When I got to the part in Catholicism for Dummies about the male priesthood, you’d think I would have recoiled. I had heard something about gender and the Catholic clergy in popular culture, but I didn’t know until I started researching it that the Catholic Church really doesn’t allow women to be priests. As a lifelong atheist and self-proclaimed feminist, it seems like I would have been outraged. Yet when I tried to work up some good righteous indignation, it wouldn’t come. In fact, something about this policy felt really right. Surprised at my own stance, I spent a long time pondering why I felt no urge to denounce this controversial stance as oppressive and unfair. Here’s what I came up with:
Men and women are different
At the time I had recently become a mother, and there’s nothing like pregnancy and childbirth to hit home the fact that men and women are really, really different. Even outside of the Catholic perspective, there’s no denying that whoever created us—whether you call it God or Nature or Allah or whatever—created men and women with complementary yet entirely separate capabilities. Women can carry new human life within their wombs, men can’t. Women can breastfeed, men can’t. Men are generally stronger; the strongest man in the world is always going to be the stronger than the strongest woman in the world. The list of the innate differences between the genders goes on and on. Assuming that the entire human race was not born into an inherently unfair situation, it would seem that our Creator does not believe that you need to be able to do all the same stuff in order to be equal.
What you do isn’t your worth
Along those same lines, I had begun to question this pervasive modern idea that what you do is your value. At social gatherings the first question we ask someone new is, “What do you do?” Schoolchildren are asked, “What do you want to do when you grow up?” One of the results of this idea is that we, as a society, decided that if women are not invited to do every single thing that men are invited to do, the only possible explanation could be that they are valued less—and being barred from doing certain activities means that their options for reaching complete fulfillment as human beings are limited. The more I considered it, the more this worldview struck me as sadly utilitarian. I started to think that it’s possible to believe that men don’t make good lactation consultants, women don’t make good guerrilla warfare combatants, etc. without it being a commentary about the inherent worth of one gender over another.
God became a man
As an outsider looking in on this religion, I didn’t see how anyone could believe that Christianity is true and simultaneously question the fact that God sees the two genders as having distinctly different roles. When God took on human flesh, he did so as a man. He could have come down as a woman, as a brother and sister team, or as a genderless being. But he didn’t. If you want to reject Christianity as untrue, that’s one thing; but if you accept Jesus Christ as God incarnate, it seems like you must also accept that God sees the male gender as having a special role to play in the world.
Jesus chose men to be his apostles
Peter, Andrew, James, James, John, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, Bartholomew, Thaddaeus, Simon and Judas: Those are the names of the 12 people whom Jesus personally called to be his apostles. They’re all men. The fact that God not only came down as a man, but then called only men to be his apostles (despite the fact that he was close to plenty of women), was further confirmation of the obvious fact that God has a special plan for the male gender.
God gave us Mary
So where does that leave women? Does God not see us as having a special role too? Did he forget about us? Honestly, I did have those thoughts when I was first researching Christianity, and it was kind of a bummer. The only branches of Christianity with which I had some passing experience were some of the southern Protestant denominations, and it struck me that this was a male-centric spirituality. Jesus was a man, his apostles were men, all the local preachers were men—where did women fit into the big picture of salvation history? It made me question the entire religion: Would a just God really leave an entire gender out in the cold?
Once I discovered Catholicism, one of the many things that rang true about its teachings was the emphasis on Mary. It made perfect sense that God would give a woman a critical role in his plan, someone who could serve as an example of perfect feminine holiness—and it made sense that his true Church would understand and celebrate this fact.
So when I came across the doctrine about the male priesthood, all of these ideas came together to make the Church’s official defense of its stance ring true. In fact, I might have been skeptical of Catholic doctrines if they hadn’t taught that it is a job for men, and only men, to carry on the role that God began when he himself became a man.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
May I add to Teddy’s second last comment that in my church, women also do readings among other things, so they play an important role in my parish.
“Posted by Lee on Friday, Jul 8, 2011 3:25 PM (EDT):There are no valid reasons why women cannot be priests.”
My Reply—-“Jesus said to his mother: “Woman, this is your son”.
Then he said to the disciple: “This is your mother.”
Gospel of John 19:26-27
=John was the last disciple to stand by Jesus during the cruxifiction. The apostles were to continue (take the place of Jesus) preaching the good news of the Lord. With this, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was now then given the role of being the mother of the church.
Jesus and John were men=Priest
Mary-mother of God-was a woman=Nun
—These are the established roles of men and women in the church.
I think women that say they are not respected in the Catholic church and feel women should be priests should get their head examined. Women play many important roles in the catholic church such as being sisters, ushers, lecturers, eucharist ministers, singing in the church choir and CCD teachers.
Seems to me, there are too many “Eves” roaming the earth—Instead of wanting to serve the church from their heart, they rather with an ego of perffered dominance wanting to serve a role (wanting to be a priest) that God did not intend….
Sorry, the above comment was intended for another post.
This is tangential to Jennifer’s post, so I apologize in advance for interrupting the discussion, but I noticed there are a number of thoughtful, knowledgeable Catholics here, and I’m wondering whether anyone might be willing to offer some advice. This is hard to explain, but I recently stepped back from the Church after having been involved in it for about six years. I don’t know why, but I found myself feeling deeply uneasy and uncomfortable with the Church and needed to push it out of my life for a while. Some months later, I’d now like to take my time and slowly re-examine the Church from the outside, and decide whether to re-enter. Does anyone here know, say, of a forum where non-Catholics can discuss matters of faith with Catholics? It’d be nice if there were, like, a support group for on-the-fence Catholics! (Ha!) Are there books anyone would recommend, or… does anyone have any suggestions? This is kind of a daunting task and I don’t know where to start.
Quite right Adam, women can be just as cruel as man, even if they are the fairer sex.
