CIVIL RIGHTS discrimination based on sex?

[Kendy]

IanS:

One reason for the male-only priesthood is very straightforward and (should be, anyway) uncontroversial. Jesus Christ was a Man. Given the fact that every validly-ordained priest functions in Persona Christi at Mass (since it is Christ Himself who transforms the elements and performs the supernatural consecration, not the priest, who “stands in” for Him), it is altogether appropriate that men only are ordained. Of course we also have clear instructions and examples of Scripture which ought to be sufficient in and of themselves to settle this question. None of the twelve disciples were women. Jesus must have had a good reason for that, whether or not we understand it. I myself would much rather trust Him and apostolic, Christian Tradition, rather than the fads and fancies of our post-modern, sexually-libertine age.

Furthermore, the highest of God’s created beings, and the only sinless creature who ever lived - according to Catholicism - is a woman (the Blessed Virgin Mary), and a woman first saw the risen Jesus (Mary Magdalene: John 20:11-18). No man - by virtue of “unfair” biology - ever had the immense, unfathomable honor of “bearing God” and thus entering into that kind of incomprehensible biological intimacy with Jesus Christ. Protestants give us misery for allegedly venerating Mary as next to God, while feminists excoriate us for lowering the status of women vis-a-vis men! Ironies never cease!

Even though Jesus was a celibate male He does have a bride (and NO it’s not Mary Magdalene :whacky: ) it is the Holy Catholic Church He founded. That is why the Catholic Church is called the “Bride of Christ” with Jesus Christ as her Bridegroom. That is why the Catholic Church is always referred to as “her” or “she”, because the Church is feminine and Jesus is masculine.

When a man is ordained as a priest he becomes alter Christus. Therefore, he does the same as Christ and makes the Church his bride. So if a woman became ordained wouldn’t she become a bride of the “Bride of Christ”, and thus make it a **lesbian ** relationship?

The Catholic Church makes it very clear that Jesus is male and the Church is female. That’s why men wanting to answer a religious vocation become married to the “Bride of Christ” and women answer a religious vocation become married to Jesus Christ, the bridegroom.

What’s so wrong with being married to Jesus?

If the church is the bride of Christ, does that make all the non-ordained men in the church female? Not trying to be funny; just wondering.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

IanS:

One reason for the male-only priesthood is very straightforward and (should be, anyway) uncontroversial. Jesus Christ was a Man. Given the fact that every validly-ordained priest functions in Persona Christi at Mass (since it is Christ Himself who transforms the elements and performs the supernatural consecration, not the priest, who “stands in” for Him), it is altogether appropriate that men only are ordained. Of course we also have clear instructions and examples of Scripture which ought to be sufficient in and of themselves to settle this question. None of the twelve disciples were women. Jesus must have had a good reason for that, whether or not we understand it. I myself would much rather trust Him and apostolic, Christian Tradition, rather than the fads and fancies of our post-modern, sexually-libertine age.

Furthermore, the highest of God’s created beings, and the only sinless creature who ever lived - according to Catholicism - is a woman (the Blessed Virgin Mary), and a woman first saw the risen Jesus (Mary Magdalene: John 20:11-18). No man - by virtue of “unfair” biology - ever had the immense, unfathomable honor of “bearing God” and thus entering into that kind of incomprehensible biological intimacy with Jesus Christ. Protestants give us misery for allegedly venerating Mary as next to God, while feminists excoriate us for lowering the status of women vis-a-vis men! Ironies never cease!

Even though Jesus was a celibate male He does have a bride (and NO it’s not Mary Magdalene :whacky: ) it is the Holy Catholic Church He founded. That is why the Catholic Church is called the “Bride of Christ” with Jesus Christ as her Bridegroom. That is why the Catholic Church is always referred to as “her” or “she”, because the Church is feminine and Jesus is masculine.

When a man is ordained as a priest he becomes alter Christus. Therefore, he does the same as Christ and makes the Church his bride. So if a woman became ordained wouldn’t she become a bride of the “Bride of Christ”, and thus make it a **lesbian ** relationship?

