Best Response To Give Feminst On No Women Priest

[YourNameHere]

There are no good answers. The answer I would give is that back at the time Jesus Christ walked the Earth, women were considered second-class citizens. It was a good ole boys club.
To a certain extent, they still are today.
At least the Catholic Church honors Mary as Jesus’ Mother.

 

[Magnanimity]

Women taking care of the poor and sick is just not challenging to traditional views of women’s roles.

Yeah, I’m just not following you, I guess. Perhaps you are making more of a socio-economic point here. As in, you want female role models that don’t fall into “traditional” gender-roles? Is that it? The saints are the most worthy people for us to emulate. That’s a very clear teaching of the church. But perhaps you’re wondering about female titans of industry, leaders of governments, is that it? I’m not particularly impressed by either gov’t or capitalism, so I probably can’t go too far down that road.

Many of these laws had basis in that a woman belongs at home or is too delicate for certain things. That was set by men and especially non-minority men

Ok, fair enough but up until very recently, the majority of the world was still “rural.” My parents who are baby boomers literally grew up on farms in the South (U.S.) as children, as did not a few Boomers. Any society set up like that will have the strongest of the genders (the males) building the barns, dealing with the unruly bulls, etc. Most women would consider it a kindness of the man on the farm to go deal with the unruly bull himself rather than sending the woman to do it. That isn’t odd, nor is it sexist. It’s kind and chivalrous.

Urbanism, the formation of egalitarian societies not based on farming, is a recent phenomenon in terms of global history. I don’t think it’s odd at all that we are now revising laws to suit this new norm.

 

[Gorgias]

That is precisely the development of the teaching in LG 16. One can be “outside the church” (eg, a Muslim) and still saved. That is not what would have been meant by St Augustine. Development. Change. It happened.

To be fair, Augustine’s ideas on salvation aren’t 100% doctrinal. His understanding led him to the conclusion that the entirety of humanity was a massa damnata – that is, that everyone is doomed to hell, and it’s only the exception, rather than the rule, that anyone can be saved. The Church rejected this understanding of God’s grace and of salvation.

So, I think I would say that this isn’t an example of “development of doctrine”, in the way that you say it is, but only because Augustine’s ideas here aren’t doctrinal to begin with.

Have you ever read Sullivan’s “Salvation Outside the Church?”, in which he does a good job demonstrating that the audiences for EENS are already members of the Church, and therefore, EENS applies to them, and strictly at that?

You made a claim—that the church has no such authority to begin ordaining women. You apparently believe, for whatever reasons, that this is self-evidently true. But you have not presented to the rest of us (including me) what those reasons are.

Read Sara Butler’s excellent “The Catholic Priesthood and Women: A Guide to the Teaching of the Church.” She lays out the arguments convincingly there.

You believe that recent popes have spoken, the matter is settled.

Well… they have spoken on it – you’d concede that point, wouldn’t you? The only question, then, is whether they’ve spoken authoritatively. If they have, then the matter is settled, whether or not some want the “matter to be open to further questioning”, right?

 

[jack63]

My 15 yo daughter has a real problem with the church not allowing women priest.

The very first thing you would need to do is ask your 15 year old daughter to try to think like at least a 30 year old. I don’t believe there is short, simple, easy, and convincing argument either way on this question.

 

[babochka]

It’s not sexist. The priest is in persona Christi when celebrating the sacraments, so a woman cannot take his place. It’s a metaphysical impossibility. Christ is the Head of His Church, who is His Spouse. A woman cannot serve in the Church the way a man can. She does not serve, but rather is served, because of her dignity. The prohibition on women priests is not sexist discrimination, but a protection of the woman’s dignity, given her proper function and role in the life of the Church, whom we refer to also as “she”, our Mother Church. Just as a man cannot become a spouse of Our Lord, a woman cannot become a priest.
[/quote]

I’m not sure how the dignity of women is protected by the reality that women cannot become priests. The vast majority of men do not serve the Church in the person of Christ. They serve as lay members of the mystical body of Christ, the Church. The Church herself, consisting of men and women, is feminine - the Bride of Christ.

I’m not arguing that women should be priests.( I have no problem with the mind of the church on this topic .) It’s just that your particular argument does not resonate with me.