@Chris There are actually plenty of good examples of women in the Bible: Ruth, Sarah, Rachel, Mary and Martha, Veronica, Elizabeth, and those are just the seven off the top of my head. None of those were harlots or remained virgins when they had their children. They were all very important in Jewish history and remain so in the life of the Church. Lee, As for lack of sex scandals if we had women were a part of the hierarchy: There have been some in the Episcopalian Church and they have women in the hierarchy. There are plenty of women teachers who have been investigated and convicted of sexual crimes, as Ann posted there is also sexual abuse in families where women are “matriarchs.” We can’t say well if this was the case, that would or would not happen, as we have no idea. The best we can do is project. And, James, you come off as more of a fundamentalist, because, in my perception, by saying throw tradition out, yet you seem to be sticking to sola scriptura when referencing who Jesus chose and the qualifications that Scripture holds. So, and this is a genuine question, are you saying we should throw all tradition out and stick to Scripture, pick and choose which traditions we keep along with which Scripture we should take under consideration, or throw both Scripture and tradition out and make our own way as Catholics? Or are you trying to assert something else?
Lee: Re: “If women were a part of church hierarchy would we be dealing with the sex scandals? Doubtful.”
Yeah, because there’s never been any sexual abuse in families or anything. Yep, as long as a woman’s around, ain’t no one going to get hurt. Pffft.
It was Christ’s choice—take it up with Him and move on…
AND Jesus selected married men. All Jewish by the way!
Scripture states what the qualifications for the episcopacy, presbyterate, and diaconate state clearly that they shall have been married only once. Further scripture states that the bishop must show he can manage a family before he can manage a church.
PLEASE get off the fundamentalist angle. Tradition is the hold back. Period.
Even for us men not all of us could make it to priesthood; and it is such a privilege. We also couldn’t give birth, could we? The foregoing is not in the realm of ‘human rights’. Period.
Lee: Priests are not just ministers. If you assume that there is nothing sacramental or God-ordained about being a priest, then of course there’s no reason women couldn’t be priests. Of course, in that case, women couldn’t be called, either, because there’s nothing sacramental or God-ordained about priests. In this case, there’s no great reason to be a priest—- because the message is a lie—- and far more the temptation to hold and influence and manipulate a flock than there is the opportunity to serve and dedicate one’s life to a congregation.
There are no female priests because there are no female rabbis. I do not accuse you of anti-Semitism, but one must know little and assume much wrongly about what a priest is in order to believe women can be priests.
There are no valid reasons why women cannot be priests. The “scholars” who publish long explanations about biblical justifications for a male only priesthood are looking for explanations for current practice. Do we really know for sure that Jesus only called males to serve with him? No. The Catholic church is controlled by men on earth who are obsessed with secrecy and power. Would Jesus run his church like this? No way. If women were a part of church hierarchy would we be dealing with the sex scandals? Doubtful. If the church were serious about being inclusive, even if they thought they couldn’t ordain women, lay men and women would be involved at the highest levels. No secret goings on in the Vatican, throw the doors and windows open and let us all see what happens behind the scenes. Start with having lay men and women involved with church finances…from the top down. The hierarchy is quick to extol the gifts of women…as long as it keeps women out of the real workings of the church. Yes men and women are different, but those differences have nothing to do with one’s ability to minister effectively. Those at the top know this, but they can’t admit it.
Maybe I am a babe in the woods, but your aticle makes sense to me.
I agree with quite a lot of these comments. People who are upset that women can’t be priests seem to forget that men can’t be nuns.
Since becoming a believer in 1985 and quite diligently studying the bible - I have never found a command in the bible saying that men serving in the ministry/followers of Christ or even as bible teachers should be single and this state being institutionalized. Thus this state is taken voluntarily by individuals (even Saint Paul said that he chose to be single because God’s calling / an individual choice) - consequently any deviations which are non-biblical which break the law in the community - should be dealt with, according to the law in that country. Nevertheless, these deviations bring bad name to Christ’s body as a whole.
As an ex Catholic who is now a very firm Atheist in their late 30’s I can tell you, what a load of utter rubbish.
Women have two roles in the Catholic church, virgins or whores, that’s it. If you are a Catholic woman that is how you are seen, either pure or soiled.
A woman’s role in the church is the harlot, the deceiver, the temptress. She caused Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit (Eve), she is a prostitute (Mary Magdalene), she seduces the Jewish faithful into worshipping pagan gods (Jezebel), she demands the head of John the Baptist(Salome), she had the hair of Samson removed so that gods enemies could defeat and kill him (Delilah).
Oh yes, it’s a rich and proud history for the women of the Abrahamic religions, out of all the women in the bible the only good one is Mary and even she somehow manged to give birth whilst still remaining a virgin.
The only reason women are villainized in religion and particularly in the Abrahamic ones is the simple fact that when men are aroused by the sight of a beautiful woman they fear she must have some evil magical power over them and must be destroyed, or humiliated and made to feel shame at the very least.
Whenever the topic comes up about “why can’t we have woman priests?” or “it’s unfair,” etc., I always say that I would have no problem with women priests as long as we can have men as nuns. “Why can’t we have male nuns? It’s so unfair!” I retort back. I have so much fun with non-Catholic Catholics.
The author was able to view the big picture objectively as she was not conditioned by anti-Catholic mythology or dumbed down by V2 “ministers of religious instruction”. Obviously, she did her homework and came up with the usual conclusion that arrives when they do it diligently. As for her frustration with some obstinate school girls, well, she has to understand that some people want to see the truth and some are comfortable with their resentful opinions. This is what life is all about. It is the filtration process to sort out the ones who offer love from the ones who offer resentment. How can a heaven be a heaven with resentful beings occupying it.
Thank you Mrs. Fulwiler for your observations.
In light of this discussion I feel the need to construct a better defense of my behavior in this argument. This will be as long-winded as anything else I write; please excuse that. I am just a long-winded person. I also want to mention that it was never my intention to make such a stink about a few passing comments. I understand why Christian characterized me as the ‘watchdog against male-bashing’ but I didn’t mean to become that. In my view, my exchange with Lisa should have taken no more than two or three comments. Yet I am wordy and also my comments lit some fuses, both of which factors extended the discussion far longer than it should have been of interest to anybody.
.
I’ll use Anahera’s reply as my springboard.
“Your arguments are persuasive, your seeming lack of humility is not…”
.
What’s interesting to me about the responses I receive on this blog is that the arguments themselves don’t matter to anybody. As far as I can see, the number one principle here, the overriding concern, is preserving the emotional state of the people reading your comments. The problem is that the truth is sometimes upsetting. It upset Lisa when I pointed out that women, in fact, do not have the monopoly on the ‘unsung, unseen work of society’. It upset Lisa when I pointed out that sweeping the floor, or even getting up at 4 am to feed the baby, is easier than mining ore. Yet these are both true statements. Am I wrong for saying what is true? Or is Lisa wrong for blaming me because these true statements make her feel bad (for reasons I can’t comprehend)? And is it my responsibility to make sure Lisa never feels bad? Who is really the one showing a lack of humility here? And who is really the one getting emotional and angry?