The Catholic Church makes it very clear that Jesus is male and the Church is female. That’s why men wanting to answer a religious vocation become married to the “Bride of Christ” and women answer a religious vocation become married to Jesus Christ, the bridegroom.

What’s so wrong with being married to Jesus?

Well, I think one of the things I struggle with is the lack of comparable roles for women. Sure, women serve in the church as lay people and religious, but those are not female equivalent of the priesthood. And of course, there is the fact that only men have authority. It’s like women can’t be trusted with authority.

I realize that questioning the church on this makes a lot of people angry, but I can’t help talking about something that causes me a great deal of pain. I am not trying to destroy the church. I don’t want to revert to protestantism. I really want to understand why only men can teach authoritively. I know that that is what is says in Timothy, but it doesn’t mean I understand it. And it certainly doesn’t mean that it doesn’t trouble me.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

Brendan:

Do you hold that the Church could proclaim error on the matter of a Sacrament?

I know this question was not directed to me, but I will give my answer to it. I want to believe that the church could not proclaim error on the matter of a sacrament. However, that does not mean I don’t have trouble turning that desire into a reality. That a woman cannot have teaching authority in the church doesn’t strike me as just. Instead, it seems like something comes from a time in human history when it was believed that woman are too easily deceived and too weak to have positions of authority.

Kendy

 

[johntkd]

IanS:

One reason for the male-only priesthood is very straightforward and (should be, anyway) uncontroversial. Jesus Christ was a Man. Given the fact that every validly-ordained priest functions in Persona Christi at Mass (since it is Christ Himself who transforms the elements and performs the supernatural consecration, not the priest, who “stands in” for Him), it is altogether appropriate that men only are ordained. Of course we also have clear instructions and examples of Scripture which ought to be sufficient in and of themselves to settle this question. None of the twelve disciples were women. Jesus must have had a good reason for that, whether or not we understand it. I myself would much rather trust Him and apostolic, Christian Tradition, rather than the fads and fancies of our post-modern, sexually-libertine age.

Furthermore, the highest of God’s created beings, and the only sinless creature who ever lived - according to Catholicism - is a woman (the Blessed Virgin Mary), and a woman first saw the risen Jesus (Mary Magdalene: John 20:11-18). No man - by virtue of “unfair” biology - ever had the immense, unfathomable honor of “bearing God” and thus entering into that kind of incomprehensible biological intimacy with Jesus Christ. Protestants give us misery for allegedly venerating Mary as next to God, while feminists excoriate us for lowering the status of women vis-a-vis men! Ironies never cease!

Even though Jesus was a celibate male He does have a bride (and NO it’s not Mary Magdalene :whacky: ) it is the Holy Catholic Church He founded. That is why the Catholic Church is called the “Bride of Christ” with Jesus Christ as her Bridegroom. That is why the Catholic Church is always referred to as “her” or “she”, because the Church is feminine and Jesus is masculine.

When a man is ordained as a priest he becomes alter Christus. Therefore, he does the same as Christ and makes the Church his bride. So if a woman became ordained wouldn’t she become a bride of the “Bride of Christ”, and thus make it a **lesbian **relationship?

The Catholic Church makes it very clear that Jesus is male and the Church is female. That’s why men wanting to answer a religious vocation become married to the “Bride of Christ” and women answer a religious vocation become married to Jesus Christ, the bridegroom.

What’s so wrong with being married to Jesus?

Ok thank you very much your post totally explained the unanswered or un-understood questions.
Now it makes total sense to me,and from here i can now explain
that indeed its not a discrimination…

thank you very much for this post.
explained in detail,without accusation or label…
John

 

[mercygate]

Kendy:

I know this question was not directed to me, but I will give my answer to it. I want to believe that the church could not proclaim error on the matter of a sacrament. However, that does not mean I don’t have trouble turning that desire into a reality. That a woman cannot have teaching authority in the church doesn’t strike me as just. Instead, it seems like something comes from a time in human history when it was believed that woman are too easily deceived and too weak to have positions of authority.

