Female ordination, refutation help?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alyssa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alyssa

Guest
Once again… lol

I am working with a guy who is learning about Catholicism from an agnostic/athiest background, he’s not baptised, and hasn’t been raised in any type of faith background. He’s beenlearning about Christianity for a few years now, the CC for 1, and has a pretty good grasp of things, I think.

Here is what we are down to on female ordination:

“I can’t deny that he choose all male apostles… but if he was fully human (male) then he had our protective instinct for women… and he knew full well the apostles would suffer greatly, and that in the case they must in that situation you protect women… or you could say that the men were physically more capable of the great journeys required at the time”

Which I had thought up a great refutation to one nightm, didn’t write it down…and poof! So, what response do you guys give?
thanks!
 
The idea that Jesus didn’t choose women apostles in order to “protect” them from martyrdom is absurd and an insult to female martyrs throughout church history. He is going to have to come up with something alot better than that. The great journeys were accomplished because of an abundance of the Holy Spirit, not physical aptitude.

Scott
 
Does he believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium? This issue has been settled already. It doesn’t really matter what anyone’s personal hypotheses are, the Holy Spirit has guided the Church to the conclusion that the Church has no authority to ordain women.
In ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS (Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) (thats a link if you need to read it) the Holy Father said in paragraph 4 (bold emphasis added)…

Quote:
4.Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

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.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger, “Reply to the dubium Concerning the teaching contained in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,”

Quote:
"…that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women… This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church., it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium…Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."

Here’s a good article for people who dissent on issues that have already been decided:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105fea1.asp
 
40.png
alyssa:
Once again… lol

I"I can’t deny that he choose all male apostles… but if he was fully human (male) then he had our protective instinct for women… and he knew full well the apostles would suffer greatly, and that in the case they must in that situation you protect women… or you could say that the men were physically more capable of the great journeys required at the time"
s!
Click to expand...
if the only motive for not ordaining women as their successors was the protective instinct the apostles failed in their objective, as the annals of the early martyrs of the church is filled with stories of brave women and children who suffered the ultimate penalty, Perpetua, Felicity, Agatha, Barbara, Catherine, Agnes and many more. You did not have to be an apostle to suffer torture and execution. As far as men being more physical capable of the great journeys required, the NT clearly states and even names many of the women who journeyed with Jesus and the apostles to take care of their basic needs for food, mending clothing etc. We read of Mary and Joseph both making the journey to Jerusalem to observe Jewish holidays, together with their Son, in caravans with families including lots of women and children. Then, as now, the poor people walk.
 
Thanks. It was just a weird angle, and out of the blue, not something I was expecting AT ALL for him suggest. He knows it’s been declared in OS, and he’s read the document. He’s trying to understand why right now. Duh, female martyrs. I must have been paticularly dense last night. I find the reason a poor excuse as well, but that was one accusation I hadn’t ever heard before, LOL!

Thanks!
 
Remember, the priest stands “in persona Christi,” not i"n persona Christy." :whistle:
 
The Old Testament prefigures the New in many ways. The Old Testament Levitical priesthood was all-male, and to ascribe this to simply sexism or cultural influences is to deny that gender differences are important: clearly they are. Jesus continues the all-male aspect in the New Testament while doing away with the tribal membership requirement.
 
40.png
alyssa:
Thanks. It was just a weird angle, and out of the blue, not something I was expecting AT ALL for him suggest. He knows it’s been declared in OS, and he’s read the document. He’s trying to understand why right now. Duh, female martyrs. I must have been paticularly dense last night. I find the reason a poor excuse as well, but that was one accusation I hadn’t ever heard before, LOL!

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Not only the women martyrs stand as an example to refute this idea. The bible has many examples of women who traveled with Jesus and with the Apostles. Yet, they were not priests.
 
The primary reason that women are not ordained priests is that priests do stand “in persona Christi”–in the person of Christ.

When Jesus told the Apostles at the Last Supper to “do this in remembrance of me,” he was giving them the command to make that event present to all future generations. In doing so, the apostles and every subsequent priest, act sacramentally “in the person of Christ.” The priest makes his body and his person available for Christ’s use in making the events of our salvation present at every consecration. For a woman to act “in persona Christi” would in effect require Christ to change his gender, which would be a denial of his particular humanity.
 
