The Vatican And Its Left-Wing Critics

[amateur51]

But not in certain higher offices of the Church.


I know - which appears to mean that there is no male rôle equivalent to that of Mother Superior and, as we know, women cannot yet be priests, cardinals, bishops, archbishops or popes in the Catholic Church.


Regardless of any opinion that I choose to hold and to express, it's not my personal opinion that I'm concerned about here, for I am neither a Catholic nor a woman. My concern is that the barring of women from access to a number of senior positions within the Catholic Church sends out the wrong messages to women who know that they are entitled nevertheless to occupy positions of broadly equivalent seniority outside the Church and, for that matter, the role of priest within CofE; by "the wrong messages" I mean the sense of discouragement that it conveys to women who might otherwise have wanted to be able to fulfil those more senior rôles and who would feel as though barring them from those positions is tantamount to the Church regarding them as inferior beings and preferring that it (the Church) be run by men only. So it's the future of the Church in general and that of women withing it that concerns me - and I think it deeply unChristian to treat women as though they are incapable of or otherwise unsuited to certain work within the Church, especially in the light of the inconsistency of approach to the extent that the Church doesn't try to raise objections (that it would not in any case be entitled to raise) to Catholic women assuming the position of CEO in multinational companies.

Can you, as a devout Catholic of some long standing, explain to an ignorant non-Catholic like me why it is that you believe women should continue to be excluded indefinitely from such positions within the Church by outlining specific reasons why you, as a Catholic, consider them to be incapable of fulfilling them or otherwise unsuited to them?

In your own time, scotty

[scottycelt]

In your own time, scotty

Even I don't sit around all day in front of a computer screen, amsey ...

[amateur51]

Even I don't sit around all day in front of a computer screen, amsey ...

Me neither, scotty - I have my ATOS form to complete and some urgent snoozling to attend to

[scottycelt]

Regardless of any opinion that I choose to hold and to express, it's not my personal opinion that I'm concerned about here, for I am neither a Catholic nor a woman. My concern is that the barring of women from access to a number of senior positions within the Catholic Church sends out the wrong messages to women who know that they are entitled nevertheless to occupy positions of broadly equivalent seniority outside the Church and, for that matter, the role of priest within CofE; by "the wrong messages" I mean the sense of discouragement that it conveys to women who might otherwise have wanted to be able to fulfil those more senior rôles and who would feel as though barring them from those positions is tantamount to the Church regarding them as inferior beings and preferring that it (the Church) be run by men only. So it's the future of the Church in general and that of women withing it that concerns me - and I think it deeply unChristian to treat women as though they are incapable of or otherwise unsuited to certain work within the Church, especially in the light of the inconsistency of approach to the extent that the Church doesn't try to raise objections (that it would not in any case be entitled to raise) to Catholic women assuming the position of CEO in multinational companies.

Can you, as a devout Catholic of some long standing, explain to an ignorant non-Catholic like me why it is that you believe women should continue to be excluded indefinitely from such positions within the Church by outlining specific reasons why you, as a Catholic, consider them to be incapable of fulfilling them or otherwise unsuited to them?

I cannot really add to what I've already said, ahinton, but will only mention that Christ Himself chose males as his disciples and He certainly couldn't be accused of being anti-women and a misogynist. Christ was a radical and would have had no problem in choosing women if he had so desired. I doubt He would not have worried too much about contemporary society 'culture'.

The Church maintains that tradition. So did the Vienna Phil in the past. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quaint idea that the Catholic Church and the Vienna Phil think/thought that somehow women are inferior to men.

I feel certain ... and I trust amsey will agree ... that those who run the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus do not think heterosexual males are inferior singers to homosexual males?

It has agreed rules of membership which I assume you oppose as well, ahinton?

I certainly don't. It has every right to make its own rules with absolutely no interference from me!

Ps ... I am not 'devout' about anything, ahinton ... another quaint notion that often surfaces about Catholics.

[Richard Barrett]

the quaint idea that the Catholic Church and the Vienna Phil think/thought that somehow women are inferior to men.