Kendy

There are plenty of women teaching in the Catholic Church and they teach theology, even in seminaries. They teach with the same “authority” as lay men in similar positions. The word “teaching authority” is a specific, narrow definition which applies to the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It isn’t so much about “men having authority” as it is about the integrity of the faith. Think of the influence Catherine of Siena wielded over the Pope!

 

[1ke]

johntkd:

ok so basically in short God wants us to discriminate based on sex but the church does not?

This comment makes no sense.

johntkd:

or as a Previous post said its based on “privilege” that being the case then it would be ok to not allow a woman to do many things as long as we term it a privi, an example would be I need a new VP for my company so i can avoid using a woman because its a privi to be at that job,its not thier right to have it its based on whom I choose which makes it a privi so to speak.

No. You are comparing apples and oranges. From human resources, the term is bona fide occupational qualification. For example, a film company casting for the part of Queen Elizabeth I is not discriminating based on sex when they turn down Mel Gibson for the part. Being a female is integral to the film role of Queen Elizabeth. The same could not be said for the role of “person who calls 911 on the Law & Order episode”. That particular role does not require a man or a woman.

Same for it not being discrimination to turn down people who can’t lift 100 lbs for a job that requires lifting 100 lbs.

You are approaching the issue from the entirely wrong direction. You are approaching if from “women *can * be priests and the Church won’t let them”. That is framed wrong. The real issue is “women cannot be priests”.

johntkd:

also I would not have to pay them “top dollar” for a job because i am not a union place and pay is based on other things its not guaranteed and raises are based on privi so i can pay a man 20 dollars an hour and the woman 6 or 7.

You are way out in left field and off topic. You are misusing the term “privilege”.

johntkd:

I am not saying the church is wrong or right at this point but if they are going to make such a harsh statement they need to back it up with some facts about how they percieve themselves in the right, not just leave it as a “because we say so”

So please read the numerous documents we have directed you to. The Church does not teach based on the “I said so” principle.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ORDIN.HTM

johntkd:

I know the biblical facts,and understand them as well. my feelings at this point was the church should have left that statement out of the booklet or rephrased it into logical terms

“The Church” didn’t write your RCIA booklet. A person explaining church teaching wrote it. Whether or not they have effectively conveyed the message, or if you are just not understading the message, I cannot say.

Go to the source documents for further information. The Catechism is a good place to start. I linked to it earlier.

johntkd:

its kind of hard to stand against something when you make the stand and you get asked what religion you are and after saying you lose all credibility to what you are making a stand against because your own religion is as guilty of what you are trying to fight.

The Church is not guilty of what you state.

johntkd:

come on give me some ammo please, you cant fight a fight like this based on a because God said so,Because nowhere in scripture is it written,its all based on what happened as an example.

You are seaching, I know, and have a lot to learn. It will come.

The Church does not teach that Scripture alone is the sole authority. Scripture and Tradition-- the Magesterium-- are both the rule of authority. The Church cannot teach error, so keep working to understand why your thinking is wrong and the Church is right.

 

[1ke]

johntkd:

sorry the post about Jesus beinga man makes no sense whatso ever Jesus was God in a mans body born of man, Man cannot walk on water.

No, John, Jesus was not “God in a man’s body”. Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Yes, Jesus was a man. And, that has significance for the sacrament of Holy Orders.

johntkd:

we are Taught Mary was the first head of the Church was Mary not Female?

Mary was not the first head of the Church. Peter was the person Jesus chose to head the Church-- see Matt 16:15-20.

johntkd:

and who is to decide whom recieves Holy Orders?

Where there is latitude, the Church decides, through the authority given to her by Jesus. Many men apply for ordination who are turned down. However, with respect to women, there is not “decision” to be made because women cannot be priests.

johntkd:

I am sure there is no Phone to heaven to verify if a woman feels she was called.

There is prayer, discernment, and ultimately the Church’s teaching. A woman is not authentically called to the priesthood.

johntkd:

do not think I am against the Church, I am not.