40.png
JimG:
The primary reason that women are not ordained priests is that priests do stand “in persona Christi”–in the person of Christ.

When Jesus told the Apostles at the Last Supper to “do this in remembrance of me,” he was giving them the command to make that event present to all future generations. In doing so, the apostles and every subsequent priest, act sacramentally “in the person of Christ.” The priest makes his body and his person available for Christ’s use in making the events of our salvation present at every consecration. For a woman to act “in persona Christi” would in effect require Christ to change his gender, which would be a denial of his particular humanity.
Click to expand...
What do you mean “to change his gender, which would be a denial of his particular humanity”? You think that females are less human than males? Why is changing his gender more earth-shattering than changing his race? ethnicity or nationality?

I understand that women can’t be priests, but I am sincerely trying to understand why. I have been researching this for a few years now - I was baptized and confirmed at Easter Vigil this year. I have a strong feminist background, and this is the one part of the Catholic Church that I am struggling with. If anyone here has some theological arguements for me, I would really appreciate it.

I am not looking for the whole “Jesus chose 12 men” argument, because if that’s the case, and he freely and willingly chose men, and those men freely and willingly chose men, so on down the line, then why the need for rules? When a woman was called by God to take Holy Orders, the bishop who ordains her would be “choosing” a woman. I understand the way it’s been, but to make rules and regulations diminishes the argument, IMHO.

I also am not looking for “in persona Christi”, because I don’t think it’s necessary for a man to be what symbolizes Jesus. A symbol, by definition, is something that stands for something else. This means that they aren’t already the same thing, and you have to use the creativity and imagination that the good Lord gave you to see the relation and symbolism. I think that a woman can serve as a symbol for Christ as well as any man. She’s a human, and a child of God, too.

Any help is appreciated.

Heather
 
If you’re not willing to accept the particular arguments you stated, then I fear you may just be stuck with - “that’s just the way it is.”

But I’ll try a little something here.
God made us male and female. We each have our particular places assigned to us by God and that’s just the way that is. When the priest stands in the person of Christ - It is because he was and is male.
If you start changing the gender of the priests, you start messing with whole lot of other stuff.

Christ is the bridegroom and the Church is His bride. We have male and female symbolism here. You have matrimonial symbolism here. If you change the gender of the bridegroom - you have a female “bridegroom” marrying the bride and this cannot happen. The relationship of God with His people has always been explained throughout scripture in the imagery of husband and wife. Look at Hosea, look at Psalms. That’s how the prophets have always presented God and as they were inspired to do so, I can’t argue with that and neither can the Church.

You start ordaining women as priests then you throw the whole relationship of the Church (God) with the people into a homosexual tailspin. You misrepresent God’s relationship to His people, you misrepresent the matrimonial relationship, you misrepresent the bridegroom (Jesus) and the bride (Church). Jesus chose men to be His priests for a reason and the Church cannot change it - she has no authority to do so since this was revealed by Christ (the celibacy of priests may be another issue since that is a discipline and not divinely revealed truth).

I can’t for the life of me understand why some women think it’s their “right” to be ordained priests like the church is practicing some sort of discrimination. Women hold a very special place in the Church. Read some of the writings of our dear, beloved, late pope. He loved women and never saw them in any diminishing capacity. I would love to consecrate the bread at Mass but I am so fulfilled with my place in our Church. I bring many people to Christ (at least that’s my intention), I do many things to facilitate that and I do not see that because God chose men to confect the Eucharist that my job in the Church is any less important.

As I stated above, God assigned our places and duties in the world and if we would all just stop and think for a minute about this, we would see that He did it for a reason - IT WORKS! For our own good, I might add.
 
Heather,
Yes, I think that gender is more basic to our identities than race or ethnicity. Females are not less human than males, but male and female are different and complementary. They cannot be substituted for one another in every aspect of life. Mothers cannot be fathers. Fathers cannot be mothers.