 

[Magnanimity]

So, I think I would say that this isn’t an example of “development of doctrine”, in the way that you say it is, but only because Augustine’s ideas here aren’t doctrinal to begin with.

It’s for sure a development. The church fathers would not have taught that folks of other religions (or even irreligious people) could be saved. Yet that is the clear teaching of LG 16. My use of St Augustine is somewhat arbitrary (bc I’m familiar with his teachings) as an example.

Hopefully, you’re not trying to argue against Newman’s position. If you are, then I don’t have anything to say in response. The history of the church is one of development. There really can’t be any doubt about that, as far as I can see. The decrees of the ecumenical councils, if nothing else, is evidence enough of development.

The only book by Sullivan that I’ve read was Magisterium, which was quite good.

Sara Butler’s excellent “The Catholic Priesthood and Women: A Guide to the Teaching of the Church.”

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

Well… they have spoken on it – you’d concede that point, wouldn’t you?

No, I did concede the point, not that I would concede it. But I’m not sure what it would look like for a pope to speak “authoritatively” on this issue and settle it.

But, I’m no stranger to dissent. As you may remember, I openly dissent against the Augustinian-Thomistic position on Hell. I’ve done it repeatedly in multiple threads here at CAF. I don’t go looking for dissent though. Who likes conflict? I’d rather have peace. I’ll check out the Butler article.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s for sure a development. The church fathers would not have taught that folks of other religions (or even irreligious people) could be saved.

Read the Sullivan book. It might surprise you.

Hopefully, you’re not trying to argue against Newman’s position.

No, I think his view that doctrine develops is sound. However, you’re using Newman to make a claim that he doesn’t make: that doctrine changes and does 180 degree turns. I don’t think you can find anything in his writing to support this claim that you’re making.

But I’m not sure what it would look like for a pope to speak “authoritatively” on this issue and settle it.

Have you looked at JPII’s statement? Would you call that statement “not authoritative”? If so, I’m not sure what you would consider authoritative, either!

 

[Techno2000]

My 15 yo daughter has a real problem with the church not allowing women priest. She thinks it’s sexist and the church is run by all men. I really, really want to give her a good answer but cannot come up with anything in my searches other than Jesus picked men for apostles and Jesus himself was a man… Is there a response that would satisfy someone who believes that not allowing women as priest is sexist?

If Jesus wanted female priest, there would be female priest in his church.But Jesus didn’t want female priest,so the Holy Spirit never lead the church to ordain females …it’s as simple as that.

 

[Magnanimity]

However, you’re using Newman to make a claim that he doesn’t make: that doctrine changes and does 180 degree turns.

There is no reason to think I am making that claim. But every development is an unfolding, a broadening beyond what was originally held by the belief/practice. It is a change, necessarily. What would an “unchanging” development look like? That is an incoherent concept.

Would you call that statement “not authoritative”?

In what sense? On the level of the Nicene Creed? The decrees of the ecumenical councils? The Marian dogmas? No, I wouldn’t put it on the level of those teachings that demand assent. Therefore, it’s possible to question and probe. I’ll check out the source you gave.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

However, you’re using Newman to make a claim that he doesn’t make: that doctrine changes and does 180 degree turns.

There is no reason to think I am making that claim.

Umm… really?

That is precisely the development of the teaching in LG 16. One can be “outside the church” (eg, a Muslim) and still saved. That is not what would have been meant by St Augustine.

I dunno… kinda looks like you are making the claim that it meant “not this thing” in the past and “precisely this thing” today!

Magnanimity:

But every development is an unfolding, a broadening beyond what was originally held by the belief/practice. It is a change, necessarily. What would an “unchanging” development look like? That is an incoherent concept.

It wouldn’t look like “black” one day and “white” the next. Now that would be incoherent, in the context of the Church’s understanding of what ‘doctrine’ is!

Magnanimity:

In what sense? On the level of the Nicene Creed? The decrees of the ecumenical councils? The Marian dogmas?

On the level of a papal teaching, stated officially on a teaching of the faith.

No, I wouldn’t put it on the level of those teachings that demand assent.