Good to know.

johntkd:

we are called upon to question things,if we didnt how would the Church Know what to take a stand on or why would they even Bother to define anything? so no its not a sin or “against” the Church to question.

We are called to understand what the Church teaches, and asking questions is a part of that. However, you must work from the premise that the Church is not in error, or you have started from the wrong premise entirely.

johntkd:

Has anyone ever thought that maybe questions we have are coming from something higher up?

No. Not in the way you mean. You seem to mean, “hey, I bet those guys with the bishop’s hat never thought of this…”. That is not the case. This particular issue has been closed for debate precisely because it has been authoritatively decided.

johntkd:

if holy orders are given why not “holy” questions?

It is not wrong to ask questions in an attempt to understand what the Church teaches.

johntkd:

maybe they are given because in our life at some point we will need a “proper” answer to defend our faith or to help someone choose a path.who is to say for sure.I know I feel its wrong to tell someone whom has questions that they dont have Faith or are sinning,to me it shows actually More Faith as they are trying to have all the facts, everything flows in circles also, what is answered today about this question could as well pertain to hundreds of other potential questions and topics.

Ok.

johntkd:

to merely sit back and say “because the Church says so”.

No one has suggested that the Church’s reasons are based on “because I said so”. In fact, we’ve given you reasons.

johntkd:

If we have no questions How would we Know if we are being taught in our individual Churches properly?

The Church cannot teach error-- of that we can be certain. Yes, individual people can teach you incorrectly, so you are right to search out and verify that what you are taught is authentic. That is why people here have pointed you to the Catechism.

johntkd:

think about that, lets say someone fell off the path and wanted some “power” they could be leading a parrish on a bad path, with nobody questioning it where would it stop?
they wouldnt know it was wrong and would assume it to be truthful and taught by the Church so to speak.
afterall isnt a priest still a man?and capable of sinfulness,
or even a Bishop? all are human and capable of falling down.

There are ample resources to refute any erroneous teaching by an individual.

 

[1ke]

Kendy:

Well, I think one of the things I struggle with is the lack of comparable roles for women. Sure, women serve in the church as lay people and religious, but those are not female equivalent of the priesthood. And of course, there is the fact that only men have authority. It’s like women can’t be trusted with authority.

Kendy,

Why do you try to distill down a supernatural mystery of the Sacrament to a “power” issue? Women and men are equal in dignity but we are not the same. It’s not about “power”. It’s about the supernatural reality of the way God ordered the universe, and the Sacraments.

Priests are servants and bishops are the servants of the servants. Priests are not more or less than anyone else. They do not hold some special “power”. What do you mean that only men have “authority”?

 

[1ke]

Kendy:

I know this question was not directed to me, but I will give my answer to it. I want to believe that the church could not proclaim error on the matter of a sacrament. However, that does not mean I don’t have trouble turning that desire into a reality. That a woman cannot have teaching authority in the church doesn’t strike me as just. Instead, it seems like something comes from a time in human history when it was believed that woman are too easily deceived and too weak to have positions of authority.

Kendy

Kendy,

God transcends time and culture. If the ordination issue was rooted in a cultural misconception Jesus would have addressed it as he did the numerous other teachings of the time that had been misapplied, changed, or degraded. Jesus repeatedly addressed mistaken teachings. This is not one of them.

You are also lacking a macro-view of the culture of the time by assuming that there was some sort of social prejudice against female priestesses. Jewish and Christian cultures were one of the few that did not have priestesses. Almost all the other religions of that time did in fact have a female priestly caste.

Keep in mind, the function of a priest in these religions and the function of the priest in the Jewish and Christian priesthoods were not at all the same. This is the heart of why women are not priests. It’s not about getting to dress up and be in front of the church congregation, wield some sort of power over people, or anything else. It’s about the real mystery of the Priesthood of Christ and a specific role within the church that God has set forth for the purpose of adminstering the Sacraments to the people of God.

 

[Brendan]

Kendy:

I want to believe that the church could not proclaim error on the matter of a sacrament. However, that does not mean I don’t have trouble turning that desire into a reality.