"A woman shouldn’t play like a man but like a woman, but an all-male orchestra is bound to have a special tone." Paul Fürst, manager of the Vienna Philharmonic 1969-82 and 1984-90 (my emphasis)

[french frank]

Christ Himself chose males as his disciples and He certainly couldn't be accused of being anti-women and a misogynist.

'Radical' he may have been in some fields, but I doubt if it would even have occurred to him to choose women. What else were they 'chosen' to do at that time but marry and have children?

Things are different now ...

[Barbirollians]

By the sounds of it with his concentration on the Catholic church needing to rediscover its duty to look after and tend to the poor - the Vatican's biggest left-wing critic is looking like Pope Francis himself !

[ahinton]

I cannot really add to what I've already said, ahinton

Pity, that.

but will only mention

Ah, so you contradict yourself immediately! You can add something to what you've already said!

that Christ Himself chose males as his disciples and He certainly couldn't be accused of being anti-women and a misogynist. Christ was a radical and would have had no problem in choosing women if he had so desired. I doubt He would not have worried too much about contemporary society 'culture'.

Christ indeed happened to choose male disciples, but He did only select 12 of them! As you quite rightly observe, however, He "certainly couldn't be accused of being anti-women and a misogynist"; ergo, he might have chosen a woman or some women had he waned more than 12 or even as part of a group of 12 had there been a woman or women available to fulfil the rôle of disciple as it was understood at the time. I don't think that it would be possible or credible to say that Christ deliberately excluded women from his choices of disciple because He did not believe women suitable for that rôle or capable of fulfilling it and, in your second sentence, you appear to agree with that.

The Church maintains that tradition.

No, it doesn't. Why? Because it wasn't and isn't a "tradition" in the first place but a mere coincidence. The Church excludes women from certain rôles - quite a few of them, actually - just because Christ Himself happened not to choose any of them for his disciples? No, scotty, that won't do - not for me, but for Christ. Again, as you yourself wrote, Christ was not anti-women or a misogynist, He was a radical and he would have had no problem in choosing women so some of his disciples; the Church, on the other hand does not reflect Christ's radicalism, anti-misogynism or lack of provblem about choosing women for just one rôle, because it excludes women from quite a few rôles.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the quaint idea that the Catholic Church and the Vienna Phil think/thought that somehow women are inferior to men.

Leaving VPO to one side for a moment, if the Catholic Church does not think that women are inferior to men, why is it still so resolute in excluding them from positions of seniority and in ensuring that only mean will ever run the Church?

I know that it may only be the personal opinion of someone from outside the Church, but that Church presents an image of itself that, whatever it may think of women, it's not about to allow them the freedom to serve Christ within it in any capacity other than those sanctioned by the men of the Church, irrespective of their desire, ability or suitability to do so. I realise that you are not a Protestant(!), but what view do you happen to take of the fact that, although CofE still does not allow women to be bishops, it does (unlike your Church) allow them to be priests? - I ask you this not merely to counsel your personal view but to ascertain whether and why you might think that your Church is responding to what you allege to be a "tradition" more effectively and authentically than does the CofE.

I feel certain ... and I trust amsey will agree ... that those who run the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus do not think heterosexual males are inferior singers to homosexual males?

The analogy carries little if any pertinence here. The Catholic Church might well appoint a homosexual bishop, cardinal, archbishop or even pope, provided that it either didn't know (or was prepared to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the fact) that the person concerned was homosexual, as long as he was a male one. As to the SF Gay Men's Chorus, I do not regard its name as seeking to make any kind of point about the comparative vocal abilities of homosexuals but I recognise that its responsibilities are towards its audiences; the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is supposed to be an international religious organisation, membership of which is as open to all as is the espousal of Christian teaching and its rôle is to act as a global (though not exclusive) representative of Christ and his teaching. I continue to harbour deep suspicions of to the possible apprehensiveness of Christ himself when faced with the Catholic Church's highly proscribed and exclusive male-governed treatment of women within its organisation.

It has agreed rules of membership which I assume you oppose as well, ahinton?

I repeat - I do not "oppose" these rules; I think that they are not in the interests of the Church because they are not in the best interests of all women. that's all!