.
But if Jesus’ second greatest commandment was ‘Thou shalt not hurt anybody’s feelings, as thou wouldst not hurt thine own’, then I wonder if anyone will consider my feelings. How do you think I felt when Sandra wasted no time making a post about the priesthood an opportunity to call men lazy - with two or three women cheering in response? How do you think I felt when Lisa ignored everything I said in response to Elizabeth because she felt it was more important to reiterate that men are lazy? How do you think I felt when Lisa deftly undermined the strength of my points by pulling a sympathy play? So I was wrong about you guys, wasn’t I? Feelings aren’t absolutely important to you. The key question is - whose feelings?
.
So my first point was that the mere fact that someone feels bad because of what you’ve said doesn’t mean you’ve done something wrong. My second point is that, when it comes to getting results, speaking nicely doesn’t always get the job done. Sometimes you have to rattle cages. I don’t like it when someone rattles my cage, but there are times when nothing short of that will get me to change my mind. If you think it’s not my business to rattle cages about these things, think again. I have a stake in the way the every day person views men, women, and the relationship between the sexes. In the big picture, these things do wind up affecting me one way or another. I am sure women can relate to this principle when it comes to issues that uniquely affect them. Did anybody here see the huge argument about pants and skirts that took place last year?
.
As a final note, I absolutely do not worship Nice Jesus. I do not respect Nice Jesus. I do not even like Nice Jesus. In fact I hate Nice Jesus and I despise the hold he has in the Christian community. The Jesus I worship will absolutely tell you and me to quit whining if that’s what it takes to keep us moving. If you doubt this, remember that nothing happens but by the will of God - including cancer, the death of loved ones, World War II, and plaid.
.
Enough said. My views are now totally stated here in all my comments. I can see this is not the community for me, so I wish you guys the best, and… bon voyage.
David, I’m just wondering if in your enthusiasm for this topic you have considered at all the way that Jesus might respond to Lisa in this situation. I somehow doubt he would tell her to get a thicker skin. Your arguments are persausive, your seeming lack of humility is not.
Jenifer has written a great article which both builds up men in their essential role as priests and women in their many roles within the church also. Equal respect for our different roles is what its all about.
Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Jesus gave us His mother, Mary, on the Cross to be our Mother. These two realities point to the role God desires for women.
Christian, when you initially addressed me, you wrote this:
.
“I’ve read a few of your posts in other articles, and you’re arguments are 200% on-point and I want to cheer when I read them - at the beginning.”
.
Given the way you opened this statement (“David. Buddy. I’m glad you’re out there as a watchdog against male-bashing”), I’m pretty sure you were being sarcastic, but on the off chance you weren’t, I have this to say to you:
.
You like my content, but you don’t like my delivery. I’m doing the right thing but I’m going about it the wrong way. You want to cheer but I just don’t come through for you. Okay, fine. I have to say, Christian, I can’t learn a new style just by reading comments criticizing the one I have. I can only learn a new style by watching someone else’s example. So if you really are happy to hear someone speak up for the guys but can’t stand the way I’m doing it… why don’t you show me how it’s done? You take the lead, I’ll take notes, and next time, I’ll pattern myself on your behavior. Fair? Just shoot me an e-mail at dvcasson at gmail dot com when you open the next match and I’ll stay out of it and watch what you do.
“Frankly, I’m seeing two people here who need to get a thicker skin - and I’m not one of them.”
Yeeeah, that’s what I mean. Doing more harm than good. Like I said, if you can avoid getting emotional and personal when you debate, you’ll advance your point of view in a more respectable way. All the best.
Christian, rather than criticizing the only man around here who bothers to stick up for your sex, why don’t you try and help out? You say you’ve been reading my comments. I’ve yet to see you join the fight.
I would apologize for hurting Lisa, but frankly I see nothing in my comments that could reasonably construed as hurtful. Challenging? Yes. Aggressive? Yes. Angry, as Christian says? Um… no. If we are going to comment on a discussion board, especially about controversial topics, I think we need to be prepared for the give and take of argument, and not get upset just because we are being challenged. In the places I visit on the Internet, this sort of discussion is normal. Frankly, I’m seeing two people here who need to get a thicker skin - and I’m not one of them.
.
Look, nothing about this thread is as complicated as Lisa is making it. Lisa said, “When it comes to the unsung, unseen work of society, sorry to say, it’s women that do it.” She then challenged me to dispose of this claim. I did. Lisa responded with no greater poise than to throw a temper tantrum: “You’re mean! I’m NEVER coming back here again!” Now she is playing the hurt victim. Christian bought her act unthinkingly. I’m not. And if Lisa is so sensitive that she cannot handle a little heat on an Internet message board, then as far as I’m concerned, that is just too bad. I would suggest not challenging people in that case.
.
This nonsense that I am negating women’s contributions to society and claiming that only women’s lives are easy is nothing more than a red herring. Go back and read my comments and find what I really said.
.
Finally, Lisa has yet to acknowledge in terms that we can clearly understand that in fact the “unseen, unsung work of society”, as she put it, is not the exclusive purview of women.
David. Buddy. I’m glad you’re out there as a watchdog against male-bashing. I’ve read a few of your posts in other articles, and you’re arguments are 200% on-point and I want to cheer when I read them - at the beginning. But then you go on and on and deliver your thoughts in the most inaccessible, argumentative way possible. If you think the only way to beat Lisa in a debate is to steamroller her with paragraph after paragraph until she admits that you were being hurtful, then rethink your Socratic method. No one is going to take your arguments seriously when you deliver them in it that way, no matter how true the points are.
If you feel that strongly about this belief, then stop failing it by losing your temper.
Hi Everyone,
I have said that I wouldn’t comment here again, and I am breaking that promise to clarify something in my posts. It seems that my posts have been interpreted as me arguing that men don’t have value or worth, and that they don’t do things relating to physical strength (such as the theoretical fighting-off of extinct cats, which for the record I am sure that men would capably take care of). This was not my intention, but I can see how my comments would be interpreted that way, and if any men or women took offense at that interpretation, then I am very sorry for that. I like men very much and I recognize the many contributions that they make to home life and public life.
