day), but: even if the amount is for $1000.00, if you sign “Mickey Mouse” rather than your true and legal name, the cheque cannot be cashed, and it’s worth nothing. You’d have invalidated the cheque by changing the symbol beyond the point of validity. Just so, with any of the Sacraments. The “symbol” of Baptism is “washing”; so if you distort it beyond that symbol (by, say, trying to “baptize” with motor-oil), it will not be valid; it will simply fail to work at all. Likewise with the other Sacraments: rice cakes are invalid matter for the Eucharist; saying “I baptize you in the Name of the Creator and the Redeemer and the Sanctifier” (as some foolish priests have done, in an attempt to avoid what they see as “sexist language”) will simply not confer Baptism at all; and if one tries to bestow Holy Orders upon a woman, it simply won’t work… no matter how exacting the words and gestures, no matter how lavish the after-ceremony party, and no matter how much “ordained ministry” she does afterward (in the sense of “ordained” = “soul indelibly marked by the Sacrament of Holy Orders). She will be powerless to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Penance; she will be powerless to consecrate the Eucharist; and she will be powerless to bestow the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. It’s not at all a matter of being “worthy” (since no one, male or female, can ever be “worthy” of Holy Orders); it’s a matter of whether the “machine” (i.e. the proper functioning of the Sacrament) conks, or not!
As for deacons (ordained through Holy Orders), then: it must be remembered that the same Holy Orders which “create” a validly ordained priest or bishop are the SAME Holy Orders which create a validly ordained deacon. The essential conditions for invalidity are the same; Jesus has given the Church no authority, whatsoever, to bestow Holy Orders of any level–diaconal, presbyteral, or episcopal–on women. The Church, through the “power of the keys”, can ADD requirements above and beyond the essential and intrinsic ones (e.g. in the Latin Rite, marriage is an invalidating impediment to reception of Holy Orders, as is excommunication, etc.), but She cannot take away what God has “hard-wired” into the very bodies of man and woman.
That, in fact, was what I had in mind when I referenced the Theology of the Body; it is the genius (in the theological sense, not the intellectual or artistic sense) of man to initiate the gift of life (and his body is designed so as to symbolize that, and to actualize that symbol), and it is the genius (ibid.) of woman to receive that gift, to nurture it, and to return it in the form of new life (and her body is designed so as to symbolize that, and to actualize that symbol). It is not because woman cannot act “in Persona Christi” that she cannot receive diaconal Holy Orders (though, as you mention, it’s a problem for presbyteral and episcopal Orders); it is because Holy Orders is designed to initiate the “gift” of grace through the Church, and the “symbol” of that initiation (without which the Sacrament becomes invalid) is maleness. Consider: the Church *does* have the authority to ordain married men to the priesthood (see the Eastern Rites, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, for examples of this), even though the Latin Rite disallows it (on pain of invalidity); but she does NOT have the authority to ordain married men, ever. Since this is the very same Sacrament of Holy Orders which ordains both priests and deacons, and since maleness is an INTRINSIC requirement (i.e. valid and required matter) for that Sacrament, it follows that women cannot receive Holy Orders in any way, shape or form.
It’s already been mentioned, but it bears repeating: “deaconesses” [cf. Romans 16:1-2, etc.] were “called and appointed” (one might say “ordained” in the non-Holy Orders sense of the word) to “serve” (diakonia), especially to assist with the Baptisms of female Catechumens (since Baptism required removing all one’s clothing, and it would not have been appropriate for men to supervise women in that regard), but they never received Holy Orders… since it’s an intrinsic impossibility. That which is logically impossible in 2011 A.D. was also logically impossible in 50 A.D., etc. One cannot run off with the word “deaconess” or even “diakonia” and conclude that those women were recipients of Holy Orders, any more than one can see “The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve” and conclude that Jesus was the formal butler/valet of the Apostles, Who worked for pay and tips!
I hope that clarifies, at least a bit… and I hope the length of this explains (though may not excuse) why I had no time earlier to fill in these needed qualifiers! :)
Good grief! I spoke too rightly, when speaking of the dangers of speed-writing! This one was a truly spectacular goof, on my part:
Consider: the Church *does* have the authority to ordain married men to the priesthood (see the Eastern Rites, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, for examples of this), even though the Latin Rite disallows it (on pain of invalidity); but she does NOT have the authority to ordain
married menWOMEN, ever. Since this is the very same Sacrament of Holy Orders which ordains both priests and deacons, and since maleness is an INTRINSIC requirement (i.e. valid and required matter) for that Sacrament, it follows that women cannot receive Holy Orders in any way, shape or form.My apologies! (It’s always helpful to avoid flat self-contradictions, I’ve found!)
