board77

Impenitent wrote:

There's a school of thought that the chatter in the women's section is a form of subconscious protest in response to being locked out of all the most meaningful bits of worship.

In response to Tolkienpurist's view of things, I will say that I was never bothered by the "noise" that exists in an Orthodox serivce - children crying, women (and often men wispering), the cracking of the wooden chairs, the counting of the coins from the collection box towards the end of the service. I find them a pleasant and welcoming sound, a sign of humanity, humility and joy. It gives the service no false pretentions.
I never see this as hindering my prayer because I do not pray in a private, individual way when I go to church. Attending the service IS the communication with the divine - I do not feel that I need extra prayer at that time.
However, if someone is looking for a deeper experience, then all one has to do is attend a service in one of the monasteries.

IdylleSeethes - Thanks for providing the historical framework of the discussion. But I continue to be confused - what is the Holy Day that you mention?
I am afraid that I know next to nothing about the Catholic or Protestant Churches.
Regarding the Immaculate conception of Mary herself, I seem to recall from Sunday school, that Mary had both a mother and a father. So, I don't know if that is believed in these parts of the world.

Ive been itching to post here for days but been veeery busy. Finally stealing a bit of time...
This whole discussion rings close to my heart.

I grew up liberal Roman Catholic in Poland...our brand of Catholicism features an extremely strong Marian cult...many churches in Poland feature a huge, central Mary painting behind or above the altar, with the crucified Jesus somewhere off to the side. Each large church at least has one large frontal side section devoted to Mary...that section is always crowded with the greatest number of arduous, kneeling supplicants.
The late Pope John Paul II's motto "Totus Tuus" - all yours, was directed to Mary...A Polish King many centuries ago officially (canonically) made Mary "Queen of Poland" after it is believed she saved our country during a Swedish invasion...She is often called upon by this title in Polish Catholic liturgy. Her place as "Theotokos, Dei Genetrix" or God-bringer/birther/mother (in looser translations) goes deep in our culture. 95% of Catholic Poles caught in a suddenly distressing moment will first utter a prayer to Mary.

When I was tiny, from the moment I came home from the hospital in fact, I had this pretty blue-toned picture of Mary and a little boy Jesus above my bed (I still have it.. and have put it above my bed recently). I really liked that picture. As I was taught first childhood prayers and devotions, and "talking to God", this is who I prayed to, like many other Polish children and adults... One of my earliest memories is going to church on Easter when I was about 4 years old...and being slightly confused during the homily when the priest was motioning to the crucified Jesus as he spoke the words "God"...I looked at my mother confused and asked if that person on the cross was God...my mom thought about it and said yes, but he is also a man...I looked at her with confusion and said that I thought the lady in blue above my bed was God...

I guess that natural conviction never went away for me.
For over 7 years now I consider myself Pagan...I retained some Catholic traditions, and I have some Eastern philosophy leanings that I discovered in the course of my "seeking" , Im also interested in Judeo-Christian gnosticism and mysticism, but overall what makes me feel most at home in Paganism is the unwavering focus on the feminine Divine. I first espoused Wicca in its more feminist, Dianic form that focuses SOLELY on a Goddess... but Ive come to a balance now where I appreciate the wholistic , dualistic Pagan notion of Goddess and God.
My biggest beef with the Catholic church is this strange logical flaw that I see as hypocrisy...Mary being a prominent figure in the brand of Catholicism I grew up in, but women being shunned from the pastoral role within the church...I think the Catholic Church is one of the few huge organizations that is STILL blatantly a non-equal-opportunity employer...and all this while boasting that equality is central to the religion... All this is for another thread, but the exclusion of females from important spiritual occupations hurts me deeply. Biggest reason for my leaving the church.

