It reminds me of the Psalm: “The stone the builders rejected, will become the cornerstone.” Janine was a “cornerstone” to our parish — a true minister in every way. The Church shrouds itself in shame, while we bury one of its saints in a Methodist church….

Because He never ordained them. He was cool with women but refused to ordain them…we can do the same. In fact, we must, because we can’t introduce anything that He and the Apostles didn’t make. Jesus built His Church’s leaders out of priests, not out of priestesses. He ordained only priests, not any priestesses. We cannot change the norm He established.

Cimorene said…
“I think that if they let priests marry, they’ll probably let women be priests at the same time. Since those are the two most significant changes to the doctrine about priests, then if they ever get to the point of changing one, they’ll just end up changing both”

Actually, celibacy is not a doctrine but just a common practice, and married priests have been more and less common at various parts in Church history. Besides the Anglican-convert-married-priests, there are countries where married priests are as allowable as single priests. As far as I know, it’s up to individual bishops to decide whether their priests can be married.

As to ordaining priestesses, however, that is dogmatically rejected on several grounds. You can read more about that in the document “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” by Pope John Paul II, which you can find by a simple Google search.

I personally am done with the roman catholic church. I can’t find it in my heart to stand with a group that hides and shelters sick abuse, or discriminates againts genders and peoples or murders in the name of a god. That’s just how I see it. I still believe what I believe but I don’t believe in the “institution”.

Other than that, I think; who are we to judge? If your trying to spread the respect and goodness of the weak, sick, and hurting who cares what gender you are?

Didn’t it seem like a really good choice on paper, from the inside, from a political pov? hardliner, experience with Muslims, leader from Africa, history-making, following another history maker. From inside the church homophobia is hardly a disadvantage.

Yet they did not go that route. Let’s speculate about why.

When I think about who in the Church has given the most human comfort to my family, it is usually deacons. Who can be married, and in my experience are thus more acquainted with the pains of most people’s familial and sexual existences. Most priests are just too fucking weird in one way or another to be of real comfort, even though I occasionally like or trust one personally.

I mean, I have no problem with there being voluntary celibate orders or religious practices. Maybe the priesthood should just shrink to being a small religious order and the laity, like deacons, can gradually take over more and more roles. I feel like they could and would let women be deacons. This has been a secret fantasy I’ve been nursing for a while. The biggest thing (in my fantasy) to accelerate this change is the priest shortage. Some parishes that don’t have access to a priest are forced and allowed by church law to allow lay people to assume priestly functions. I read an article about it a couple of years ago and will try to find it. Anyway realistically I think advocating for a diminished role for priests and an increased role for the laity, including the married and the wimminz, is the most pragmatic route to reform.