Paladin, I understand what does and doesn’t make a sacrament valid. I understand what the symbolism or sign in a sacrament — the matter and form. However, I am quite confused about your use of these terms.
Yes, the sacramental sign of baptism is water/ washing (matter) and Trinitarian formula (form); for the Eucharist it is the bread and wine and the words of consecration. However, you then go on to say that the “sign” of the sacrament of Holy Orders is the maleness of the recipient, which is part of neither the matter nor the form. In fact, as the CCC states (par. 1538), “the laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.”
Now, you may be correct that the person of the priest, bishop or deacon is in some way a sign or symbol to those who see him, but to claim that maleness is the sacramental sign itself is misleading to say the least.
I also wonder where you got your explanation about men being the initiators of the gift of grace. Is it some magisterial document or just a theological opinion?
The Holy See has reiterated more than once that women are inherently ineligible as candidates for priestly ordination, and that in itself invalidates the sacrament. What you have offered as further explanation seems to me to be unnecessary as well as inaccurate.
In regard to there being only one Sacrament of Holy Orders; that is true, but it is worth mentioning that the particular grace or power that is conferred in ordination to the diaconate is ontologically very different from what is conferred in ordination to the priesthood or episcopate. “There are two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy and the presbyterate. The diaconate is intended to help and serve them. For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons.” (CCC 1554). In other words, ordination to the priesthood or episcopate confers a share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, the ordination to the diaconate does not. This is a powerful difference, which might suggest other differences in the nature of the person who receives ordination.
Once again, I’m not here to argue for or against women’s ordination to the diaconate. As far as I can see, the Holy See has simply not settled the matter yet. All of the recent papal documents and other statements from the Holy See that have magisteral authority have, as far as I know, referred only to ordination to the priesthood.
I think the Vatican is very unlikely to ever ordain women as deacons, at least in the foreseeable future (it would lead to even more agitation for women in the priesthood). Plus a whole lot of what was once done by deaconesses has long been taken over by nuns and sisters, whose ranks seem to be reviving.
My only concern right now is to state Church teaching accurately for the non-Catholics who are reading here. I really cannot pursue the matter more for lack of time, but thanks for the discussion.
Quote from a Catholic revert: ”Christianity is not about self-fulfillment, it’s about self-denial; it’s not about worldly power, it’s about humility; it’s not about control, it’s about obedience; and it’s not about some misguided, gender feminist idea of equality, it’s about Truth.” This is it in a nutshell. We all need to pray for true humility in our lives. Faith, Humility and obedience to God’s will are prerequisites to salvation. All the saints in Heaven exemplified these virtues. These are the virtues we need to foster in our lives and encourage in the lives of others.
Sorry this is so brief and incomplete… I’m swamped with papers to grade!
Lori wrote:
Paladin, I understand what does and doesn’t make a sacrament valid. I understand what the symbolism or sign in a sacrament — the matter and form.
Half a moment: be very careful not to blur the distinct meanings of those terms! “Form” and “matter” are technical terms used when (among other things) determining the validity of a Sacrament; “symbolism” and “sign” are broader terms, which can mean a range of different things. An entire Sacrament is a “sign”, in fact… while its form is but a sub-set. Does that clarify, a bit?
Yes, the sacramental sign of baptism is water/ washing (matter) and Trinitarian formula (form);
Again: I’d avoid the use of “sign”, as you use it above, since it’s so broad as to be inaccurate; the FORM of Baptism is the pouring of water and the use of the Trinitarian formula; the MATTER is the water and the unbaptized human person.
However, you then go on to say that the “sign” of the sacrament of Holy Orders is the maleness of the recipient, which is part of neither the matter nor the form.
Well… I used the word “symbol”, not “sign”… but in any case, “sign” and “symbol” are broader terms which can, but need not, mean either “form” or “matter”. I wrote: “it is because Holy Orders is designed to initiate the ‘gift’ of grace through the Church, and the ‘symbol’ of that initiation (without which the Sacrament becomes invalid) is maleness.” And so it is. I said nothing in that sentence about Sacramental form; as I clarified later, “male human” is the necessary MATTER for the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
In fact, as the CCC states (par. 1538), “the laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.”
Of course… and it’s also the necessary FORM. It may well be that the CCC was using the word “sign” as a synonym for “form” (which is legitimate, though a bit confusing… I’d like to check the Latin original term, sometime, as compared to the English translation); but it was never used in reference to the necessary MATTER (which is, in this case, “male human”).