Mary is an emmanation of the Goddess I feel very close to since early years and that does not change. I love drawing on the great variety of female divinities from various pantheons and mythologies...this jibes with my psychological/jungian fascinations of archetypes and the collective unconscious. In an "ultimate reality" I believe there is one whole, composed of a yin and a yang, a feminine and masculine, a Goddess and a God. The many Gods and Goddesses of different cultures are emmanations and aspects of the great two... more easily understandable and functional for humans... yet having endured for ages I consider each individual deity a somewhat self sufficient thought form as well. Each man reflects God, each woman reflects Goddess, and each carry bits of the other within themselves (ah, the Jungian anima and animus!)...Im a very spiritual being and I feel that spirituality being strongly tied to my sexuality and gendered-ness. I am priestess.

I love the dualistic gendered approach, and the associated sanctity of the union as the driving force of the universe. All makes lots and lots of sense to me spiritually.

EDIT:Andri... I attempted to explain the immaculate conception of Mary but got awkward in my eloquence 'Tis late here... but here is a site that does a much clearer job than I could - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

...and yes... I am queen of edits...one day I will hold the record... for number of times one can edit a thread...

Ench, I don't think there should always be equal employment for men and women, after all, we are very different. I dread the idea of female priests... But that's for another thread I guess.

My church has had female pastors since I was a teenager, thirty years now, and I can no longer imagine the church without them--from an emotional standpoint or from a practical one. I can no longer remember what it must have been like when all pastors were always men. (I'm a pastor's daughter.) Our church trains an intern pastor every year, and the joyous diversity of the interns in gender, race, nationality, and stage of life has enriched our congregation.

Thanks for the link, Ench.
It explained things well - I think that the Orthodox Church holds a similar belief about the Virgin.
To be honest, I don't see why this i.e. the immaculate conception of Mary should matter. But then again, I am not much of a believer in the original sin, either.

Enchantress wrote:

I think the Catholic Church is one of the few huge organizations that is STILL blatantly a non-equal-opportunity employer...and all this while boasting that equality is central to the religion

Don't worry, you are not alone. The Orthodox Church is right there beside you. But at least, we have a valid reason for this exlusion - having a beard is a MUST for a priest. What is your excuse?

Andri, Im the same way...the concept of Sin, original or not (especially original...babies sinful?:P ), has stopped making sense to me a long while ago...

Ro ...
Besides jobs that require strenuous/harsh physical efforts where statistically women fall biologically short, (though I dont think they should be institutionally excluded on any basis... since there is overlap, and there exist women that are physically stronger/more fit than some men.) I see unequal opportunity employment as disgusting.
To me, women always seemed a more natural choice in fact for pastoral/divine intercessing duty...
All I gotta say... and with the new stuff on tv now... is that I dont regret my decision to "get out" one bit
Why would you "dread" true equality in a religion that is supposedly based upon the principle...?
Very baffling...

Men and women are different... but I dont see jobs where "having female genitals or breasts, or the chromosomes XX" is a clearly discriminating factor...There is great overlap between male and female samples on most personality/cognitive variables...there are differing statistical tendencies...but overall its much more guided by individualism than genderedness. Even if 50% of women were utterly incapable for some proven reason to do some "traditionally male dominated work", it would still be a shame to institutionally deprive the other 50% who could do well in it of that chance.
Gendered occupation breakdown, beyond the physical labour case I mentioned, makes little psychological sense.

LOL Andri...yes... Catholicism doesnt even have a good excuse...

Prim, thats awesome...kudos to your denomination. I imagine it feels wonderful... Barring all other things that dont make sense to me in Catholicism now... I simply cant stick to a faith that makes me feel excluded based on WHO I am in such an important way.