So… let me be sure I understand what you’re saying: if it’s not a ‘creed’, an ‘ecumenical council’, or ‘dogma’, then there is no requirement for a Catholic to assent to the teaching? Umm… I think you’re mischaracterizing what the Church asks of her people…

Therefore, it’s possible to question and probe.

So… when the pope says “the Church has no authority to take this action”, what do you ‘question’? Whether he’s telling the truth? Hmm…

 

[Magnanimity]

@Gorgias, I have done a tit-for-tat exchange with you before in a separate thread. It was an exercise in futility, so I won’t do it again. If I understand you correctly you think you’re being faithful as a Catholic by just taking the apostolic letter written by Pope John Paul II as definitive and final. Well, good for you. As with the other individual above, so also with you - it doesn’t matter to me what you (particularly) think about this issue.

The only thing I have been wondering about within this thread is whether there are essential reasons why there can be only males priests. Or whether the reasons offered by the church are accidental, in the Thomistic sense So far all I have heard are fairly weak, or to be more accurate, accidental reasons why the Catholic Church has only male priests. Perhaps sister Butler offers some of these essential reasons that illustrate that there is something in the essence of maleness that is properly suited to the sacerdotal ministry. And, presumably if there is such an essential quality about males, this quality would be lacking in females.

That’s all. I don’t think these expectations are unreasonable. Rather, I think they would count toward proper justification for the position that the church has taken on this issue. If you disagree, Ok… :man_shrugging:t2:

 

[Mark121359]

This topic has sure been beaten to death over the years! The answer to the OP’s question is there is no “best response.” I highly doubt that Christ Himself could provide an adequate response to a feminist!

 

[PatK63]

I was with the priest before a first mass of a newly ordained priest friend. Some lady came in and was giving them instructions on where to stand etc. for communion. When she left, I said just because you don’t get married doesn’t mean you will not be taking orders from a women. They all laughed and the pastor said: I think they know that.
Women are the backbone of every parish. Tell your daughter to grow where God planted her.

 

[Hodos]

When dealing with this question, I always point to Paul’s statements in 1 Timothy 2-3, and in 1 Corinthians 11 and demonstrate how he always points back to creation when dealing with issues of authority. Then I go through the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 to demonstrate that Paul is upholding God’s created order in his statements about the clergy and relations between men and women.

 

[CaptFun]

Perhaps pose some questions to the girl (as the anti-Catholic mentor she got her complaint(s) from did) prior to her problem with the faith.

Would a woman priest make the Holy Eucharist MORE Jesus? < His unity with us is more important than any politics after all.

Why did not of the great female SAINTS of History
(who incidentally outrank priests and even the Pope at this point) … lobby and strive to BE priests?

Would the allowance of female priests somehow cause feminists and such outside of the Church suddenly stream INTO the Church … believing and following all the rest of HER < (the Church’s) teachings?

They may be leading questions, I’ll admit. But they lead to a better result than her current excuse for being outside of the Church … with hazy complaints against her < (the Church again) as the present substitute for the grace and salvation the Church brings us all.

 

[Gorgias]

If I understand you correctly you think you’re being faithful as a Catholic by just taking the apostolic letter written by Pope John Paul II as definitive and final. Well, good for you.

So, then… exactly how should we take the letter? Especially since JPII declares, as an exercise of his Petrine ministry, that it is “definitive and final”, how might we reason that it isn’t?

The only thing I have been wondering about within this thread is whether there are essential reasons why there can be only males priests.

Is Apostolic Teaching not a sufficient reason?

So far all I have heard are fairly weak, or to be more accurate, accidental reasons why the Catholic Church has only male priests… presumably if there is such an essential quality about males, this quality would be lacking in females.

Since it deals with bodies and not souls, wouldn’t the reason necessarily be “accidental”? It seems you’re dissing the rationale merely because it deals precisely with what it must deal with – physical (‘accidental’) rather than transcendental (‘substantial’) issues!

 

[Magnanimity]

Since it deals with bodies and not souls , wouldn’t the reason necessarily be “accidental”?

Let me give examples of essential differences between males and females and see if that helps you see my question better. I do believe such gender differences are real in nature. There may be many ways in which human males and females differ from each other, but these two are just the most glaringly obvious.

