38 Comments

• eiriamach | Dec 14, 2012, 11:17 PM EST

  It's not "tangential," Gearoid4. The Creed must be theologically correct and must include the essentials of faith. If Jesus existed with the Father before creation of the world and became incarnate at a specific point in history, the incarnation would be contingently gendered, but by no means essentially gendered, for as divine spirit--essentially-- Jesus has no use for sexuality. Only polytheists insist that gods are gendered. Or to put it another way (Genesis), God has all genders, since "male and female 'he' created them" and "in the image of God" he created both, not just Adam. Gender words ("Father," "Son," "begotten") are no more than metaphors when we speak of God; they falsify the phenomena for the sake of our limited human understanding. So I find a theologically naive blasphemy in this new "argument," that a priest is some kind of "icon" and that male gender is of the essence of Jesus. And your insistence that my ideas are "woman VERSUS man" suggests to me that you cannot get past a medieval male-female-dichotomy. But what "female" means has changed profoundly over the centuries, and perhaps "male" needs to change more for men to realize that a trait as malleable as gender does not divide humanity (anthropos) into two distinct essences.

• Gearoid4 | Dec 12, 2012, 01:11 AM EST

  @Seano, Perhaps I should not have used the "funny" cigarette remark in relation to the comment of a previous poster but the crass stupidity of it made him react so.

• Gearoid4 | Dec 12, 2012, 01:08 AM EST

  The priest is an "Alter Christus" and thus stands as an iconic representative of the Lord and his male gender is intrinsic to this. This is not a simple woman v man argument which is futile anyway in relation to this discussion. It represents a healthy differentiation of the roles that men and women play in the Church. The priest essentially offers himself in the way that a good shepherd takes care of his sheep or the head of a household looks after his family. I am familiar with the Greek word used in the Nicene and other Creeds that are recited during Sunday worship which depicts all of mankind, but this is tangential to the subject of the question of the admission of women to the Catholic priesthood.

• Gearoid4 | Dec 12, 2012, 01:06 AM EST

  @Eiriamach, The Gnostic sect followed heretical beliefs which have been roundly rejected by traditional Christians. These beliefs included dualism(which separated the soul from the body) and the creation of the material earth to the devil and thus the rejection of the sacramental system because of it's use of such material substances as oil and water. So the Gnostics are hardly a sound source to find historical proof of the admission of women to the priesthood.

• casualMBA | Dec 10, 2012, 08:41 PM EST

  Fr. Brennan is to be thanked for his years of devoted service in Latin America. His work has surely enriched many lives, and all trust, eventually (he is in no hurry,) he will realize his just rewards. Nevertheless, Fr. Brennan is not to be used by every flaming queen or anarchist who feels like going “in drag” to a RC Church – with or without neon and tinsel – as a devout Catholic, pandering “equality” and shrieking, along with their rabid “sisters,” that all straight men (Catholic or otherwise for that matter) are misogynists. (Patrick, try re-reading your headline until you are embarrassed)

• eiriamach | Dec 10, 2012, 07:17 PM EST

  There's an odd self-contradiction in Gearoid4 complaining, on the one hand, that I see this issue in terms of "men vs women" and his insisting, on the other hand, that Jesus' maleness was absolutely essential to his priestly role. When you take an essentialist view of maleness in a role such as priest, objections will focus on your exaggeration of the importance of gender. Gender is not of the essence of "priest" or of Jesus as redeemer. The Nicene Creed, which emerged early in Church history, does not support a gender-imprinting argument for restricting the priesthood to men. Neither in Latin ("et homo factus est") nor in ancient Greek is the relevant word translatable as "a male" or "a man." In both ancient languages, the word is genuinely gender neutral, with "vir," "femina," "ander," and "gynos" (not used in the Creed) designating male and female. In the Creed, the clause translates accurately "and became fully human" (Incarnation doctrine). Gearoid4 should study the Creeds in one of the early Church's languages to break the spell of the sexist sediment in his English version.

• eiriamach | Dec 10, 2012, 06:46 PM EST

  When the early church organizers drove out the Gnostics, one unfortunate consequence was the loss of the Gnostics' social organization, along with their largely flawed theology about Christ's divinity. Some Gnostic groups came closest to the imitation of Christ in organizing their congregations. In some groups, women as well as men were Eucharistic ministers, and priestly roles alternated among members. Seanomelb is certainly right that their gatherings were not about control but about following Jesus' example and teaching as far as humanly possible. laine Pagels, in 'The Gnostic Gospels,' explains their writings and their Christian practices; others have written on this era as well. Reform can go wildly astray when it fixates on one era of the institution's history, the Medieval, for example, and ignores conflicts and losses of earlier eras. (I'd be interested in seeing ANY evidence that the papyrus fragment was forged since scientific testing has yielded no evidence of forgery. I suspect that the "reasoning" that leads to calling it a forgery begins "Jesus would never have married or allowed women among his disciples," in other words to a closed mind nothing counts as evidence.