I find David Casson’s comments hurtful because they implicitly and explicitly negate the contributions of women both to home life and public life. It is something to say that your own experience is difficult, but to tell someone else that their life is easy, based on a pretty long list of assumptions about what he thinks my life is like, seems pretty out of place. I tried to use humor to defuse the situation, but it didn’t work.
The only point I really wanted to make is to say that I support Sandra’s comment that perhaps it is good for men to be in the priesthood, because there is a (scientifically documented) tendency in US society for men in family life to just let the women take care of the unsung, unseen work, and that is it good that this tendency cannot cross over to the Roman Catholic priesthood. I agree with this. This does not mean that I think that men or lazy, or that I think that women built the pyramids.
I think that negating women’s experience as being “not that hard” is out of place. If David would walk one day (and one night, up all night with the baby, and then up at 6 in the morning to do it all again) in my shoes, he would see that, and I am sure that I would learn a lot by walking in his shoes as well.
And David does have a point—a man does make my life easier. He is my husband, and he takes part in a sacramental bond in which he does some things, and I do other things. He doesn’t tell me my contributions are easy and pointless just because I didn’t build our house with my bare hands.
I am sorry for adding something to the discussion that could be interpreted as male-bashing, because that is counterproductive and doesn’t do anyone any good. Refraining from female-bashing will also help this to stay an effective, open, helpful discussion. We are many parts, but we are all one body, and we can’t do without each other.
“And a very important point, and it’s the last one I am EVER making on this website…”
.
God forbid someone should challenge you.
.
Fair enough vis a vis paid work vs unpaid work. Yeah, the woman who scrubs the floor every day deserves respect for that, and hopefully her husband shows her that respect and appreciation. However, you still can’t call a factory worker seen and celebrated. That’s my point. Also, acting like it’s women who are on the basement level of society, doing all the worst work because it needs to get done, without any recognition? That’s nonsense. Your house is not the basement level of society. It’s a comfortable, nicely decorated place filled with the luxuries of the modern world. You are doing what is necessary to maintain that very nice place. The basement level of society includes mines, offshore oil platforms, factories, etc. It’s any place where someone has to stand between the raw natural world and civilization so that the rest of us can live comfortably and peacefully. Go to the ‘basement level’ and you won’t find women, Lisa, at least not many; by and large the people you’ll find working there are men. You should respect that and stop acting like women have it hard. You really don’t. Fact is, none of us do, not compared to what we could be facing - if not for the men who, once again, stand between us and the brutality of nature.
.
You may be able to handle a survival situation - respect to you - but you know just as much as I do that you don’t want that for a way of life. Much better to complain about men and then get upset when some guy comes along to challenge you in the comfort of your presumably air conditioned home or office than to slug it out day after day just to get food, water, and shelter. Right?
.
“which women can do too… right??”
.
So why aren’t they, Lisa? Let’s hear about that. Whether women can or can’t (they often can’t), they don’t. Men do. Period. This is like me saying, ‘Well, men *don’t* do housework, but they *can*. Therefore the women who do the housework don’t deserve my respect.’
.
“it’s fair to say that American women do more hours of unpaid work than American men do.”
.
Fair, you’ve got my respect. FWIW I personally feel a surge of appreciation whenever a woman cooks a meal for me (I’m lucky because even my female friends like to do this for me), or I see her scrubbing a floor or cleaning the dishes or whatever. What I’m saying is, the same gratitude I have because women make our lives better is the gratitude you should have that there are men in the world who are also making your life better. I don’t see any acknowledgment from you whatsoever that this is the case.
.
Yeah and about the saber tooth tiger attack, Lisa, sister, get real. If you were faced with a saber tooth tiger, you really would be looking for the nearest group of men to help you out.
And a very important point, and it’s the last one I am EVER making on this website: I am talking about unseen, unsung work, not PAID work. The work you describe is employment. Laying cable, building computers (which women can do too… right??) are certainly not glamorous jobs, but they are recognized with wages. I am talking about the things like feeding babies in the middle of the night, scrubbing floors that no one else even knows are dirty, small daily tasks that keep things humming that no one ever notices.
It’s fair to say that both women and men are necessary to the survival of the species. and it’s fair to say that American women do more hours of unpaid work than American men do. If you can show me some numbers to refute this (rather than threatening me with saber tooth tiger attack), then let’s see it.
That’s pretty cool, Lisa. Yeah, the backpack was made by a man. :-) But you did it on your own and that’s awesome.
.
Still, when you say all the unseen, unsung work is done by women, you are showing a lack of perspective. You are showing that you are unaware of all the men who themselves are unseen and unsung, working in factories and on construction jobs and everything else, whose work makes civilization possible. It is still the case that it’s men, not women, who create the barrier between our lives and the jungle. That’s just a fact. If you have a problem with my pointing out that fact, that shows a problem with you, not me.
And I actually have been in a survival situation. Myself, a backpack (built by a man, as I’m sure you will point out). Bears, mountain lions, etc. But of course you know that, because you know everything about my mind works, because you know all about women, don’t you? ;D
Wow. Just wow.
Just a further thought to make the point direct.
.
Lisa, have you ever imagined putting yourself in a survival situation? Is this something you’ve ever wanted to try, and have you wondered how you would fare? I mean, on your own, in the middle of the wilderness, left with nothing but a few tools with which to face cold nights, procure food and water, conquer predators, treat disease, and build shelter? You may be one of those women who likes the thought of trying this. (If you are, by the way, I think that’s really cool.) But how long do you want to do it? A week, maybe? A month tops? Do you want a survival situation to be your way of life? It’s nice to think of being able to come back home and brag about your success to your friends, right?
.
‘Cause no mistake, without men, a survivalist lifestyle is exactly what you’d be facing. This is no less true now than it was 10,000 years ago. The only difference is that the women of 10,000 years ago saw every day what their men were doing to keep them safe and provided for. The men of today are indeed unsung and unseen. Yet without them, our entire society would collapse in months, and you and all of us would be facing a survival scenario.
.