It's not just about tits, Ench...I don't think female priests are true equality, I think they're the wrong gender in the wrong role. I think women and men are very very different, physically, emotionally, completely. Now, women have to be given equal opportunities and can't be forced to do something against their wishes, of course I feel that way. But I also believe that long long 'trend' of women bringing up children at home while men provide for them isn't accidental. It doesn't define us perfectly but it does say a lot.
Maybe it would help to explain my viewpoint if I said I'm 100% for celibate among priests. Priests who follow and stay true to their vocation are men of God, and they need to be completely at his bidding. Now of course a family does not empoverish a man's spirit, but serving God isn't something you do on the side...it's giving up your entire life, without compromise.
I think us women, and forgive me for the metaphors but I'm trying to say it how I feel it, I think we're like the pure Earth itself. We give birth and love and comfort, and our vocation is tending to this Life and making it better for everyone. This isn't a limitation, it's just our nature and what we're best suited for. Now, men, they're like civilisation- they build and seek and make the shelters that we keep warm. They are in a way both cursed and blessed, because they can detach from the care that absorbs us, and aspire to other things- but because of that they're as prone to seek evil as they are to seek good.

So women are tied to Earth, and men fly too free of it. Neither has it better, we just need each other to create a balance and good understanding of life and God.

These roles can of course mingle and sometimes they don't apply at all, but I believe that's what our roots and balance are. Just don't take them to extremes like so many people in the course of history did.

And I'm not trying to convince you that this is how it is. This is simply how I believe it is and I'm very happy with this understanding. I'm content, I feel like I see the pattern in a difficult puzzle that eludes many.

*waits for rotten vegetables*

heh... I dont even know where to begin, and my gut reaction isnt very civilized and not worth posting... so Im going to try and sublimate it into a coherent argument now...

Its no surprise to you, as we've talked about it before, that Im utterly confounded by this stance...especially in women. I cant help thinking that this line of thinking in women is very strange...and somehow...traitorous?
My psychological speculation would be that women who hold this view were precisely successfully indoctrinated by the centuries of patriarchal establishment...you're giving a voice to a tradition that is not based on anything that can be proven, and thus cant be considered "the right way to do things".
Your arguments on the fundamental differences, especially the way you seem to bind women to the body and men to the spirit seem bizarre to me. They surely hold no scientific merit...

What of nuns? Are they not celibate?
If anything, going with the prevalent (and of course not always true) stereotype of men being more sexual and having more partners than average women (statistical fact), is it not easier for a woman to live in celibacy?

Through the virtues traditionally associated with the feminine, such as intuition, kindness, ability to listen, compassion, it makes perfect sense to me that these are qualities Id much more admire in my spiritual leaders than errr... ambition and aggression. All this is very stereotypical of course, because there are plenty of aggressive women, and plenty of relaxed, submissive men. Im just attacking your stereotypical argument with equally general and unproven stereotypes as first ammunition

Genderedness is extremely influenced by environment...its very hard to tease apart what is learned and what is innate in research in humans, but the current consensus is that things are at least 50/50... Female and male children are socialized differently from the start of their lives, and thus the environment contaminates the "genetic" experiment in the natural laboratory of life.
Boys and girls are raised differently by parents because of the cultural millieu... even if this is done unwittingly...girls wear pink, boys wear blue idea...they are given different toys to play with...
Though the dominant sex hormones in women are estrogens and progestins, and in men, they are androgens, each sex possesses the other set of hormones as well. All men have some estrogens circulating in their system, and all women have some testosterone (its what contributes to sex drive for example, in both sexes).
In cognition there are virtually no marked differences. Overall IQ is the same. There used to be a trend saying men do better mathematically/spacially on the whole than women, and women do better verbally, but its just that, a trend, not a robust, infallible finding. No significant differences, taking into account the whole repertoire of performance within each sex (which shows more variation than between the two groups). Even this trend can be explained by an evolutionary influence of environment. Women staying home, foraging, raising kids found it adaptive to have superior communcation abilities...whereas in men who went hunting and navigating, good spatial skill was selected for and perpetuated by evolution.
There are differences in psychopathologies that women and men are most susceptible to...for example... much more women than men fall prey to affective disorders such as depression (estrogen might play a role)...whereas schizophrenia is statistically much more prevalent in males than females.
But on the whole... there is no cognitive or emotional argument that can be made to discriminate either sex, based on the evidence...and spirituality is something that goes far deeper, and isnt really scientifically understood or quantifiable yet...but it seems to me a genuine, universal HUMAN faculty, if there was ever one.
For anecdotal evidence, Im a much more spiritual person than many men I have met. Im pretty sure there are just as many atheist men as there are women. One sex's need or ability to be spiritual is really not different from the other's.