Now, you may be correct that the person of the priest, bishop or deacon is in some way a sign or symbol to those who see him, but to claim that maleness is the sacramental sign itself is misleading to say the least.
I hope that the above clarifies the confusion; I claimed nothing of the sort. I draw a clear distinction between the use of the words “sign” and “symbol” (which are broad, general, and can apply to many things, including Sacramental form), versus the more narrow and Sacrament-specific words “form” and “matter”.
I also wonder where you got your explanation about men being the initiators of the gift of grace. Is it some magisterial document or just a theological opinion?
I’m not quite sure how to answer that for you; it comes straight from Blessed John Paul II’s teaching on the Theology of the Body, which the Holy Father used as a foundation for many Magisterial documents on this topic. If you’re asking me if it’s an infallibly-defined dogma, then the answer may be “no”… but you’d be hard-pressed to find any writing of Pope John Paul II which does NOT reference it, directly or indirectly.
The Holy See has reiterated more than once that women are inherently ineligible as candidates for priestly ordination, and that in itself invalidates the sacrament. What you have offered as further explanation seems to me to be unnecessary as well as inaccurate.
I mention it only because you seem to consider the idea of “female recipients of Holy Orders” (albeit restricted to the Diaconate) to be an open question; and I aimed to show you that it is not. Priests and bishops do not receive a different Sacrament than deacons receive; there are seven Sacraments, not eight; and intrinsic invalidity for the Sacrament of Holy Orders will–nay, they must–cover all three levels of reception of that Sacrament. If one is intrinsically ineligible (and not merely canonically ineligible, as in the case of married men in the Latin Rite) to receive Holy Orders, then that is the end of the issue.
Ah. I see you replied/edited (re: the unity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders) in the time it took me to type! I’ll have to get back to that one in a bit. And feel free to read or not read, reply or not reply, as time allows; I certainly sympathize!
Paladin,
In regard to the form and matter of the sacraments, I’m afraid everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the Catechism of the Council of Trent agrees with me. Here is the relevant part of the latter.
“In the first place, then, it should be explained that the sensible thing which enters into the definition of a Sacrament as already given, although constituting but one sign, is twofold. Every Sacrament consists of two things, matter, which is called the element, and form, which is commonly called the word.
This is the doctrine of the Fathers of the Church; and the testimony of St. Augustine on the subject is familiar to all. The word, he says, is joined to the element and it becomes a Sacrament. By the words sensible thing, therefore, the Fathers understand not only the matter or element, such as water in Baptism, chrism in confirmation, and oil in Extreme Unction, all of which fall under the eye; but also the words which constitute the form, and which are addressed to the ear.”
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr00.htm
In other words, the sign that makes up the sacramental action consists of two things: the matter is the thing used to effect the sacrament and the form is the words that are said. In the sacrament of Holy Orders, the matter is the laying on of hands, and the form is the formula of consecration. I don’t see how the recipient of the sacrament or his body or his sex can be counted as either one of these.
We really ought to get this part straight before attempting anything else.
I see that I have actually left out the relevant part explaining “sign”
The Latin Doctors, therefore, deemed the word a very appropriate term to express certain sensible signs which at once communicate grace, declare it, and, as it were, place it before the eyes. St. Gregory, however, is of the opinion that such a sign is called a Sacrament, because the divine power secretly operates our salvation under the veil of sensible things.
According to the text, the “sensible sign” and “sensible thing” are synonymous. We then learn that the “sign” is divided into matter and form.
Finally, a moment to breathe, to look up some points, and to reply!
Lori wrote:
In other words, the sign that makes up the sacramental action consists of two things: the matter is the thing used to effect the sacrament and the form is the words that are said. In the sacrament of Holy Orders, the matter is the laying on of hands, and the form is the formula of consecration. I don’t see how the recipient of the sacrament or his body or his sex can be counted as either one of these.
(!) Good heavens… I need to do two things at this point: apologize for my error, and thank you for pointing it out to me! I have no idea what source I’d been using, up to this point (it was quite old–from many years ago–and I apparently didn’t think to double-check it with more official sources, in the meantime), but it was quite mistaken (and I’m quite abashed for perpetuating it, all these years!). A thousand pardons, and thank you!