All that stands between you and nature, Lisa, are men. That is as true today as it ever was. Again, if you doubt it, spend some time thinking about what would happen if all the men in your country went on strike for one year. Disaster, right? It is now, has always been, and always will be, the job of the male sex to protect and provide for women. We are still doing that job today as our ancestors have for thousands of years. We are doing this job so well, in fact, that you don’t even know we’re doing it any more. You don’t even understand the reality of civilization as masculine shield from the brutality of nature. Because that is exactly what civilization is: a masculine shield… for you and for all of us. Before you type a rebuttal, please ask yourself how many men are necessary to transmit your message from your computer, to the NCR server, and to my computer, and ask yourself when you last thought about all those men, because that is my answer to all your objections.
“When it comes to the unsung, unseen work of society, sorry to say, it’s women that do it.”
.
Lisa. You are sorely mistaken. And all it takes is a moment’s thought to realize it.
.
Start with the computer you’re using… who built it? The cable lines that enable you to use the Internet… who manufactured those and buried them underground, and who operates the facilities that make those cables functional? Who did the endless research it took to discover what makes computers and cable lines work? Who mined the ores necessary to make cables and computers? Who designed and who operates the presses that give form to the plastics of your computer? Men.
.
You can look at almost anything around you and if you ask, “Who made that?” the answer is almost always a man. Your house, the sidewalk, all the roads you’ll travel, your car, the gas station and all the facilities and infrastructure that get gasoline to that station, your coffee mug, the pens you use to write… keep going and thinking of all the things you see every day. Who made those things? Men.
.
“Unsung, unseen work”? When was the last time you thanked one of those men for their hard work? You never have, have you? In fact, you don’t even realize they exist. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have said what you did.
.
Without men, you wouldn’t have a computer with which to complain about us. In fact, you wouldn’t waste your breath complaining about us - you’d be too busy fretting about what’s going to happen when the enemy tribe comes to attack us tomorrow. And you’d know whose job it was then to protect you.
.
Respect.
David Casson, you might be interested in this, which addresses what Sandra is talking about. http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20070829/husbands-do-less-housework
Men aren’t inherently lazy, but it is fair to say that American men do a lot less “serving around the house” types of things (as in her comment “get-me-a-beer”) than American women do, statistically speaking. When it comes to the unsung, unseen work of society, sorry to say, it’s women that do it. Find me a research source that really contradicts that with more than anecdotal evidence, and I’ll eat my words.
Bill, masturbation is indeed objectively sinful, because one’s sexuality is meant to be a gift that one gives to one’s spouse. Masturbation, then, is wanting to keep that gift all to yourself, which is nothing more than selfishness. As Catholics, we understand God to be perfect love—kind, merciful, and just. Our relationship with Christ is not just me and Jesus, but me and Jesus and everybody else. That which is sinful is the opposite of this; so in a sense, you need to understand what love is in order to better understand sin. I refer you to CCC 2352. You might also want to read Greg Popcak’s book, Holy Sex that does give a basic explanation of Catholic sexual ethics. It’s very approachable.
Furthermore, simply because such a tendency may seem “natural,” does not make it okay. It’s natural to get angry. But does that make it okay, particularly if we give vent to that anger far too frequently? We have passions, but we also have self-control, lest they control us. After all, simply because we feel that we’re about to get angry does not mean that we need indulge or nurse that anger. The same is true with masturbation. Sex is meant to be naturally pleasurable, because it’s instrumental to the bonding between husband and wife. But God did not create sex primarily for pleasure, and certainly not for the pleasuring of ourselves on our lonesome.
Catholicism is not about repression and about making people feel bad, but about self-mastery, so that we can better dispose ourselves to the love that God is trying to give us: in the case of sexuality, it’s about knowing what sex is for and integrating it properly into our sense of ourselves as a human being. It’s about understanding and mastering our sexuality, and not letting it master us. God understands that we slip up, but he wants us to be repentant; he wants to give us the grace to overcome the sins that enslave us, and thus be truly free. And he gives us that grace when we go to Confession. That God knows our sinfulness is why he gave us the Sacraments: so that we can obtain his grace and participate in his plan for our salvation. We’re not in this alone. When we struggle with our sins, we’re supposed to pray, asking God for help, and we’re supposed to receive the Sacraments regularly.
Furthermore, have you done your first Penance, received First Communion, and have you been Confirmed? It’s not just about Baptism, you know.
Perhaps you can answer a QUESTION which has dogged me from Puberty, as well as had driven me away from The Roman Catholic Religion where I was formally baptized, as an Infant, Just this past weekend I heard Father Corapi,as well as a host(ie.100 or more of Priests)have openly awowed that “MASTURBATION” WAS AND IS A MORTAL SIN. JUST what is the Church’s stand on this purely natural human behavior?
Jennifer already touched on the centrality of Mary to Catholic spirituality. Her “fiat” was the human step that fulfilled God’s plan for the Incarnation. Not only did she give birth to Jesus: genetically, we know that Jesus as a man would have had her eyes, hair color, general appearance, and probably also characteristic intonations of voice and expression that came from being taught by Mary as infant. Recent scholarship suggests that Mary may well have been educated in the Temple in Jerusalem; ancient tradition suggests that Mary’s father, Joachim, of a priestly family, had connections with the temple and may have provided wool for temple fabrics. We now know there through modern historical research that there was a school for girls at the temple at about that time for young women who worked the wool and would have received the same Torah education young men received up until their time for marriage or betrothal in their early teens. Mary was probably able to read and write; and her voice may be the one we hear in the Magnificat, as told to St. Luke.
But it is not just Mary. The Protestant Reformation followed by secular society wiped out the cult of the Saints including the female virgins and martyrs mentioned in the Canon of the Mass as well as the enormous role of women religious in Catholic societies, which provided a role for women hermits, mystics, nuns and sisters, operating abbeys, schools, hospitals, orphanages, homes for widows and women whose husbands were away or killed in war, and pretty much every social service imaginable, not to mention the intense spirituality of women’s contemplative orders, such as the Carmelites. From St. Agnes and St. Cecilia to St. Theresa of Avila and St. Therese of the Child Jesus, to St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, and St. Frances Cabrini, women have exercised their feminine genius and made great contributions to the Church and the God’s salvific program for all humanity. It was the Protestant Reformation, ironically, that despite abolishing the priesthood as such did wipe out consecrated religious life for everyone, leaving nothing but an exclusively all-male clergy (to all intents and purposes) and suggesting that temporal marriage and motherhood (wonderful things) were yet the only vocation available to women. The Catholic vision needs to be seen in its totality to be understood and appreciated.