• seanomelb | Dec 10, 2012, 05:55 PM EST

  Gearoid4's reply to eiriamach is demeaned by his last sentence."keep smoking those "funny" cigarettes you're on" Graoid is a "keeper" of the church in the middle ages and he will be overtaken by changes which have to happen if the Church is to survive.You are right about the gnostic texts been rejected,but your reasoning is flawed.Gnosticism was not about controlling peoples everyday lives but tending to their spiritual being. Quite the opposite to the Church which was interested in power and creating a subservient population.

• ellenfromcork | Dec 10, 2012, 05:31 PM EST

  Jesus also chose Aramaic speaking,married men w/ children. Tax collectors and fishermen. Don't see many of those in the church hierarchy today.

• Janie | Dec 10, 2012, 05:03 PM EST

  Good job! No women priests!

• Gearoid4 | Dec 10, 2012, 01:41 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, Jesus was certainly close to some women who were the first to witness the empty tomb, but He chose 12 men as his closest apostles. This did not result from any social convention or custom but was a deliberate act on His part which has been passed down through Holy Orders in the Church ever since. Even the "best" evidence that those who want women to be ordained to the Catholic priesthood can muster is rather scant and does not even suggest that women were admitted to Holy Orders. There are references to "deaconesses" in the early Church, but experts on this period of ecclesiastical history do not give any credence to the belief that these positions had any priestly functions and thus they were not clerical. The papyrus which you make reference has been classified by some scholars as an interesting but obvious forgery made to look like an authentic Coptic biblical text of the 3rd-4th centuries and similar to Gnostic texts of the period which were ultimately rejected for good reason by the Church. You treat this whole question of the admittance of women to the Catholic priesthood as one of men v women in an anti-men screed. It is nothing of the sort and defies the sort of gender and sociological political slant which you give to it. This is theological and has been recognized as such by both the Western and Eastern wings of the Church universal for 2000 years. StevieJoe's contribution really does hit a real "high" in terms of intellectual development. Keep smoking those "funny" cigarettes that you're on.

• eiriamach | Dec 10, 2012, 09:25 AM EST

  In taking this action against an elderly priest, the Vatican is trying to protect two interests: 1) the Anglican Ordinariates, ultra-conservative Anglican and Episcopal priests and their few followers who crossed the Tiber on the pope's implicit promise that they would never be subject to women bishops in the Roman Church, and 2) the celibacy and male-exclusivity of the Roman priesthood, which is increasingly under challenge by historical research. The papyrus fragment recently in the news, in which Jesus refers to his "wife," quotes Jesus as saying "she will be able to be my disciple." The Vatican peremptorily rejected it as a "forgery" even though experts have found no evidence of forgery. Why? Because it threatens papal teaching that priests must be celibate (allegedly because Jesus was celibate), and that women must not be priests (because Jesus and, allegedly again, all the apostles were male).

• eiriamach | Dec 10, 2012, 08:42 AM EST

  Gearoid4, many scholars, including Catholic priests, have researched the roles of women in the early churches. Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide posts often on this issue, for example: Nowhere ... did Jesus of the New Testament ignore nor forbid women to minister --to him or to others. Nowhere is misogynism or gynephobia expressed or implied. In the early communities that followed the teachings of Jesus, there were women priests and bishops. We find in historical papers as late as the sixteenth century references to women bishops in Spain. Even in the letter of John we read "Salute the Electress" (Electress was another name for a woman who was declared a bishop). Christianity has lost all meaning and all value as Cardinal Martini of Milan noted, as the RC Church is more than 200 years behind the times when men dominated everywhere. Even in the Letters ascribed to Paul, there is a reference 'there is neither male nor female in the kingdom of God' but that kingdom was not only a reference to an afterlife but the word itself refers to a community of believers 'where two or three are gathered'... Only an ignorant fool would attend any church that did not have women as equal workers in the field.'"

• StevieJoe | Dec 10, 2012, 12:01 AM EST

  Duh, anyone surprised? the richest corporation in the world,according to Forbes, the roman Catholic church, comprised of 75% homosexuals, and 25% pedophiles, does not want women as priests? Get real.

• rose528 | Dec 09, 2012, 10:22 PM EST

  This is not just a world of and for men. In fact men are less intelligent and capable of doing 2 or 3 jobs at one time. Get over it you old white men, you're antiquated over the hill.