Ps ... I am not 'devout' about anything, ahinton ... another quaint notion that often surfaces about Catholics.

Such a notion does not only surface about Catholics by any means; your Church has no more monopoly on such devotion than it deserves! That said, I'm sorry, scotty; I did not realise that you are not devout until you mentioned it here, so I accordingly withdraw my accusation, or whatever it was...

[ahinton]

"A woman shouldn’t play like a man but like a woman, but an all-male orchestra is bound to have a special tone." Paul Fürst, manager of the Vienna Philharmonic 1969-82 and 1984-90 (my emphasis)

As even some Christians are wont to observe, Paul has a lot for which to answer! As to the notion that a woman's duty or natural proclivity is to play like a woman, its sheer absurdity might risk ensuring that few if any women would perform music at all were it to be taken literally, because that's quite simply not possible, of course. Thea Musgrave knew of what she spoke when observing that she's both a woman and a composer but rarely at the same time - and the notion that Martha Argerich, Jacqueline du Pré, Ida Haendel, Yvonne Loriod et al can be said to "play like women" or that Ethel Smyth, Grażyna Bacewicz et al "compose like women" is surely about as absurd as it could possibly get...

[ahinton]

'Radical' he may have been in some fields, but I doubt if it would even have occurred to him to choose women. What else were they 'chosen' to do at that time but marry and have children?

Things are different now ...

They are indeed, but somehow I suspect that, had Christ wanted to choose a woman disciple because a particular woman was sufficiently well suited to the rôle and desirous of fulfilling it, He would have done so even in those days, regardless of what convention of time and place might have been thought to expect of Him.

[Padraig]

'Radical' he may have been in some fields, but I doubt if it would even have occurred to him to choose women. What else were they 'chosen' to do at that time but marry and have children?

Things are different now ...

....and I have no doubt that different choices will be made regarding women. Anybody with any sense knows(saving your presence, ff) that women are the stronger, more reliable sex. But, it being a man's world for so long, change, though inevitable, is slow. My wife had to resign her teaching post when she married me; doesn't happen now - resigning I mean.

Of course, it's not just the Church that inhibits women - they have to struggle against the odds in many speres, and with seemingly snail-like success. I hope Pope Francis bows to the inevitable and takes a papal step for wo/mankind

[amateur51]

As even some Christians are wont to observe, Paul has a lot for which to answer! As to the notion that a woman's duty or natural proclivity is to play like a woman, its sheer absurdity might risk ensuring that few if any women would perform music at all were it to be taken literally, because that's quite simply not possible, of course. Thea Musgrave knew of what she spoke when observing that she's both a woman and a composer but rarely at the same time - and the notion that Martha Argerich, Jacqueline du Pré, Ida Haendel, Yvonne Loriod et al can be said to "play like women" or that Ethel Smyth, Grażyna Bacewicz et al "compose like women" is surely about as absurd as it could possibly get...

Not forgetting Nadia Boulanger of course ... never forget Nadia Boulanger

[ahinton]

Not forgetting Nadia Boulanger of course ... never forget Nadia Boulanger

Not much danger of that, I suspect! - although she did not compose a great deal herself and what she did largely pales before the few works composed by her astonishingly gifted sister - but the names that I arbitrarily cited were, of course, mere illustrative examples rather than anything remotely approaching a comprehensive list!

[amateur51]

Not much danger of that, I suspect! - although she did not compose a great deal herself and what she did largely pales before the few works composed by her astonishingly gifted sister - but the names that I arbitrarily cited were, of course, mere illustrative examples rather than anything remotely approaching a comprehensive list!

Oh you're everso brave now she's dead ahinton

[ahinton]

Oh you're everso brave now she's dead ahinton

Oh, come now! Nadia's been dead for around 34 years and Lili for not far short of a century! Neither's works seem to get much exposure, even in France, although Lili's now better represented than once she was - and most of Nadia's works seem to date up to only 1922, 55 years before her death, no doubt in part because she ended up devoting so much more time to teaching other composers than to "composing herself". Ned Rorem, who reaches the age of 90 later this year, apparently described Nadia as "the most influential teacher since Socrates"...