This may eventually change. I do know women already play a major role in our Church. Mother Theresa of Calcutta comes to mind right away. So does the favorite target of Catholic bashing fundamentalists, Mary the Mother of Jesus. Most of the church functions I have been to other than the Mass were primarily organized by women. Women already do some of the Bible readings and usually lead the singing. We have women ushers. We have female lay ministers. Would I support it? Sure. Given the importance of women in the Church and in theology I think it is inevitable anyway. But I also see no reason to protest for that , especially because women are already obviously important in our Church.
2007-02-17 04:56:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Paul was actually contradictory on the question of women in the position of church leadership. He commissioned Phoebe as a deacon in the church to minister to the Romans and help him raise money for the church in Jerusalem (at the time, there were only two church offices--deacon and bishop).
So if Paul deemed woman good enough to carry out such an important position, why shouldn't women today be allowed similar responsibility?
2007-02-19 16:11:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
John Paul II wrote an "Encyclical" about women and vocations. Within this article, it is clear that a woman will not be a priest as he used his "Infallibility" authority in this writing. I agree with it totally. I crashed into an RCIA class talking about this "Encyclical". The speaker, a holy woman, was visibly struggling with it, but sharing the truth. I really admire this woman, and could see that she longed for the opportunity to be a Priest. "God's will be done" --- not ours & "When God closes one door, he opens a window".
During the memorial service for Pope John Paul II, I remember an amputee who was an amazing musician. This gentleman too wanted to be a Priest, but the Pope disallowed him this because of his disability. This musician found that open window; his music. This allowed him to visit prisons, the sick, and other priestly deeds. He said, "I was able to carry out God's plan without being a Priest, as it was God's doing".
Sexuality is not just something biological but concerns the “innermost being of the human person. “
To the extent that our understanding of sexuality is skewed, so is our understanding of ourselves. Think how intertwined sex is with the mystery of life. Without sex there would be no life.
The deepest truth about sexuality actually reveals the deepest truth about life. It’s this: we are called through the gift of God’s grace to share in God’s life by loving as he loves - and this call is stamped into our very bodies as male and female; it’s stamped into our sexuality. Paraphrasing John Paul II: rediscovery of the nuptial meaning of the body always means rediscovery of the meaning of the whole of existence, the meaning of life. That’s why it’s such an urgent matter.
2007-02-17 12:56:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Giggly Giraffe 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is repulsive that women who want to are not allowed to be priests.
Love and blessings Don
2007-02-17 12:49:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
uhh no since it's unbiblical and alot of women have tried to do this now most are called heretics..
2007-02-17 12:49:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the vatican could definitely use a women's touch....
2007-02-17 12:48:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
She is an instument of the devil , probably.
2007-02-17 12:56:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