That’s always a great place to start

That a woman cannot have teaching authority in the church doesn’t strike me as just. Instead, it seems like something comes from a time in human history when it was believed that woman are too easily deceived and too weak to have positions of authority.

Kendy

As mentioned above, women certainly do have teaching authority in the Church. Heck there are 3 women who are Doctors of the Church, the highest teachers the Church has.

So, no, women are not excluded from even the Highest Teaching roles of the Church.

The big question is, can they be valid matter for the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and the answer there is ‘no’.

 

[IanS]

Kendy:

Well, I think one of the things I struggle with is the lack of comparable roles for women. Sure, women serve in the church as lay people and religious, but those are not female equivalent of the priesthood. And of course, there is the fact that only men have authority. It’s like women can’t be trusted with authority.

I realize that questioning the church on this makes a lot of people angry, but I can’t help talking about something that causes me a great deal of pain. I am not trying to destroy the church. I don’t want to revert to protestantism. I really want to understand why only men can teach authoritively. I know that that is what is says in Timothy, but it doesn’t mean I understand it. And it certainly doesn’t mean that it doesn’t trouble me.

Kendy

I understand you feelings Kendy, but please don’t allow them to get in the way of the truth. Just try to be not so much of this world and more of the next. As a married man, I can’t become a priest either. I was raised in a secular home and wasn’t even baptised until after I was married.

Right now I’m reading “The Story of a Soul” about St Therese of Lisieux. Here is a woman who had not a care of this world but only worried about the next in every little thing she did. I would like everyone who thinks women are cheated in the Church to read this book. What an amazing woman! I wish I had a fraction of her grace.

Do you really believe that a priest who has no faith could build a bigger treasure in heaven because of a position than St. Therese did?

 

[IanS]

Kendy:

If the church is the bride of Christ, does that make all the non-ordained men in the church female? Not trying to be funny; just wondering.

Kendy

That’s actually an interesting point, but is a man a female before he becomes married?

Holy Orders is a sacrament just like marriage is a sacrament. If you have not entered Holy Orders you have not entered a sacramental relationship.

We as Catholics are both the mystical Body of Christ and the Church. However, when you enter into a sacrament you are receiving grace and making a permanent mark on your soul in a totally unique way

 

[Kendy]

1ke:

Kendy,

Why do you try to distill down a supernatural mystery of the Sacrament to a “power” issue? Women and men are equal in dignity but we are not the same. It’s not about “power”. It’s about the supernatural reality of the way God ordered the universe, and the Sacraments.

Priests are servants and bishops are the servants of the servants. Priests are not more or less than anyone else. They do not hold some special “power”. What do you mean that only men have “authority”?

First, of all priests do have power. The pope has a lot of power. He has more power than most CEO’s. This is not a bad thing. I am not saying the pope is in this because he was power, but he is still has a powerful position. The ability to direct the lives of billion people is powerful. This is not in itself a bad thing. The president of the United States has a lot of power. He can use that to serve the country and the world or for himself. Being a public servant is powerful. In fact, being able to serve others is always powerful. In service, you are saying that I have something that the other person does not. You are able to give of yourself because of your abundance. That puts the other person in your debt; it’s a powerful position.

Second, correct me if I am wrong, but I was told that women cannot teach doctrine authoritively (I guess infallibly); that’s one of the reasons they can’t be bishops.

Kendy

 

[mercygate]

Kendy:

First, of all priests do have power. The pope has a lot of power. He has more power than most CEO’s. This is not a bad thing. I am not saying the pope is in this because he was power, but he is still has a powerful position. The ability to direct the lives of billion people is powerful. This is not in itself a bad thing. The president of the United States has a lot of power. He can use that to serve the country and the world or for himself. Being a public servant is powerful. In fact, being able to serve others is always powerful. In service, you are saying that I have something that the other person does not. You are able to give of yourself because of your abundance. That puts the other person in your debt; it’s a powerful position.