• Gearoid4 | Dec 09, 2012, 08:55 PM EST

  @Eiriamach, The "churches" which came out of the reformation and accepted the necessity for women "priests" are in free-fall across Europe and the US. One has only to check out the fortunes of the lutherans, anglicans etc. The gnostic books which you quote have been unanimously rejected by the Church universal(Catholic and Orthodox) as they are not in the mainstream of Christian thought and form rather an anomalous contribution to the history of Christianity. The Catholic priesthood is based solidly on the personhood of Christ, Whose own bodily sacrifice was the ultimate price to be paid for the ending of all previous sacrifices and the ransom for humankind in terms of overcoming death and sin. As I have stated before, the fact that Jesus is male was not accidental to the future decision of the Catholic Church to select only men for the priesthood. It is also based on the Judaic priesthood who performed sacrifices in the "Holy of Holies" sanctuary in the temple in Jerusalem in ancient times as well as the biblical imperative that men acted as head of their households.

• misneac | Dec 09, 2012, 07:42 PM EST

  I challenge Robbiepdunn to make su such serious allegations against any other religion ,and not expect reprisals !He is the usual uneducated bigoted clown !

• Robbiepdunn | Dec 09, 2012, 07:08 PM EST

  Why would women want to be part of a church which discrimates against them anyway. The catholic chuch is just a haven for child abusers anyway go and start your own church

• mairint | Dec 09, 2012, 06:06 PM EST

  Fr. Brennan has gone off the trail. He is 92 and "Janice" is just using him. They will both fade away as usual when IC gets tired of making them 'news'.

• seanomelb | Dec 09, 2012, 04:45 PM EST

  There is no proof that women were or wrer not at the last supper, the "dogma" that women were not present is a presumption and only that. The Catholic church treated women as "chattels" and subservient to male domination they (the church) has only given "partial" recogonition to women. In typical fashion Geraoid reads his flawed bible in a dogmatic fashion and in doing so consigns the catholic church to the middle ages and that's where the extreme right wing pope and his minions want the church to be. Porick starting a new church is a simple reply to a complex argument.

• anglo-norman | Dec 09, 2012, 04:39 PM EST

  More catholic church crap...

• Porickseantuny | Dec 09, 2012, 03:37 PM EST

  It's simple make like Martin Luther and start your own church. What's the matter? Can't get any members?

• ToryTory | Dec 09, 2012, 03:02 PM EST

  Anti-religious bigots and the usual drone of 'get with the times'. This is the call of the idiotic mob.

• eiriamach | Dec 09, 2012, 02:51 PM EST

  It's always so delightful to see Gearoid4 writing of women in the priesthood as "sociological fad"! I suppose the Reformation was also a "sociological fad" that will soon fade from memory? Female priests are no fad in my church but an established tradition, or rather a restoration of original tradition. Has Christianity really had 2,000 years of male-only priests? Not at all, though males-only chose the canon of Gospels, while ancient Christian texts that we now call "gnostic" or non-canonical testify to women among the disciples, as teachers of the apostles, ministers of the word and the Eucharist. The "tradition" was not male-only before Vaticanization. As for "the order of Melchizedek, which had an ancient lineage in the Judaic priesthood," how do you explain the fact that women have been rabbis for decades! Once you exclude some on the basis of gender alone, you cannot expect anyone to believe that you consider the genders equal. I wonder what Jesus would say about your making his male genitalia the essence of his priesthood.

• mayoman | Dec 09, 2012, 02:29 PM EST

  God bless Father Brennan. He did what he knew in his mind and soull was right.

• oldboreen | Dec 09, 2012, 02:26 PM EST

  Erudite comments? Perhaps. But the bottom line is simple-there are no Roman Catholic women 'priests' period!

• Siobhan39 | Dec 09, 2012, 02:22 PM EST

  The argument that Jesus chose men for the priesthood/apostles falls apart when you realize that Jesus chose ONLY JEWS. Shouldn't all priests be JEWS.

• Nicomax | Dec 09, 2012, 02:00 PM EST

  Maybe Jesus chose only men because he was, shall we say, more comfortable around them then women. But then again, once we learned about some ancient scrolls that suggested jesus may actually have had a wife, we can begin to think having women as priest now is not such a big deal.

• handsome68 | Dec 09, 2012, 01:55 PM EST

  I'll try to make it simple, although I know that many of youse liberal omadhauns won't get it whatever I say or do. Say you are in the military, and you are a new soldier, a private. Your sergeant tells you to do something. If you don't do it, you are penalized for not following orders.

• Mary Jo | Dec 09, 2012, 01:50 PM EST

  Hey Kubs, That itinerant Judean Rebbe did whatever he wanted; he was, after all, God. HE did not choose women to be among the twelve disciples. God himself chose a woman, Mary, to be held above every other human being. Not the RC CHURCH, God. Women were given a different role--one that they abdicated because they became jealous of men.