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be a thread hog, but I just realized my last comment was not clear at all. What I mean to say is that models of humble, loving service have been no more common historically for women than for men, apart from the example of Christ. It is not true that Christ only came to redeem men, or that men need a little more redeeming than women. Anyone who believes otherwise has not seen what happens to women who grow up without love, support, or guidance; such a woman shows you what original sin has done to femininity. (Not picking on you, ladies - the same can be said of men who’ve been left to their own devices.) No, the concept of loving service is foreign to all the fallen, regardless of sex. Without Christ, we are all ruthless, selfish, cruel, brutal, merciless, hateful, manipulative, exploitative, and demeaning. I am not saying this out of Christian piety. I am saying this because I have seen it. I have seen it in myself, growing like an ugly weed when I have been far from Christ for a long time, and I have seen it in others for whom Christianity - and its Cross - are nothing but a total, laughable joke. I spend lots of time with such people, and I can assure you, the women are not better than the men.
It is clear that the priesthood purifies masculinity, but your initial comment, Elizabeth, leaves me with the impression that you believe the priesthood exists because men need a special calling to service, or a greater degree of purification than women. On the basis of my own experience, I think that is totally false. I don’t think that’s why the priesthood exists. Does it purify masculinity? Yes. Did God make men priests because men needed it more? No. I think God gave us the role of priesthood because it corresponds to our nature as men (as other commenters have already said).
@Elizabeth - What you say of men is also historically true of women.
Sandra, your remark doesn’t make sense because no man is forced to be a priest. If we men are all the lazy, degenerate, self-serving clods you say we are, why are there any priests at all? Every man would simply say, “Sorry, not my vocation” and thus avoid any form of service at all (since in your view, there is no other place where they are required to serve). Since there are priests, we know men are not as totally bereft of love, honor, and faith as you say they are. Every man is at least occasionally possessed of the desire to serve; for some this happens more often than others. For a handful of men, and a handful of women, this desire is all-consuming.
Also, you called the priesthood the one place where men must serve. Well, as I said, the only men who are forced to fulfill any one position are slaves, but there is another point I’d like to draw out here. What about fathers? uncles? brothers? sons? grandsons? Are these not positions of service? And up until recently, what about policemen, firefighters, and soldiers? In fact, haven’t men, at least until recently, filled most occupations in the public sphere? What about those occasions when men sacrificed their lives so women and children could live - as happened, for example, the Titanic? Men serve and have always served in countless roles throughout society. In fact, if men had not served in innumerable ways throughout history, civilization would not exist today. If not for men, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now!
Clearly, God did not make the priesthood male-only because it was the only way to get men to serve. There is something more here.
Please forgive our sometimes bad behavior, Sandra, and pray for us. We do not always mean to be hurtful or neglectful. And please do not be so hard on us. Like you, we are trying, and we often fail. Finally, please try to see the good God does put in our hearts - it is there.
Richard: Yep.
In ancient Hebrew times weren’t all priests male?
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Not all women feel slighted by the all-male priesthood. I, for one, am not. Jesus made a choice. He could have chosen to be a woman, but he didn’t. He could have chosen a woman to be one of The Twelve, but he didn’t even choose his mother. Yet he had women in his entourage. He healed women, forgave women, blessed women, admired women. He gave them full respect and dignity. Not “to the extent the culture would allow,” but counter-culturally.
Jennifer, thank you, thank you, thank you.
@cbl: yes, I think it’s entirely fair to say that models of humble, self-sacrificing service by men are historically scarce (if not entirely absent)prior to the advent of Christianity, and resisted by the larger culture since its inception. Jesus’ passive suffering has been scandalous for many—this is why the Anglo-Saxons came up with things like “The Dream of the Rood” as a way to reconcile their ideas of proper masculinity with their new faith and probably why they are so obsessed with crosses in general). The celibate, male priesthood is completely countercultural, as it not only says but SHOWS that male sexuality need not be what the dominant culture insists it must be—that men, can, in fact, control their libidos and be, in addition, humble servants of God. Catholic marriage says the same thing, of course—but it’s not the powerful statement about gender that the male priesthood is.
Thank you! I love this article. I am going to send it to my family members who snub the church because they think women are subjugated in it. As a child, I remember watching my brother and the other boys in our parish serve at altar, and I never really wished I could be up there. I didn’t think it was unfair, it made perfect sense that boys were altar servers, because men were priests. It actually makes me sad to see girls as altar servers; serving at altar is supposed to be the first step in training to be a priest, but since women aren’t priests, why have girls up there? There are many other ways to serve the church.
Loved your column. And even in pre Vatican II there were always roles that women could participate in the Church.
There were real teaching nuns and nursing nuns. In our parish we had the Altar and Rosary society, the Young Ladies Sodality (which you were expected to join in high school) a women’s choir, a girls choir and oh yes the VA Auxiliary which consisted of the wives of husbands that served during World War II.
Plus the PTU (Catholic PTA) and numerous bake sales held year round, not to mention dinners, and the good ladies that served us lunches in the cafeteria. And later on, lay women teachers.
And at that time, pastors generally had their mothers as housekeepers/cooks at the parishes. I never felt like women were ignored and don’t believe my working mother felt that either, although from necessity she couldn’t participate in all of the activities.
We would have been shocked if there had been “altar girls’ at that time, although now I don’t care.
Yes, Jesus was a male, but Mary was all female and someone to look up to. Mothers can have empathy with her as she also was a mother and had to go through terrible times. I can’t imagine seeing a child dying in the way that Jesus did, and her bravery at the Cross.
So, I can’t identify with women or girls saying that this is unfair. They have a good role model (Mary) and I think one of the reasons we are different, is so we can take care of our children and husbands in a role that compliments each other.
