Hi, all. I started thinking about this topic when I heard about an incident that happened to our nieces and nephews at their families' Christmas gathering. The kids had spent the day being creative, doing little skits and things for the family and keeping them amused. As the story goes, they eventually got bored with this and decided to play Mass. One of the little girls was the priest. My husband's father stopped the game, apparently not being comfortable with the idea of women priests. I found myself feeling really sad to hear of my father-in-law's response to the children's playing. I could be wrong, but I don't think that for them it was about women being priests. I imagine that, because Mass is so much a part of their lives, they wanted to relate to it and experience it more fully, and were using their game to do so. Had my father-in-law watched and listened to them, perhaps he could have learned more about their beliefs, and maybe could have engaged in a dialogue with them at some other time. But instead, he chose to stop the game and give them some kind of talk. I don't think it was about the game itself, since my husband and his brothers and sisters used to play Mass, with the oldest boy playing priest. It was just the idea of a girl priest. It's so hard for us as parents to know how to respond sometimes! I remember when my daughter was about two and had just heard the Christmas story for the first time. She decided she wanted to reenact it, with her room being the manger. She of course wanted to be Mary, and she decided that my husband would be Joseph, which left me as Jesus. I remember feeling unsure how to respond to this game. I was delighted that the story was important enough to her to want to make a game of it, but I didn't want it trivialized either. Still, I couldn't help bursting out laughing when "Joseph" came into the house and "Mary" ran to him exclaiming, "Joseph! Joseph! Jesus has been such a good girl today!" So what do you all think about this? Did you play church and Scripture games as kids? Do or did your kids play them? How did/do you respond?

Hi Peggy,

It's too bad your father-in-law stopped that game. How often do kids want to play at religious activities these days? And I do think kids know very well the difference between make-believe and reality. I used to play I was Superman, with a diaper for a cape and all, and had no illusions about really being able to "leap tall buildings with a single bound." We also used to play Tarzan, and sometimes I enjoyed playing I was a monkey, tucking a belt into my pants as a "tail" as we climbed trees and made all sorts of noises. You will realize, of course, that I was much younger when I did these things--in my early 30's or so.

It sounds like your father-in-law has some very STRONG feelings about women and priesthood. He might have actually helped the play factor along, however: you know how kids like to sneak in a forbidden thing sometimes. Perhaps they could play like they're celebrating Mass in an area where it's prohibited, and get a sense of what that's like? Not a suggestion to the kids, of course, but let's not be surprised if/when it happens.

Phil

Hi Peggy,

I remember playing "communion" when we were kids.
I grew up next door to a family of four girls, so
of course a girl had to be the priest. I seem to remember a certain wafer-like kind of candy that inspired this kind of play. In other words, whenver we got that kind of candy, we always played "communion." We always played it outdoors, though, and I doubt if any of the grown-ups paid much attention. I don't think it would have evoked a negative response in them, though.
However, I had an uncle (my dad's brother) who was a Catholic priest. I don't remember this, but my mom recalls that any time the subject of women priests came up, he would get real hot under the collar (no pun intended).

I also remember doing May crownings with the neighborhood kids. We had great times!!

Anne

So what do you all think about this? Did you play church and Scripture games as kids? Do or did your kids play them? How did/do you respond?

Peggy,

I, too, used to 'celebrate' Mass as a child.
I had a tiny plastic altar and, like Anne, I used
those little flying saucer shaped wafer candies as the host. There was certainly no disrespect for the Church involved in my play and my parents were delighted because I tried my best to learn the prayers of the Mass in order to make it as authentic as possible.

Only boys were permitted to be altar servers at that time so it was my way of personalizing and participating in the larger reality of the Mass.

I think your story says more about your father-in-
law than it does about the children. I, too, am sorry that he feels so apprehensive about women
playing the role of priests.

Perhaps, the play of your children is preparing them for the time when a reductionistic attitude based on one's physicality will no longer predominate in the Church and women will, indeed, be ordained.

I hope you encourage them in this sort of play and
offer them an explanation for your father-in-laws behavior.

Best wishes.