Human males embody strength. That is what sets them apart from females. They are, on average, much stronger than their female counterparts. Human males dominate the sports industry, and males and females do not play each other in sports where strength and speed are relevant factors.

Human females embody beauty. That is what sets them apart from males. They exemplify beauty in a way that is unique and distinctive from males. Human females dominate the modeling industry. There is male participation, but nothing coming close to rivaling the sheer scope of female participation in the industry.

These are not accidental differences—they are essential. Put another way, what it is to be a human male is to exemplify strength. What it is to be a human female is to exemplify beauty. It is of the essence of the thing (what it is) to have these characteristics. So no, these are not “accidental” differences between the human genders.

So, what I’m asking for is what other quality of maleness subsists which specially places him in a position of being suited for the priesthood? Such a unique and gender-specific quality might exist. I’m just asking what it is. I’m assuming that it is not the male’s strength that makes him qualified (not the woman’s beauty that makes her disqualified). So, what is it?

Idk what apostolic teaching you’re referring to. Hopefully, it isn’t to the “Pauline ban” that the church used for centuries to justify why women cannot be “leaders” (including the episcopacy) in the church.

I appreciate the pope’s tendency to say, “I have spoken, so y’all stop talking about it.” I really do. As a parent, I often wished my word carried that weight with my children. And sometimes it does. But often I have to provide good reasons to my children in order to satiate their curiosity and to settle the matter in their minds. In the pope’s letter, he makes a crucially important side remark that real power and influence in the church has always rested with the saints, not the clergy, and sainthood is open to all humans, irrespective of anything (to include gender).

But in the same letter, JP2 writes, “Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time,” by which I assume he means that Christ coming into the world in a patriarchal society that only had males as priests formerly (Jews) had no bearing at all on his choosing only males as his original disciples? Ok. :man_shrugging:t2: Idk how many folks would buy that line of reasoning, but I’m sure the numbers aren’t few that would be disinclined to believe it.

 

[TheLittleLady]

AMEN!

If the idea is to drive her away from her faith, the tone of most answers here will further that cause.

 

[Gorgias]

These are not accidental differences—they are essential. Put another way, what it is to be a human male is to exemplify strength. What it is to be a human female is to exemplify beauty. It is of the essence of the thing ( what it is) to have these characteristics. So no, these are not “accidental” differences between the human genders.

If you’re going to hang your hat on philosophical constructs of Aristotelian / Thomistic systems, though, you’ve got to play by their rules. “Strength” and “beauty” are, in fact, accidental qualities! They spring not from the soul but from the body, and therefore, are the very definition of ‘accidents’!

So, I appreciate that you want to call them ‘essential’, but they’re not. I get that, by calling them ‘essential’, it opens the door for you to ask what other physical qualities might be ‘essential’ and relevant to priesthood… but, at its heart, that’s a bit of sleight of hand.

So, to be fair, you can’t dismiss the notion of an all-male priesthood by asking ‘essence’, if the distinction here is physical and not substantial.

Idk what apostolic teaching you’re referring to.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which JPII wrote,

JPII:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

I mean, in a very literal way, he points to his office of pope, the constitution of the Church, and the assertion that this is to be “definitively held” by Catholics.

JP2 writes, “Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time,” by which I assume he means that Christ coming into the world in a patriarchal society that only had males as priests formerly (Jews) had no bearing at all on his choosing only males as his original disciples?

It didn’t keep him from the other things that the “patriarchal society” forbade – like conversing in the open with Samaritans, and women, and women to whom you’re not related, to boot! We’re willing to tout Christ’s open-mindedness in these situations… but in the same breath, we’re going to say that He was constrained by society? C’mon… I don’t know how many folks buy that line of reasoning!

 

[Magnanimity]

If you’re going to hang your hat on philosophical constructs of Aristotelian / Thomistic systems, though, you’ve got to play by their rules. “Strength” and “beauty” are , in fact, accidental qualities! They spring not from the soul but from the body, and therefore, are the very definition of ‘accidents’!

No sir, when speaking of essences one is speaking of what a thing is, as I very clearly said. An accident of maleness would be something like IQ (though not rationality) or hair-color (though not ‘having hair’). To be rational and to have hair are of the essence of the thing–it is what humans are.