In some cases, they have to assume each others’ roles, but it is not easy. My sister in law raised her daughter alone. On Father’s Day, her daughter would give her a Father’s Day card-- because she took on that role. But it is of course always best for a child to have both a father and a mother.

But I am getting off point. The priest in offering the Eucharist acts in more than a symbolic role. In a sense he allows Jesus to occupy his body. For there is really only one consecration–that of Jesus at the Last Supper. It is made present again–the very same sacrifice, not a different one–by the mediation of the priest, who acts “in the person of Christ.” It is a rather mysterious phrase, meaning that Jesus makes himself present in the person of the priest. To attempt to use a female priest would in a real sense cause Jesus to become the wrong gender. He became incarnate as a human male, and it is not up to us to change that.

There is nothing either in the incarnation or the male priesthood that denigrates women; any more than there is in Mary’s immaculation conception a denigration of the male.

I agree that the reasons behind the all male priesthood have probably not been adequately expressed, perhaps because they are not fully understood. But there is a sense in which, if we try to mess with it, we end up trying to tinker around with the basic ontology of the Incarnation.
 
There is a difference between women and men. That is why there are Nuns and Priests.
Women have a special dignity that men shouldn’t intrude on and trying to be a priest in a way, diminishes that. I’ll explain, it is insulting toward women to try and put them in the priesthood as if it is something they need to do to be equal. Men in turn have no place as a Nun. This is akin to saying a woman wouldn’t be fulfilled unless she is in the position a Man is, isn’t that a little demeaning to women as if saying they aren’t equal right now?
I personally am going to teach my daughters to have a little more self esteem than that, as they can do anything they want. They need to know that they are equal, but that doesn’t mean that they have to stop being women.
 
I appreciate the replies to my post - I know this issue has been talked about to death - and I appreciate the time and energy that you guys are putting in to help me out.

I read most of Pope John Paul’s writing on dignity, and his trying to explain why women were special in their own right, and I just didn’t get it. I don’t know what he meant by “dignity”. I understand that dignity means “inherent worth” but I don’t understand what that has to do with this. It really sounds like a slight-of-hand or distraction.

To Scylla: Women aren’t equal now - there is a large part of the church that is closed off to them - and it happens to be the part of the church that is the governing part. If I wanted to be a part of the governing body of the church, I can’t do it because I am not male. If I wanted to make a difference or help protect the church or be involved in the decision making process and be a part of church history - there is no avenue for me to do that. (this is probably the american part of me…LOL).

To Jim G: I appreciate your post - and it is helpful. I would like to ask if you could elaborate a little bit. I studied feminist studies for 6 years in college, and that is where a big part of my issues come from (that and I am a control freak at heart…LOL). When you say that a female priest would, in essence, force Jesus to be the “wrong” gender, it seems very derogatory. In short - my whole undergraduate education in a nutshell - was that male and female are sex, not gender. Masculine and feminine are gender. A person can be a feminine man or a masculine woman. Male and female aren’t interchangeable with masculine and feminine. From there, one can make a pretty strong argument that Jesus was very feminine. He was sensitive, caring, nurturing, and passive. He wasn’t forceful with his word or his teaching. A feminine person could feasibly stand “in persona Christi” a lot more accurately than a masculine person? This isn’t quite as clear as I hoped, but see what you think…

To DianJo: (I would like to reiterate, to make sure I understand what you’re saying)…I believe that you’re saying that if the church allowed women to be priests, it would look like the church condoned homosexuality, because we use symbolism to represent the (male) priest being married to the (female) church, and (female) nuns being married to (male) God? This may be one of the better arguments that I have ever read or heard, but I would probably need more information on it. Is there a concise read on this line of thinking?

Again, I understand that this topic is a dead issue for most, and I appreciate your time and effort. I have been trying to make my peace with it, even if I don’t have the understanding. My husband tells me that I don’t need to even worry about it, since I am married anyway…LOL. I guess, for me, the issue would be about my children (that we don’t even have yet), and raising them in the church to see that women are good enough for prayers and bake sales, but not to help govern the church.
Thanks again!