(q) Tee

what could possibly wrong with children "playing" they're celebrating mass? i used to play football by myself growing up--hike, run, throw, get tackled. i learned the players on many teams to make my games seem more real. maybe those kids would want to learn about the mass more by playing at it? maybe they'd even pay attention more when they attended?

as for a girl being a priest, there's little danger of this leading to life scars or overthrowing the catholic hierarchy. if it causes them to ask questions about why only men can be priests, then what's wrong with that? if the church really had a good answer to this question, it wouldn't be so threatening to some people.

happy new year to all. i've been away from this forum for some time and see that a lot of good things have been happening.

chris

Hi...ya'all.... am back from Idaho and have been having a jolly good time reading all of your thoughts..
The idea of women as priests is one I simply have to address though. Being Episcopalian we do recognize women as priests. Im fact, my priest just happens to be a woman. There was a time when I too had difficulty with this but the more I thought and experienced a woman in this position, the more I realized that she gave me another side of God so to speak. Before this my concept of God was almost wholly masculine and this was very limiting in many ways.
I know the Catholic church views the office of priest slightly differently than we do but I also have heard that there are some within the church that are pushing for the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Question - if I am not mistaken there were women who served as priests in the early church and it wasn't until the end of the first or the beginning of the second century that this was banned. I never really did learn the reasoning behind this move by the early church. Anyone care to enlighten me?
At any rate, I think it is wonderful when children play in this way. It is one of the ways they learn and shows an interest that should definitely not be discouraged.
Happy New Year all....
Peace,
Wanda

Question - if I am not mistaken there were women who served as priests in the early church and it wasn't until the end of the first or the beginning of the second century that this was banned. I never really did learn the reasoning behind this move by the early church. Anyone care to enlighten me.

I don't think there's evidence of women being Presbyters (predecessor of priests) in the early Church, Wanda. It seems that there were communities where women were appointed deacons, but this was largely a role of service and not a step unto ordination as it is in the Roman church today.

The issue of women and ordination in the Roman church is indeed a hot topic, but the Pope cooled it off 7 or 8 years ago by closing the discussion in official theological conferences and publications. People can still discuss the pros and cons, but he's made it clear that it just won't happen under his pontificate, and that he thinks it should never happen at all. Closing the discussion was also a way of stemming what was becoming a highly divisive issue; of course, closing things down was/is divisive as well.

There were many good reasons why women weren't ordained in the early Church, none the least of which were practical: it was a man's world, and men weren't about to accord spiritual/teaching authority to a woman. We catch glimpses of this in Paul's letters, wherein he instructs that women were to be silent during services, to wear a coverning on their heads, etc. No way Christianity could have moved forward in such a culture with women as leaders.

One of the strongest theological reasons for women not being ordained is that men more clearly represent the role of Christ as Bridegroom in relation to his Bride, the Church, in sacramental celebrations. The idea of a woman standing in persona Christi is a confused symbol, according to some. Those who object to this reasoning maintain that in persona Christi ought not be taken so literally in terms of gender--that "in Christ Jesus, there is no male nor female, no Greek nor Jew, no slave nor free," to quote St. Paul. Undoubtedly, there are other, non-theological reasons for prohibiting women's ordination more related to long-standing views about men and women's roles, celibacy, and some unexamined psychological dynamics as well, I'm sure.

Hope this helps.

Happy New Year to all of you.

Phil

"I don't think there's evidence of women being Presbyters (predecessor of priests) in the early Church, Wanda."