• kubs | Dec 09, 2012, 12:58 PM EST

  RC Church: Get embracing, get spiritual, GET REAL. That itinerant Judean rebbe who claimed equality with collaborators, sellers of sex, women of need, & kicked ass of the Establishment would have a field day with you in the Vatican. Hope he comes back soon --in your face. This is from a faith-filled & outraged believer in Him, am still within the RC fold. Keep it up, & you'll lose thousands. Soon there will only be thee & me, & you'll have doubts about me. PS. Your position is NOT grounded in history. Issues like these have evolved & have been synthesized in various ways over the 2 millennia. Your only real spiritual task is to decide whether to be Jesus-like inclusive of this world's seekers, or to continue your Ol' Boys Private country club : NO ____, ____,______, ____, or _____ ALLOWED. (Fill in your own blanks.) Incidently, the reason priesthood was male-oriented from Melchizedek thru the 2nd Temple period & beyond is that men did not allow slaves,lepers, women, & other "undesireables into their club. Please don't throw around God's name in this. It was the Establishment who wrote these histories. Anything contradictory was quickly excluded. 'Nuff said.

• Gearoid4 | Dec 09, 2012, 12:14 PM EST

  The Catholic priesthood is pre-figured on the Personhood of Jesus Christ, who was and still is the ultimate High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, which had an ancient lineage in the Judaic priesthood. The masculine gender of Jesus is more than accidental as it is central to the criteria for the priesthood, which does not in essence make men superior or inferior to women. Both men and women have different roles which are complementary but different to each-other within the Church. Christ only chose men in relation to the first generation of his closest apostles and He was not acting out of respect to any sociological fad or tradition. This has been the common practice in the Church universal, both in the West and East for well nigh on 2000 years.

• CitizenWhy | Dec 09, 2012, 11:58 AM EST

  Catholics need a Biblical, theological and rational reason fro the ordination of women to the priesthood. the rational is easy, we now know that women and men are equal as human beings, with no hierarchy that automatically puts men above women. Even the Catholic church sort of accepts this. ... Biblically, Genesis 1, the poem presenting God's vision for humanity and nature as being in tune with God, states that the image of God is found in male and female, not in one or the other. using the catholic notion of condignity, employed in proclaiming the doctrine of the Immaculate Cnception, it would be in accord with the dignity of women as created equal to men that they be enabled to live fully as Christians, including taking Holy Orders. ... One "biblical" argument against the ordination of women focuses on the lack of women at the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. But actually the institution of the Eucharist can be viewed as starting with the Last Supper, continuing through the Crucifixion Resurrection and completed at Pentecost. Women were present at the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and Pentecost.

• TobyMaguire | Dec 09, 2012, 11:48 AM EST

  It's about time the Church imposed sanctions against wayward acolytes. Father Brennan isn't the only Jesuit who needs his head handed to him; most of them in America do. The Jesuit provinces, especially the colleges and universities have no Catholic resemblance.

• The Commentator | Dec 09, 2012, 09:53 AM EST

  I'm beginning to think the Catholic Church hierarchy are Republicans. They are living in the past, can't get a grip on reality and wish to maintain their privileged status. The laws of the laws of the land have changed and it is only the Taliban and the Catholic Church that seem to maintain the attitude that women are chattel and inferior and not entitled to participate equally. The stories that are the basis for many religions were written by men who ruled by physical force and lived a life where women were subservient and children were to be seen and not heard. WHEN WILL THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECOME MORE CHRISTIAN AND TREAT ALL PEOPLE AS EQUALS. THIS IS NOT THE DARK AGES !!! Cut off all monies to the Catholic Church and once the money gods at the Vatican realize their privileged way of life is threatened they may reinterpret the scriptures and suddenly realize the previous translation was flawed. Heaven forbid they would ever admit the men of the church have written policies that are specifically designed to maintain their control and has nothing to do with Christian values.

• Portia777 | Dec 09, 2012, 09:28 AM EST

  the Society said: “The Province did not approve or sanction the event, and regrets Father Brennan’s participation in it." Typical CULT behaviour.so he is a bad black sheep for associating with wombmen- oh dear...not looking good boys.

• Portia777 | Dec 09, 2012, 09:26 AM EST

  Well, this is simple- he is a free sovereign human being with a free will? Law of the Universe overrides any man in a dress "law".

• OFiannai | Dec 09, 2012, 09:09 AM EST

  This reminds me of an old song called Brennan on the moor - so in this case Hooray for old Brennan on the Moor!!