Heather
 
Thinking and saying women aren’t equal, makes more of a difference as it forces a mindset that they are not equal.

There are women who govern my Church right now, they are sisters and they make the leadership decisions for the Church. We do not have a resident priest, he comes from the next town to perfom mass, but other than that they are in charge. I have no problem with that and most Catholics of my parish don’t voice any opposition to it. Just because you don’t see women participating in governing Church decisions doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Many administrative offices are held by lay people and those can be women, as you know lay people aren’t priest or nuns. Of course there is some discrimination out there in hiring women, which should be stamped out and identified, but I do take issue in cases where there is forced equality and men are discriminated against. (or anybody for that matter who is qualified for the job)
This is evident in the military where they lower physical standards for women upon entry. I feel the military physical standards are pretty low on their own. (but that is a whole other issue) If you ever see a minimum PT standards once you are in the military and how out of shape some of the people are, you would understand. (Now the Church isn’t the military, I am just blowing off some steam right here.)

I agree with you, we should support equality for women, but we shouldn’t foster a mindset that women are not equal or looked down upon by men. This is a mindset that I see out there, that really feeds some women internally with a desire to have to prove themselves.

Getting back to female ordination, we should listen to the wisdom of the Church and accept it. It is the Church that Jesus founded and we should trust in Christ to guide it. Participate and assist the Church in her mission and be faithful servants of our Lord and Savior.
 
To Scylla: Women aren’t equal now - there is a large part of the church that is closed off to them - and it happens to be the part of the church that is the governing part. If I wanted to be a part of the governing body of the church, I can’t do it because I am not male. If I wanted to make a difference or help protect the church or be involved in the decision making process and be a part of church history - there is no avenue for me to do that. (this is probably the american part of me…LOL).

Sorry to intrude on your post to someone else, but I can’t help point out something here. I’m not sure where you get the idea where women cannot be involved in the decision making process that goes on in a parish. I am a woman and I am involved in this process. I am on my Parish Council. There are many women involved in this. Some held prominent positions on the board for the building of our Parish Life Center (a multi million dollar project). Get involved in your parish, sit on the council.

To DianJo: (I would like to reiterate, to make sure I understand what you’re saying)…I believe that you’re saying that if the church allowed women to be priests, it would look like the church condoned homosexuality, because we use symbolism to represent the (male) priest being married to the (female) church, and (female) nuns being married to (male) God? This may be one of the better arguments that I have ever read or heard, but I would probably need more information on it. Is there a concise read on this line of thinking? I’ll see if I can locate something.

Don’t forget about the matrimonial imagery, either.
**I didn’t get this from any particular writing. It was discussed and explained to us by one of our parish priests in a diocesan class I was taking. He explained it to us as he learned it in his theology classes in the seminary. Really, to me, it goes without saying that if women did become priests, one of the arguments would probably be that the Church condones or accepts homosexuality. I’m not exactly sure how this could be refuted if we did ordain women because it turns basic theology on it’s ear. **

Above all, I think, is the fact that when you go back and see how God made us - male and female - you see that God gave us each specific roles and they are complimentary roles. One is not complete without the other. Nuns compliment priests, the laity compliment the clergy, wives compliment their husbands. God designed men and women to be helpmates to each other and we are not meant to confuse things. In the long run, it just causes too many problems and mixes things up. When you ordain women, you start messing with basic theology.

God gave us our specific roles and He gave us the Church to teach and guide us and we need to hear what God has to say and be obedient, even if we don’t fully understand.

Again, I understand that this topic is a dead issue for most, and I appreciate your time and effort. I have been trying to make my peace with it, even if I don’t have the understanding. My husband tells me that I don’t need to even worry about it, since I am married anyway…LOL. I guess, for me, the issue would be about my children (that we don’t even have yet), and raising them in the church to see that women are good enough for prayers and bake sales, but not to help govern the church.