Here I would have to disagree with you, Phil. From what I have read, the titles of bishop, presbyter and deacon did not mean quite what they do today and in fact may have been used differently from one place to another in the very early church. According to Gonzalez in The Story of Christianity, Phillip had four daughters who preached, Phoebe was a deacon and Junias was counted among the apostles. He also notes that Pliny, in the early 2nd century made note of torturing two "women ministers". So it seems that perhaps there were at least some women in leadership positions in the early church. Also, considering the "postition" of women in those days, it seems to me to be highly probable that even should women have served in these positions, most would have done so in obscure places and little note made of their service. Let's face it, the early church was predominately male and the writings we have from that time are also from men. I am sure there were more "congregations" than we have record of.
In that society and that time, a woman in any type of leadership position must have been difficult for people to accept much less recognize as it still is for many today... even in the Episcopal church.
As I understand it the early church had little organizational structure and actually was a rather loose group of Jews who still thought of themselves as Jewish, worshipped in the Temple but also worshipped the Messiah. The earliest persecutions were Jew against Jew. The disciples spread the gospel but so did the merchants, and the shopkeepers and all of the others who heard the tale. The organizational structure of the church didn't truly develop until the time came when it was necessary to define the message - to counter teachings that were considered false especially gnosticism. The Pauline letters were at least in large part also directed to this end and they were directed to specific congregations/churches not to the church in general. Since men had the "power" in the society of that time, they also were the ones that provided the structure and definition. They also provided the words - did the writing and recording and they recorded what they felt was most important to remember.
In the end it is probably futile to try and compare the very beginning of the church with the church today. We have changed in some very fundamental ways as has the society in which we exist. Where once we were one we are now many. On the other hand, perhaps we were many, became one and then again divided into many - who knows.
What many do not acknowledge or maybe understand is the difficulty some women have with the paternalistic language of the Bible and hierarchy of the church. Some women who come from abusive family situations have a very difficult time turning to God the Father because their image of father is not a good one. Not all of us were blessed with wonderful fathers. Again the image of Christ as Bridegroom can bring up very negative images for some women for pretty much the same reason.
How many blacks see a white God? How many hispanics see an anglo-saxon God? My point is that God is beyond these categories we put Him in and by limiting Him to our own personal "pictures" we can make it difficult for others to claim him for themselves. "in Christ Jesus, there is no male nor female, no Greek nor Jew, no slave nor free," to quote St. Paul. Perhaps it is time for the churches to put more emphasis on "seeing" Christ in all others and less in seeing Christ as a white male european as we most often depict him. In making ourselves comfortable we make many others very uncomfortable. As a friend of mine noted, it can be very hard for a woman to relate to herself as created in the image of God when she is female and he is not and to pray to a Father when her image of a father is anything but loving. Tough questions, but they need to be addressed.
Phil, I am not saying that the Catholic church needs to begin ordaining women or should not do so. That is up to ya'all. I will say that it is one reason I personally could not embrace Catholicism. Not exactly because they do not ordain women but more because by not seeing Christ in a woman, for me at least, they limit God... they define him as masculine in image if not in word.
I also have a problem with those who are rewriting the Bible and liturgies to be gender neutral. In not defining, they are defining as well. To me I guess God is neither he nor she or is God he/she. God is simply God and no matter what we address him as he will be who she will be.
As for celibacy don't forget - women can also be celibate. I don't see where that should be an issue.
Bottom line for me is that a priest is a priest and when I see someone as priest, I see them as neither male nor female. In defining themselves or allowing others to define them as a woman priest or a male priest they limit themselves and their ministry as well. In persona Christi - "no male nor female, no Greek nor Jew, no slave nor free".
Just some thoughts...
Peace,
Wanda

Hi Wanda,

Good post! Thanks for taking the time to express yourself.

No doubt there were many different kinds of congregations in the early Church. We do know that, and that women played leadership roles in many of them. I do believe, however, that the ministry roles of Presbyter and Elder correspond with today's Priest and Bishop, respectively, and I don't think there's much evidence of women having served in those roles. Ministry doesn't mean Presbyter; it can be taken in a more generic sense.

I thought your precis concerning the early history of the Church and ministry roles was good. One should note, however, that even though there were many diverse communities--no doubt with various ministry roles--it was Apostolic leadership that defined what was to be considered "orthodox." I don't think you'll find much support for women and ordination from that Tradition, not even in the early Church.

Phil, I am not saying that the Catholic church needs to begin ordaining women or should not do so. That is up to ya'all. I will say that it is one reason I personally could not embrace Catholicism. Not exactly because they do not ordain women but more because by not seeing Christ in a woman, for me at least, they limit God... they define him as masculine in image if not in word.

It's not really an issue of not seeing Christ in women; Catholic theology is very clear about that, as was St. Paul in the beginning. I tried to present the point about in persona Christi as clearly as I could, and hoped I conveyed that this applies primarily to Sacramental contexts wherein Christ the Bridegroom ministers to his Bride, the Church. I also mentioned that there were objections to this perspective, but this would all take more than a few forum posts to flesh out.

I also have a problem with those who are rewriting the Bible and liturgies to be gender neutral. In not defining, they are defining as well. To me I guess God is neither he nor she or is God he/she. God is simply God and no matter what we address him as he will be who she will be.

Of course God has no Gender per se, but it's pretty hard to get around Jesus calling God "Father." The problems this presents for many for various reasons is noteworthy, but I don't think the "solution" is to de-personalize the language, nor to re-interpret the words of Jesus.

As for celibacy don't forget - women can also be celibate. I don't see where that should be an issue.

It's not the issue at all. What I meant was that many of our celibate, male leaders might (do!!!) have a problem embracing the feminine side of life and themselves as well, and tend to reject that piece in most illogical ways.

Bottom line for me is that a priest is a priest and when I see someone as priest, I see them as neither male nor female. In defining themselves or allowing others to define them as a woman priest or a male priest they limit themselves and their ministry as well. In persona Christi - "no male nor female, no Greek nor Jew, no slave nor free".

I see your point. OTOH, sacramental symbolism is profoundly important. Would it make a difference if we used Diet Coke and Doritos for Communion?

Phil