As to my main point (i.e. the intrinsic ineligibility of women for the ordained diaconate): let me see if I can salvage it in the light of this “new” data (at least to me! Ah, well… good training for my humility, I suppose! :) )…
I think I can re-formulate the “conditions of validity for a Sacrament” by “adding” a new, sixth category which I’d heretofore (invalidly… pun not intended) conflated with “matter”:
1) valid form
2) valid matter
3) valid recipient
4) valid intention
5) valid minister
6) lack of invalidating impediments
I think the addition/distinction of the third condition is appropriate, since no Sacrament may be effected on a recipient which cannot receive it (e.g. a cat cannot receive any of the Sacraments, nor can a rock, nor can an unbaptized person receive any Sacrament other than Baptism, etc.). I’m going to try to show, with the tools at hand, that the only valid recipient of Holy Orders (whether to the diaconate, the presbyterate, or the episcopate) can be a male human who satisfies all the other requirements (both intrinsic and prudentially imposed by the Church) for validity.
First: in order for it to be possible for women to receive the ordained (i.e. Holy Orders) diaconate while being intrinsically and forever ineligible for the Sacramental priesthood and episcopacy, it would require the Sacrament of Holy Orders to be “separable” in such a way that a woman could receive the Sacrament, but not receive or utilize it in its entirety, ever (by definition). It’s one thing to impose prudent and discretionary conditions for validity which prohibit specific people in specific non-intrinsic cases from receiving the fulness of a given Sacrament (e.g. married men being ineligible for the office of bishop in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, on pain of invalidity, while such men are still eligible for the office of priest, even in the Latin Church [under strict conditions]; this is not an intrinsic impediment (cf. 1 Timothy 3:2, etc.), but one which was imposed by the Church); but it’s quite another to suggest that one could receive “part” of a Sacrament while being intrinsically, forever ineligible to receive its completion! Can you name any other Sacrament in which this is the case? I cannot. Take the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, for example: it is never the case that anyone who is intrinsically unable to consummate the marriage (e.g. impotent, or missing the necessary bodily parts) may validly marry; any attempted “marriage” of such a person would be prima facie invalid. (Marriage to someone who has taken a vow of celibacy, for example, would not be an intrinsic impediment, since the vow can be dispensed under the right conditions.)
So when I look at this case, I see two proposals:
a) your proposed idea that women might possibly be valid recipients of Holy Orders (since the Diaconate does not confer the “alter Christus” of the priesthood, since Scripture references deaconesses, since there seems to be no clear Vatican pronouncement on the issue, etc.)
b) the opposing idea that early deaconesses were ministers, but not “ordained” through Holy Orders.
From where I stand, I see an ocean of evidence for the latter, and no evidence, whatsoever, for the former (and a host of problems which would present themselves, should female reception of Holy Orders ever be attempted, even for the diaconate). To quote the inimitable Fr. Z:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/09/st-phoebe-the-deaconess-in-romans-16/
Re: that last paragraph: since it’s obvious that “episcopa” cannot refer to a female bishop, and since “presbytera” cannot refer to a female priest, it seems rather rash to suppose that “diacona/os” could refer to a female recipient of Holy Orders. And again: I know of no mental formulation by which one could view Holy Orders (or any other Sacrament, for that matter) as “intrinsically segregated and separable, on the basis of gender”; otherwise, it seems likely that one would have to admit the possibility that male Baptism and female Baptist (meaningless phrases, in all), for example, confer different effects, and so on!
I do want to make one note, by the way: I did not intend, even using my (mistaken) earlier paradigm, to suggest that anyone who believes in the “possibility of females receiving diaconal Holy Orders” is guilty of heresy, thereby! In that sense, you’re quite right: the Church has not pronounced solemnly on the matter, and you (and anyone else) are quite free to hold a different view without worrying about any sin against the virtue of Faith!
(As a side note: a commenter on Fr. Z’s blog wrote the following, in 2008: “[This] is in itself a good example of why we urgently need a document ‘Ordinatio Diaconalis’ to complement and reenforce “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” of 1994. I am pleased to state, however, that in an e-mail correspondence with a Roman curialist some time ago I was informed that all of the materials for such a document had been assembled some time ago by the International Theological Commission, and a precis published in *Origins.* God grant that such a document may see the light of day soon!” [http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/05/cdf-decree-of-excommunication-of-those-involved-with-attempted-ordination-of-women/] So… who knows? I personally echo that fellow’s wishes, if only for the sake of seeing that matter settled definitively!)
…and at this point, I’m about to take a deep breath and wade into a debate on another thread about contraception! Pray for me!
Paladin, thanks for humbly admitting your error about the matter and the form. Almost no one on the internet ever will admit they are wrong!
Thanks also for confirming another major point of mine: that the Holy See has not definitely settled the matter and may in fact do so. Who knows if the document will be released soon though.
I have a terrible headache today and don’t think I can go on commenting. If you were to go to the original links Bobby posted above which started the whole thing, you will see a lengthy discussion about the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Chalcedon and the laying on the hands for deaconesses. It’s not as cut and dried a you think.