This desire and "role" to birth and raise children is not something that defines every woman...it really isnt...and I dont think its fair to generalize the way you feel about this to womanhood as a whole.
Humans are escaping the sheer biology of evolution...the rule that the more surviving progeny the better, and the more of your genes you spread, the more successful you are in evolutionary terms, has stopped defining our lives. People, both women and men, live for many different goals now.

"Life" to me entails spirituality as a huge part of it.... thus you saying women's duty is to tend to life and nurture it, is in my eyes an argument FOR women in the priesthood.
Im also pretty sure that both men and women are equally predisposed to seek evil/good... the potential is within each human being, regardless of sex.

So women are tied to Earth, and men fly too free of it. Neither has it better, we just need each other to create a balance and good understanding of life and God.

...The Earth mother and the Sky father? In symbolic terms I'd agree with you...but in my philosophical/spiritual outlook the Earth is just as if not more spiritual than the Sky.

I think the Catholic clergy is missing out bigtime on the gifts women could bring to the minsitry....its very, very sad...and not a very inclusive practise... how can a religion based on equality and love of all God's children be so ok with marginalizing 50% of the population? I for one feel hurt and excluded that those of my "sexual type" are barred from priesthood on the basis of sex. Its unbelievable and wrong to me...and part of the reason I couldnt stay in such a Church.

Your argument is something akin to arguing that black people arent meant to live in northern countries... they never have, their skin became dark as a result of an adaptation to hotter climes...its now part of their biology...but should we bar them from living in northern climates that have traditionally throughout history been inhabited by fair skinned, blonde haired people?
Its a bizarre idea, and to me it is an analogy, albeit a shallow and simplistic one, to what you are proposing...

The quality of the spirituality of men and women may be different (quality to mean type... not valuable vs. not valuable)...my own Pagan spirituality recognizes that...and I like and resonate with this... but not in terms of patronizing and exclusion, of superior over inferior. That just doesnt make sense. Spiritual leadership is an extremly natural thing for women, in my books...

EDIT: (because I thought of stuff in the shower)
The fact that women have some different moral and spiritual concerns as a function of their biology, in fact begs to be addressed by having a female representation in the clergy... While some priests are very good and intelligent men, I honestly think in would be brilliant to have female priests who have an experiential basis to relate on more things to women than male priests do... If a group is 50% pink people and 50% purple people, and one area of life, ie. spirituality is solely governed and adminstered to by the pink people with no basis for this in fact... the purple people get a bit of a rough deal....

I threw a (polite!) vegetable at you in your livejournal...

Thank you enchantress. Honestly, I have been choosing not to respond because I don't trust myself to remain civil.

Suppressing women or men, compartmentalizing them into little boxes based on their gender, is utterly unfair to both. Enforced gender roles have been the cause of so many problems for our society, and I am sorry that little boys and girls are still growing up indoctrinated in such a fashion.

I'm not generalising anyone. I'm just trying not to forget that men and women aren't different.

I'm sorry I can't offer a better discussion on this. I've never tried to convince anyone of my views, I just don't have the skill for it.

I just want women to be women, and men to be men. In all their wide spectrum of characters and individuals, but without discarding their natural differences in the name of equality. I hate seeing what I think are women's most beautiful qualities put down as 'limitations'.

(Ench :p my gut reaction to your views on abortion isn't very civilised either so I think we're square. )

But this is just how I feel and it certainly won't change the world. It's not really aggressive towards anyone or intolerant or anything like that...it just seems to be because society has been such a bitch for a long time....people always find a way to take advantage of nature to oppress someone. Doesn't make nature bad though.

Yah I know, I don't explain myself well.

Rodia wrote:

I'm not generalising anyone. I'm just trying not to forget that men and women aren't different.