No, you really must not think this way. The Church in no way is making women out to be 2nd class citizens! Re-read the Popes letters and if you still do not understand them, then, please, if it still bothers you, go to the clergy - a priest or a nun who can give you the fullness of what our Holy Father was trying to pass on. His view of women is really very beautiful. We’ve (women) have been taught to think from a feminist and secular viewpoint - that all women are totaly equal to all men when it comes to doing certain jobs but the real truth is, the truth the feminists don’t want you to discover is that women are NOT equal to men AND men are NOT equal to women! Listen to your Church, she can enlighten your mindset to what God had intended, if you’ll let her!
 
We are either male or female, there is no neuter human being. So if God is going to become one of us, He has to become either male or female, because that is how He created us: “male and female He created them,” Genesis 1.

We are essentially sexual beings, not desexed persons. Maleness is important for being human, just as femaleness is. Humans are animal persons who are either male or female as to gender. That’s why we are not angels. Since being male or female is essential to being human, by becoming human God the Son must become a definite man or woman, and He became a definite man. And coming as a definite man, He reveals Who God is, and who we are simultaneously. We are not amoebas who multiply by simple division, but are sexual beings (which biologically introduces a differentiation, as opposed to uniformity) who are individual persons. For God to become one of us, He by definition has to become either a definite man or a definite woman. He became a definite man.

Nothing prevents a man from representing all mankind; in fact it is common for a man to represent a whole people. But man can also represent God as Creator and Absolute Origin of life. And this a woman can not represent. Why? For the simple reason that she is not the absolute origin in human generation, but the collaborating and contributing cause, as it is the man who impregnates. Thus it is most fitting that God in becoming a human being became a male rather than a female.

Moreover, there is a different sort of love than the man’s love toward his offspring which a mother has towards the new life conceived within her by male impregnation. The necessary physical intimacy with the newly-conceived person is absent for the man during the pregnancy and after. Related to this, the normal mother has an almost instinctive love for the child conceived within her, so that the newborn is “automatically” loved by her and nourished by her own body (until the contemporary era), and this is a psychic as well as physical necessity practically speaking.

That means that the mother’s love has the symbolism of necessary love. With the father this is not at all so certain. There is more an element of a choice about his loving his child, and the sort of love he has manifests the freedom of choice more than the mother’s love does. So there is a second symbolism, that of free choice, in the fittingness of God becoming a definite male revealing God the Creator’s love as non-necessitated love, but one of pure free choice in His decision to create us. He did not have to create us.

The fact that God is completely distinct from His Creation, which He freely decides to bring in to being because of a free choice love combined with the absolute origin, makes it most fitting that He come as a definite man, so as simultaneously to represent God and all mankind. The woman can not symbolize this by her very being. She can not symbolize both God and human, cannot symbolize by her mere existence as a female absolute origin and free choice love. She rather symbolizes creation, nature, not the CreaTOR or First Cause of creation as completely non-necessitated or obliged to create or love us creatures. To sum up from the viewpoint of Creation, it is most fitting that God become a male to reveal being Creator.

But there is a second set of symbols, related to the first, concerning redemption. The New and Eternal Covenant in His Blood is a Wedding Covenant. God in seeking out the lost sheep (fallen mankind) has freely chosen to seek her out as a groom does a bride, and desired to have us spend eternity with Him in a Wedding Feast without end. Christ as Redeemer, then, is a Groom, i.e., a Spouse. This a woman can not symbolize by her sexual nature as a woman, i.e., in her very being. Thus from the viewpoint of Redemption as well as Creation it is impossible for a woman to symbolize by her existence God the Creator or Redeemer. It is therefore most fitting that God become a definite male in Christ, fitting to Who He is and what He intends to do. Therefore it is most unfitting for a woman to be a priest of the Incarnate God Jesus Christ, Who as a male reveals the nature of God as Creator and Redeemer.

And the final reason for that is that the Sacraments are Sacred Signs chosen by God to manifest His redemptive Mystery: they do not therefore operate on the level of function only, but they operate on the level of symbol. Thus not any man but only those ordained by the Church symbolize by that consecration the High Priest of the New and Eternal Covenant, the God-Man Jesus Christ.
 
He wanted to protect women from martyrdom?

Tell that to St. Edith Stein, a nun who was murdered by the Nazis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top