Second, correct me if I am wrong, but I was told that women cannot teach doctrine authoritively (I guess infallibly); that’s one of the reasons they can’t be bishops.

Kendy

Anybody can teach “infallibly” – that is, we can teach according to the magisterium of the Church. It is not because women are “women” that they cannot be bishops – as poster’s up the line on this thread have clearly explained. It is that only the bishops – in union with the Bishop of Rome – are authorized to be the official teachers of doctrine in faith and morals. Just being a man does not give you a magisterial voice.

However, when I teach, I teach according to the Magisterium with full conviction and power. When I “theologize” I do it in the tradition of the faith. But, as with the theology of any layman – even someone as qualified and powerful as Scott Hahn – what I think up on my own, were it to introduce a novel train of thought, would have to undergo review by those entrusted with the charism of official teaching. Thomas Aquinas (although a priest) taught with magisterial authority only insofar as his work was received by apostolic authority.

The Church is a communion, and we hold together in communion with those who are entrusted with the apostolic gifts of teaching and preaching.

 

[Kendy]

mercygate:

Anybody can teach “infallibly” – that is, we can teach according to the magisterium of the Church. It is not because women are “women” that they cannot be bishops – as poster’s up the line on this thread have clearly explained. It is that only the bishops – in union with the Bishop of Rome – are authorized to be the official teachers of doctrine in faith and morals. Just being a man does not give you a magisterial voice.

If it is not because women are women that they cannot be bishops, then what is it. I am sorry for being a little slow, but it is not at all clear.

I realize that just being a man does not give you magisterial voice, but being a woman means never having the possibility of magisterial voice.

Kendy

 

[ReformedCatholic]

No, it’s not a sin to question, but when the answer it given, there is no longer a need to ask, now is there?

Perhaps because one always considers the source. No church is actually providing answers here, just members of the church with their interpretation of Scripture, doctrine, policy, etc.

And even if the church did answer, there’s nothing wrong with asking for clarification and exposition. Ever wonder why a child asks something repeately and then follows your answer with fifteen “why’s”? To be inquisitive and our thirst for knowledge and Truth is an inherent part of being human.

No one should settle until their thirst for Truth is quenched.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Kendy:

If it is not because women are women that they cannot be bishops, then what is it. I am sorry for being a little slow, but it is not at all clear.

I realize that just being a man does not give you magisterial voice, but being a woman means never having the possibility of magisterial voice.

Kendy

I don’t think you’re being slow at all. Women don’t seem to have much of a voice and certainly appear forbidden from serving in a leadership or policy making capacity. I think this is a cause for concern.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But if one never stops asking “why”, does one ever arrive at truth?

I think not. If one is constantly criticizing, responding to every question with “why”, one never really makes a decision.

Why does the church do X? Well, because the church teaches A. WHY does the church teach A and not B? B is not correct. WHY? Because A is correct. Well, WHY not C then? C is not correct. WHY? Because A is correct. WHY not C AND A. . .

Etc. Etc. Etc.

The original question was answered with the first statement, but some could spend the rest of their life arguing that there was no way to know “why does the church do X?”

 

[mercygate]

ReformedCatholic:

I don’t think you’re being slow at all. Women don’t seem to have much of a voice and certainly appear forbidden from serving in a leadership or policy making capacity. I think this is a cause for concern.

Teresa of Avila is a Doctor of the Church. So is Catherine of Siena. Therese of Lisieux. It’s about sanctity, not about the hat.

 

[johntkd]

Tantum ergo:

The original question was answered with the first statement,"

this was the first statement to my question!!

Wow, what an excellent point

I hardly feel this was an answer at all,least for my mind it wasnt.

---

---

---

this was the second statement!!!

The short answer is that it isn’t discrimination to not do what you CANNOT do. No institution CAN make a woman a priest just as no one can make a man a mother

and once again not an answer at all,I dont even think a 2yr old would buy that as an answer sorry…

I got my answer already from a couple of posts as to why and what. but to say either of these two was an answer YIKES!!

thanks to all for the explanations and clarifications and your help

God Bless you all
John