Wow! Great article! I had an issue with when I first converted. I was raised in a household that was male centric—Dad was Puerto Rican. The double standard was alive and thriving. So I rebelled. It didn’t seem fair to me and I didn’t buy that Jesus had a choice in who he picked since he was born during a male centric time. Of course, I understand that he could have picked any time at all. I help with RCIA and I teach this portion because of my previous rebellion. My logic is similar…starts off that state that there’s a lot of things I can do. God gave me many talents, but I don’t do hair well. I can be a Mom but I am not made to be a man. It’s not an issue of fairness or male sexism, it is how GOD has ordered the universe. I’m going to hand this out as you made better points. Thanks!! You say you are a lifelong atheist, but it sounds like that might have changed???
Tess, read Scott Hahn, Many Are Called. It’s wonderfully accessible, and it not only lays out the Scriptural basis, OT and NT, but also the relationship between the priesthood, marriage, and fatherhood. Furthermore, listen to Peter Kreeft explain the all-male priesthood—particularly the part about how only men can be daddies. At the risk of coming off as purposefully stirring up controversy (such is not my intent, and I think this is important, given the other articles and discussions here at the NCRegister), even children’s literature sympathetic to the homosexual lifestyle admits this difference as much—i.e. “Heather has two Mommies.” Not even trying to have a baby without a mother or without a father, such that eggs, sperm, and uteri, to say nothing of children themselves, become commodities can conveniently wish that reality away.
Jen, an interesting article. I would only ask how you went from Atheist to Cathoic. I am an atheist and I’ve read alot about people that said they were atheist but were more what I would consider agnostic. What evidence that convinced you to be an Atheist changed? Since I have never seen any reason to believe, I would truely like to know.
My cradle Catholic wife left your church for alot of reasons but intestingly enough, not about male only clergy. She now leads a United Methodist Church and is very happy.
I hope you all have a great summer.
Rover.
Rachel, I’m so sorry to hear about what you’ve encountered in your confirmation class—namely, the refusal of these girls to think deeply about sacraments (particularly when they’re going to be receiving one, for Pete’s sake!), and why, in the priesthood, one is called to be something, and not just do something. The only thing that seems to matter to these girls is the usual mantra of extreme “rights” talk and individualism: “I WANNIT!” And if “I wannit,” then I have a “right” to it, because I can “do” what I don’t understand, precisely because I see only with my eyes, and not with my heart, head, and soul. Women cannot legitimately confect the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and a woman saying “this is my Body”—the words of Christ as bridegroom (God as groom goes back to the Old Testament, as does an all-male priesthood)—is just absurd. It makes no theological sense. Women can therefore play at celebrating Mass all they want, but it is not valid: you can do what looks like what Father does every Sunday, but without a valid ordination, you have no authority, and so the spiritual reality is simply not there. I think what really does get my goat is how selfish this demand that women have a “right” to the priesthood is, because we depend upon both the Eucharist and Confession to feed and heal our souls. Without valid priests, we don’t have a valid Eucharist, and we don’t have valid Confessions.
Sandra, I had to guffaw at what you said about service, and how it’s not “honey, can you get me a beer?” at the altar.
clb, I agree with what you’re saying, but while men need our prayers and help more than our sarcasm, it’s also true that the larger culture does produce a lot of males for whom service is atypical. Furthermore, how many Catholic families, even, don’t encourage vocations enough? In fact, refusing to think about service is a widespread problem. So I think Sandra and others are right to point out how that kind of “maleness” is problematic. As many an article here at the NCRegister has pointed out, we seem to have a dearth of men, but a whole heck of a lot of “guys.” Also, another commenter, responding to another post (I think one of Simcha Fisher’s?) rightly pointed out that while women should submit to their husbands, they’re afraid of doing so, because they’re afraid of being taken advantage of—especially if they’ve experienced far too many men who aren’t ready to “lay down their lives as Christ did for his Church.”
That’s another thing about the priesthood that I recently noticed: when ordinands prostrate themselves before the altar, that’s exactly what they’re doing: they are laying down their lives for their bride, the Church, just as a husband ought to be doing. Which squares nicely with what Scott Hahn has pointed out in his book on the priesthood: that priests are fathers and husbands in their own right. It’s why the vocations of marriage and the priesthood are connected, and if one suffers, so does the other.
yes yes yes Jen!
and the priesthood isn’t about power…it should be about being a servant…and we all have ‘jobs’ to do…
Thankyou for this most informative article. I totally agree that the role of priesthhod is for men and men only. I always go back to Jesus, He chose 12 apostles to be the first priests and surely if he wanted women priests His mother would have been His 1st choice, He loved her so much and never hesitated to do what she asked Him but Mary in all her wisdom knew that this was not in God,s plan so never requested priesthood for herself or any women for that matter.
Thank you Jennifer and all those who have posted comments. I have been looking for some guidance on this issue in order to counter arguments from someone who has rejected attending any church and embraced a mixture of goddess worship combined with some aspects of Christianity due to what she sees as patriarchy in Christianity. It has left me pondering. I have never felt slighted in the least by the Church perhaps due to early teachings by the nuns on the importance of Mary to the Church and also our value as women.
Can I just say how OUTRAGED I am by this website? Not about what Jennifer said, that was all spot on. I’m talking about the changing article links that they put in the Voices from the Blogs section.
I think Steve Kellmeyer at www.bridegroompress.com does a wonderful job of explaining why women can not be priest. Steve covers the area of Christ being the Bridegroom and the Church His bride in his book, Sex and the Sacred City.
Sciar, you raise a very important point about how vocations are not “rights.” They’re a call from God. For that matter, and for the same reason, none of us have any “right” to be married in the Church. We have to be called. And yes, I agree (and I’m also irritated) at how claiming that the Church is denying women the “right” to be priests is thumbing one’s nose at nuns, mothers, and consecrated women of lay movements. It also neglects one other thing: the Church is not restricted to an institution or to a building on Sundays. The Church is the Body of Christ. And we’re meant to go out into the world, no matter our gifts and talents and callings, into all of its nooks and crannies and bring the light of Christ to it. While I can understand that clericalism has been a problem in the past, the answer to clericalism isn’t more clericalism.
Love the article. Some of the comments, though…
“Suffering and service…is…atypical for a male?” Really?
Supporting an all-male priesthood via male-bashing. That doesn’t seem like a very logical, charitable or truthful approach.
@Sandra—you took the words out of my mouth. The all-male priesthood is profoundly wise—and really, profoundly “subversive” in many ways (that favorite buzzword of feminists) because it places men in the role of service, just as Our Lord placed Himself in a position of suffering and service that is, among other things, atypical for a male.
