Comments on: Are We Gender Sensitive? http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/02/01/are-we-gender-sensitive/ Now This Is The Real World! Where Theology and Real Life Meet. Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:17:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: David http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/02/01/are-we-gender-sensitive/comment-page-1/#comment-730 David Fri, 03 Feb 2006 01:55:38 +0000 http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/02/01/are-we-gender-sensitive/#comment-730 Caroline, Neither women nor married men (with only a handful of exceptions) can be ordained as priests. As a married man, I am no less part of the Church because I cannot be a priest. I am afraid that the analogy with Plessy is not a valid one for in the secular case we had unjust discrimination which harmed society and individuals because it deprived individuals of their rights. There is no right to the priesthood; it is a Sacrament of Service. No one is condemned to be less holy because they were not called to the priesthood. That, after all, is the vocation of every Christian. In fact, men who are biological fathers (or at least have a particular family) cannot adequately image the Father of the universal family; the Church. Women cannot be spiritual fathers, nor should they want to be. This would diminish them and be an insult to their particular genius--their femininity. I would encourage you to read JPTG's On the Dignity and Vocation of Women. You are anything but inferior in the Church. Caroline,

Neither women nor married men (with only a handful of exceptions) can be ordained as priests. As a married man, I am no less part of the Church because I cannot be a priest.

I am afraid that the analogy with Plessy is not a valid one for in the secular case we had unjust discrimination which harmed society and individuals because it deprived individuals of their rights. There is no right to the priesthood; it is a Sacrament of Service. No one is condemned to be less holy because they were not called to the priesthood. That, after all, is the vocation of every Christian.

In fact, men who are biological fathers (or at least have a particular family) cannot adequately image the Father of the universal family; the Church. Women cannot be spiritual fathers, nor should they want to be. This would diminish them and be an insult to their particular genius–their femininity.

I would encourage you to read JPTG’s On the Dignity and Vocation of Women. You are anything but inferior in the Church.

]]> By: mrsdarwin http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/02/01/are-we-gender-sensitive/comment-page-1/#comment-729 mrsdarwin Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:51:26 +0000 http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/02/01/are-we-gender-sensitive/#comment-729 I'd be glad to see India's religious, who are enterprising enough to put together a conference on gender equality, address the plight of India's lower-caste women, the Dalits, who are indeed treated as the lowest of the low. Maybe it all depends on what your definition of "equality" is. I’d be glad to see India’s religious, who are enterprising enough to put together a conference on gender equality, address the plight of India’s lower-caste women, the Dalits, who are indeed treated as the lowest of the low.

Maybe it all depends on what your definition of “equality” is.

]]> By: caroline http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/02/01/are-we-gender-sensitive/comment-page-1/#comment-728 caroline Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:22:32 +0000 http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2006/02/01/are-we-gender-sensitive/#comment-728 In the U.S. the "separate but equal" decision of Plessy vs. Ferguson in the 1890's was overturned by Brown vs. Topeka in the 1950"s. Separate was at last recognized as essentially unequal. In civil society by 1954 they just couldn't play with the words anymore. They couldn't convince people that they could be both separate and equal at the same time.The concept of separate but equal had become laughable. I believe that in the Church we have been making the same mistake in telling women that they are separate but equal. No matter how it is argued, that argument doesn't wash. I see only two solutions: declare women equal--including equally candidates for the priesthood with men--or declare them to be how indeed they have always been treated--inferior, not equal to men. As a woman I accept my inferiority in the Church. What I resent are the word games and the endless spins that tell me I am separate but equal. Are the clergy just so ashamned to admit what they believe to be the truth? In the U.S. the “separate but equal” decision of Plessy vs. Ferguson in the 1890′s was overturned by Brown vs. Topeka in the 1950″s. Separate was at last recognized as essentially unequal. In civil society by 1954 they just couldn’t play with the words anymore. They couldn’t convince people that they could be both separate and equal at the same time.The concept of separate but equal had become laughable. I believe that in the Church we have been making the same mistake in telling women that they are separate but equal. No matter how it is argued, that argument doesn’t wash. I see only two solutions: declare women equal–including equally candidates for the priesthood with men–or declare them to be how indeed they have always been treated–inferior, not equal to men. As a woman I accept my inferiority in the Church. What I resent are the word games and the endless spins that tell me I am separate but equal. Are the clergy just so ashamned to admit what they believe to be the truth?

]]>