I'm sorry I can't offer a better discussion on this. I've never tried to convince anyone of my views, I just don't have the skill for it.

I just want women to be women, and men to be men. In all their wide spectrum of characters and individuals, but without discarding their natural differences in the name of equality. I hate seeing what I think are women's most beautiful qualities put down as 'limitations'.

But the bottom line is, what does it mean for "women to be women" or the converse?

I don't want to have children. I have no nurturing instinct towards them, and actively dislike being around infants and young toddlers. Although I like to interact with older children, it's only for a specific period of time. I do not wear makeup and do not have long hair. I do not like to wear skirts or dresses. When I like to be "feminine", it's in ways that give me pleasure (I love wearing pink and purple, I love going to the spa, I love having the very occasional girly night, whatever) - not in the traditional "nurturing" sense. At this stage of my life, even though I'm not ready to label my sexuality, I am more attracted to women than men, and would be open to having a relationship (that would explicitly not involve procreation at any point) with either - just not at the same time!

I am not "transgender" in any sense. I was not born a man, and I do not conceive of myself as one of the male gender. I am very much female, and I like being female. Heck, I wouldn't even meet any definition of "butch". Yet, I am aggressive. I like to engage myself in every fight or debate out there. (hence, law school) I like to do outdoorsy things. I hope to run for public office at some point, even if only at the local level. I could keep going on.

In the past, I would have been told that I couldn't be an attorney or run for office because "men and women are inherently different" - a view, it seems, you want to continue with, Rodia. I would have been told I had to marry a men, whether or not my ultimate sexual orientation proves to include definite sexual attraction to men or not. I would have been pressured by society to bear children that I have no desire to bear. Throughout my life, I would have been forced to suppress a lot of who I am - all of which very much contributes to my identity as a young woman - because "men and women are different".

In my view, it is a dangerous concept that threatens to suppress much of both men's and women's individual natures, to force them to fit into a stereotypical group nature. And the reason why I had to take a couple of days to calm down before I wrote this is that I see red every time someone says that I - or any other woman - must have certain attributes, or must behave in a certain manner, or must hold or not hold certain positions in public life, because we are not suited to them as women. I would feel the same rage on behalf of any man who was told he shouldn't hold a stereotypically female position, even though he wanted to.

- TP

tolkienpurist wrote:

Genesis 1:27 wrote:

And Elohim created Adam in His Image, in the Image of God He created him; male and female He created them...

In Hebrew 101 you learn that -im is the ending for masculine plural nouns. Then you pick up Beresheet (Genesis) 1:1 and despite the plural grammar you're reminded that Judaism is monotheistic (or rather, it is now. )

Most scholars interpret this plural (and the "Let us create man in our image") as God addressing the divine council (in the history of religions this is, at first, the rest of the pantheon and later various lesser helpers and assistants. )

Both the Old and New Testaments have language and imagery that can support masculine and feminine images of the divine. But given that neither have gender-neutral grammer, they standard way of referring to God, people, or animals is as male.

-Kushana

Ughhh tp...that's not at all what I meant, but I can't explain myself. Sorry. Just trust me that my idea has nothing to do with forcing anyone into a stereotype. I just believe that this thing exists, and always has...Basically I don't think it was an evil man who invented this difference of the sexes to put women down. The difference was always there and I don't want it to fade because people associate it with those who used it to limit women.

But you know, it doesn't really matter. Again I have to recall a truth that pops up in my life quite regularly...that trying to put ANYTHING at all that concerns life down into writing and sense is an absurd attempt. Best not to think too much, and if we must, think quietly, because we all think differently anyway.

I feel okay with this, I wish I could explain it better. At least I'm a woman too..

But Ro - if we don't mean to force anyone into doing anything, then (a) what is the purpose of noting the distinction at all, given the large numbers of people who won't fit into it and (b) why your statement that women shouldn't be priests? I was extrapolating a lot from the latter - if women shouldn't be priests because they are inherently different than men, I was assuming you'd feel the same about other career and life roles.