I have worked for the catholic Church since for the past 8 years as a parish assistant and in youth ministry at my University. I have encountered many women who are appalled at the church for, “denying them the right to be priests.” Firstly I never saw being a priest, or anything else for that matter, as a right. It is a vocation, a call from God. Secondly, I was always offended by them. I think that they are (maybe inadvertantly) snubbing their noses at all the roles women do have in the Church; nuns, mothers, and conscrated women of lay movements.
I am a Catholic revert—cradle Catholic, agnostic phase, going-to-Mass-but-functional-atheist phase, practicing Catholic. I think that one of the reasons why lifelong Catholics don’t understand why women can’t be priests is because nobody’s ever told them the theological reasons and to ask them to grapple with them. Certainly, as we all know, catechesis in the Church has been less than stellar, particular in the “silly season” of the 1960s and 1970s, and even into the 1980s and 1990s (the latter was sort of a “meh” phase). I never really had a problem with an all-male priesthood per se, I’ve always had some respect for our priests, and something in me had always thought that the idea that women have any “right” to be priests never sat right with me. But because I’ve always been a bit of a tomboy, I could never articulate the reasons until Pre-Cana really made me confront the Catholic faith. I read Catholicism for Dummies. I listened to Peter Kreeft’s talk on why there is an all-male priesthood. I read articles on it. I read Scott Hahn, Many Are Called: Rediscovering the Glory of the Priesthood. I stopped to think of the theological reasons and who and what a priest actually is. And then, one day, it clicked.
I’ve never had a problem with the male priesthood. My feeling is that most people who do have a problem are looking at it as just a job rather than a calling with mystical significance. The Church is the bride and the priest stands in for the bridegroom, Christ. Great article, thanks for posting it.
By the way, many conservative protestant denominations do not let women speak in church because of St. Paul’s admonitions. When I became a Catholic, the women lectors struck me as being liberalish!
@SkiFree Champion
> “I’m all for gender differences, but what in the world does physical strength have to do with being a priest?”
That was not the argument of Jenifer. Regarding strength, she was simply showing how ridiculous is the “gender ideology” of extremist feminists - the kind that think women are just as good firemen as men.
To know about why priests are always men, there are more elaborate argumentations that explain how a priest’s role is one of spiritual fatherhood. When Jesus chose to become a man (not a woman) there was a reason for it; God’s relation to His creatures is more akin to that of a father than to that of a mother. There is a reason we call God “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” instead of “Mother, Daughter and Holy Ghost”. You should read John Paul II texts for more clarification.
And in the end, the fact that God did not give us authority to make “priestesses” settles it.
By the way: I don’t know of any apostolic Church that make “priestesses”. Not the Catholic Church, nor the Eastern Orthodox, nor the Ancient Oriental Orthodox.
“priestesses” are solely an invention of certain protestants who do not have apostolic succession - and thus don’t have priests in the first place.
I’m all for gender differences, but what in the world does physical strength have to do with being a priest? Is there some sort of furniture-moving rite I’m not aware of?
I’m with you. I never understood equality as uniformity. Most of the women I know who object to all male priesthood have a drive toward ministering to others. They mistakenly think the only place for this in the Church is the priesthood. I was so grateful when we got a pastor who really placed the major work of the parish in the hands of the parishioners. If anyone went to him and had a great idea, he’d say, “Great, how do you think you can do that?” Many were stunned he meant for them to do the heavy lifting, but in the end he helped us create a true community. I really think that helped us all feel like true ministers of Christ’s Church, not just bystanders.
Women are necessary for the human race to continue. Men are necessary for the church to continue (priests). The church is referred to as Mother Church. God became incarnate as the man, Jesus and revealed Himself as Father. Different people have different roles….I just don’t get why this is a problem for so many people. I get very irritated by our pastor who never uses a pronoun (He, Him, His) when referring to God. It strikes me as bad grammar/writing to use the same noun several times in the same sentence or paragraph and not use a pronoun.
Just a few Monday morning musings. I thought the article was excellent.
Wow Sarah, that really IS quite an insight, a profound one about men and women both.
Like Jennifer I never had a problem with male priesthood. I am really mystified by women who say they feel slighted or betrayed, etc., by it. An old professor of mine, now an Episcoplian, told me how empowered and grateful and thrilled she was to find that women could be Episcopal priests. I just do not get it.
Sr. Sarah Butler has a great book on this subject. She set out to prove that women could be priests and discovered that they can’t, and so it answers pretty much every objection one can make.
Wow, Sandra. I LOVE that observation about it!!
Maybe God wanted the service at His altar to be the one place where men MUST serve, where they cannot sit back and let women serve. God did not want a “Honey-bring-me-a-beer” type of Church.
Glad that it makes sense to a life long atheist. Wonder why it doesn’t make sense to life long catholics. Maybe they should become atheist?
The struggle we face is that too many women feel slighted by God in all of this and honestly, I am not sure why. I have never felt that just because I couldn’t be a priest I didn’t matter to God and did not have a valued part in His vast plan for the world! I just needed to be open to what that might be beyond the altar.
I’ve run into these girls every year I have taught Confirmation. Every year one of them will begin to spout about their right to be a priest - though when I question them as to why they think so they stumble to come up with any real reasons. They remain adamant, though, that the Church is sexist. My encouragement to read “The Dignity of Women” is dismissed and they continue with their bitterness.
God’s salvation of man hinged on on the yes of a woman and it is sad to see so many young woman get wrapped up in what they perceive they cannot do that they refuse to investigate all they can do for and with God. The snake is still in the garden and too many women are listening to its lies.
I researched this topic for a long while as, even as a man, it troubled me. The absolute best arguments I’ve found for an all-male priesthood are all contained in this talk by Dr. Peter Kreeft:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm
I’ve listened to it numerous times now and each time discover a new reason why the Church seems to know what she is doing (and whose lead she is following.)
Different path, same conclusions here. Thanks, Jennifer- as always, clear reason in the midst of chaos (in the global church-and the domestic :).
Ms Fulwiler,
thank you for writing this. I hope that more people realize that people don’t have to do the same things to have equal dignity. I hope the present notion of extremist feminism will subside soon.
Anyway, since you spoke of motherhood, please see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw4KVoEVcr0
You will like it! This video has 24 million views for a reason.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.