In regard to the question of the “fullness” of the sacrament, you do make a good point. I’m no theologian.Keep in mind though, that Holy Orders is not like any other sacrament. It already possesses three degrees, which no other sacrament has at all. So any discussion should really take place within that context. Now with those degrees of ordination that involve the specific reality of the priesthood that one can go on to obtain, and that one must be intrinsically eligible for. But since the diaconate is not the priesthood, and involves a different reality in the order of grace (though all contain the grace of ministry) is that a different thing or not?
The interesting thing is that for a very long time, the church completely lost sight of the permanent diaconate. The order of deacon became a stage on the way to the priesthood. More and more
Aak! My fifteen minutes are up! Because of the vagaries of my computer, I took the precaution of copying my last edit to the clipboard in time. Here’s the complete thing.
Paladin, thanks for humbly admitting your error about the matter and the form. Almost no one on the internet ever will admit they are wrong!
Thanks also for confirming another major point of mine: that the Holy See has not definitely settled the matter and may in fact do so. Who knows if the document will be released soon though.
I have a terrible headache today and don’t think I can go on commenting for very long. If you were to go to the original links Bobby posted above which started the whole thing, you will see a lengthy discussion about the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Chalcedon and the laying on the hands for deaconesses. It’s not as cut and dried as you think.
The canon in question from Nicaea involved people being admitted back into the Church from a heretical sect; it actually said that since the deaconesses had not received the laying on of hands while heretics, they were to be enrolled among the laity rather than the clergy on return to the Church. It’s not clear why they did this. Evidently they didn’t want to just give a blanket ordination to deaconesses without considering their qualifications. At any rate, this seems a pretty clear indication to me that deaconesses who had received the laying on of hands were considered members of the clergy. This is evidently what the document developed under Paul VI concluded too.
In regard to the question of the “fullness” of the sacrament, you do make a good point. I’m no theologian, so I don’t know how valid it is.
Keep in mind though, that Holy Orders is not like any other sacrament. It already possesses three degrees, and three different rites, which no other sacrament has at all. So any discussion should really take place within the context of this sacrament only. Now with those degrees of ordination that involve the specific reality of the priesthood that one can go on to obtain the fullness of, and that one must be intrinsically eligible for, it seems to me you are right. But since the diaconate is not the priesthood, and involves a different reality in the order of grace (though all are a form of ministry) is that a different thing or not?
The interesting thing is that for a very long time, the church completely lost sight of the permanent diaconate. The order of deacon became a stage on the way to the priesthood. More and more as we have restored the ancient permanent diaconate, we are discovering how distinct it is from the priesthood. That it is complete and full in itself.
But here I have to stop for now. Forgive me if I don’t make sense, but my head is really hurting. Good luck with your grading. I’ll say a prayer for you.
interesting, very interesting!!! seem like CC always gets away with it and you guys don’t get it! he or she comes all the time to distract people from the main issue and make us focus on other things!!! like religion. we have to stand our ground on the topic so she or he has to respond to it!!! is just like reading Satan, seriously!! distraction from the main point, distorting the truth that what this person comes to do.
Mauricio, CC is a former Catholic who hates the Church (that is, she hates what she thinks the Church is). Because of that she hates God, or thinks she does. She is post-abortive and hurting but will not admit it. I try to respond to her posts so she might learn something and eventually come back to God. Also because her bigoted remarks might be read by other people who don’t know the truth, it seems necessary to clear them up. It may be a momentary distraction from the question of abortion, but I think it needs to be done.
Actually, it hasn’t been about CC for at least a couple of days now, since she has apparently retired from the field in confusion :-)
You guys still never really answered my question as to what you believe the state (or nation) should do (or not do) concerning abortion. I’m not sure and I’m trying to decide. Clearly, though, we all contend about its morality, which is a given.
Good grief! I’m terribly sorry, Lori… I didn’t mean to let your reply to me languish! I’d completely lost track of this thread, in the past week!
:) You’re quite welcome, and you’re very kind! Honestly, I have no particular reason to stand on my pride about this matter (or about anything in my life, for all that); as for the future pronouncements… we’ll see. God bless you and yours, and I do hope your headache is a mere distant memory!
Abortion is a tool for oppressing women, or at least can be used as such. Too bad the modern mainstream feminists can’t see that. Or maybe they’re just willfully blind about it.
Willfully blind, Sweet Marmot, because they can make the sword cut both ways. Sometimes, as in the case of sex-selective abortions, they use the sword to cut off their nose in order to spite their face.