No...I just feel that way about priests. Now THAT makes things completely ridiculous doesn't it...


I seriously can't be scientific about it, I'm sorry...

If women were allowed to enter the priesthood, no one would force you to have one as your spiritual counsellor or confessor. You could still go for things to a male priest if you preffer. I preffer female doctors, but I dont think men make worse doctors or shouldnt be allowed to pursue this life path.

Youre saying you just want women to be women and men to be men...but many women arent "typically women" in your definition, so this is a misguided hope and instead of sounding like a free thinking appeal for not denying natural heritage (whatever that is), it sounds like youre simply in denial of reality.

Im not saying all women should from now on be in a compulsory way forced into traditionally male positions, and none can be stay at home moms if they want to. That discriminatory... what you're saying is the same thing, just from the other side...that women should be excluded from priesthood to somehow protect their natural qualities? Even if those so called "gender based qualities" indeed somehow made a woman incapable of being a good priest(ess), I would argue against this stance because of individual personality and qualities being far more important than any characteristics that can be thought of as gender-common (and scientifically, there is no basis to think there are really such major qualities)... but when whats known as "traditionally female" qualities, of nurturing, and compassion, and gentleness in fact, in my eyes, RECOMMEND an individual for a priesthood profession, I fail to follow even more.

I don't look down on stay at home moms. I accept that this is what fulfills some people. There are also stay at home dads, who feel equally fulfilled and make great parents. Its an individual choice, not a gender one. I wish everyone would view all other vocations the same way.

The bottom line is that for me, individuality trumps gender, in all job-related cases...thus wanting to exclude one sex from ANY profession with no legitimate reason is to me an assault on the rights and freedoms of that sex.

Im all for different opinions, and try to not judge and let everyone coexist peacefully even in disagreement...but where a person's stance calls for hurting a group of people, with not even the mitigating circumstance of some benefit stemming from it, I have to speak up.

Women being barred from priesthood HURTS some of us. It makes us feel unwanted and excluded, and is not fair.

How would the alternative case of admitting women to the priesthood hurt anyone? Men would not be hurt by it, they would still be allowed to be in that profession...women who would not like to be priests would not be forced to be priests...and I really dont think that the public would be hurt by the sub-par spiritual care you seem to suggest women would provide.

Therefore, there would only be benefit - primarily allowing the women who would like to follow that life path the potential opportunity to follow their dream and vocation. It would also help the decreasing number of men joining the priesthood. In North America, more Catholic priests die than new ones come in following their vocation...it disconcerts the Church. Allowing the other half of humanity to have access to this field of work would benefit the church by simply increasing priest numbers, and by infusing the clergy with the wonderful things many women have to offer.

And all these things have been true for thirty years in the Lutheran church. It has strengthened the church and increased the numbers in the clergy.

Some parishes are served by married couples, both pastors.

Rodia wrote:

I dread the idea of female priests...

In a way it would be the most conservative thing to do, to take the religion back to the days of the Pauline house-churches:

When Women Were Priests by Karen J. Torjesen

-Kushana, "Hmn, there really is nothing new under the sun"

I was talking to a friend this weekend, an older woman who is a member of the clergy. We've been doing a book study of books written in the wake of The DaVinci Code, and we were talking about the spiritual questions and hungers that went into both the strong negative and positive reactions to the book, specifically the interest in Gnosticism and the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.*

In some ways, I do not think the Christian tradition has many resources for people interested in a greater role for women in religion, nor for a female apspect in their spirituality. One either has to be very creative (and earlier this year I attended a conference of conservative Christian women who were doing just that), very open minded, or arrive at the conclusion that another religion might better suit one's spiritual needs. (Although most religious traditions have their own issues around the role of women and female spiritual imagery... )

* For more information in a concise format, see:
The Gospels of Mary: The Secret Tradition of Mary Magdalene, the Companion of Jesus
by Marvin Meyer

-Kushana