Female priests and patriarchy

  • Thread starter Thread starter JosephJohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JosephJohn

Guest
Blessings everyone!

I was having a long talk with a loved one about modern politics and this question came up and I didn’t have a good answer.

Why is it impossible to ordain women priests? I have never heard a satisfying answer (though I trust and merely want to understand the church’s teaching).

Why are the powers to legislate canon law and hold near monarchal control over parishes held only by priests? Even if there is a good reason why when push comes to shove the pope a [male] priest settles the issue couldn’t the church benefit from women having a bigger role in the process.

I think the second issue is more controversial actually because most people see the administrative as more important than the sacramental sadly. Also they see women having more power in the day to day of the church as guard against abuses (which it may well be who knows). Anyway I know these are contentious questions so I appreciate your responses.

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
JosephJohn said:
Why is it impossible to ordain women priests?
Click to expand...
Because Jesus only ordained men to an all male priesthood and the apostles only ordained men to carry out their work. There is no precedent for ordaining women, and no scripture or tradition to support it. We have no right to change the priesthood just to suit our own sensibilities.
 
JosephJohn said:
I think the second issue is more controversial actually because most people see the administrative as more important than the sacramental sadly. Also they see women having more power in the day to day of the church as guard against abuses (which it may well be who knows). Anyway I know these are contentious questions so I appreciate your responses.
Click to expand...
I would have absolutely nothing against seeing women in more administrative roles in the Church. Is there any reason why, for instance, prefects of various Vatican congregations, papal nuncios, and the like, have to be priests? Apostolic administrators of dioceses, even? Why not male and female religious, or for that matter, laypeople of either sex?
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if this helps or not but here it is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church CCC

SourceURL:Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1577 CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1577

1577 “Only a baptized man ( vir ) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men ( viri ) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.
 
JosephJohn said:
the pope a [male] priest settles the issue couldn’t the church benefit from women having a bigger role in the process.
Click to expand...
That [male] bishop has an entire council of canonical experts to help advise him on what the canons say and how he could best change it. And women can be on it.
JosephJohn said:
Also they see women having more power in the day to day of the church as guard against abuses (which it may well be who knows).
Click to expand...
What, because groups of men “unchecked” get so out of control that they turn to abusing children? What an abominable thing to think about men.
 
Last edited:
I hate to pass on an article from a liberal publication but I trust the writer.

What the debate over deacons gets wrong about Catholic women in leadership​

Every Catholic has the power to influence our culture, but too often the influence flows in the opposite direction. Catholic parents, for example, lament that neither they nor the church have the same pull on their children that the culture does. Instagram and “Game of Thrones” probably shape the values of young people more directly than all of the great homilists put together. The current sex abuse crisis suggest that the church herself is afflicted by the sins of the surrounding culture and is, in fact, a microcosm of that culture.

If Catholics want to have influence, even power, it seems to me that we would advance the conversation much more by talking about the role of the laity in the culture and in the world.
Click to expand...
Women want more ‘power’ in the Church? Nothing more important than passing on the Faith to children.
 
I agree with you that it’s kind of absurd that such a proposition would fix the abuse. But to play devils advocate and find some sympathy for the folks who put that claim forward… it is in fact true and some men unchecked did prey on kids. And if there is disorder in the gender roles in the church even in small ways it’s not unreasonable to think removing that disorder would help if even a little bit. Removing disordered systems always helps. I think the point being made is not that men are terrible and worse than women -that would indeed be abominable- but rather that there may be some disorder in church’s treatment of women and that removing any disorder will help lessen some of the chaos we see in the church.

To reiterate… I have no absolute position on gender roles in the church except those I am bound by canon to keep. I am only trying to give this argument due diligence and give those putting it forward the benefit of the doubt. I too think this is a rather ridiculous solution to the problems we face.
 
JosephJohn said:
it is in fact true and some men unchecked did prey on kids. And if there is disorder in the gender roles in the church even in small ways it’s not unreasonable to think removing that disorder would help if even a little bit.
Click to expand...
What is disordered here though? The pedophilia or the fact they’re all men? Sure, some men did. No one is denying that. But men are not naturally pedophiles either. Saying that adding women in would eliminate this from happening seems to assume that men, unchecked (which is different than some unchecked men), will prey on children in such a horrible way. They don’t. It’s unnatural. And it’s an offensive assertion to make.

The all-male priesthood isn’t the problem. Pedophilia is.
 
JosephJohn said:
Also they see women having more power in the day to day of the church as guard against abuses (which it may well be who knows).
Click to expand...
Plenty of news stories of women teachers abusing young boys dispels that.
 
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with this article. It is safely orthodox. I did not know that a woman could be the chancellor of the diocese. Good for her.
 
yankeesouth said:
Women want more ‘power’ in the Church? Nothing more important than passing on the Faith to children.
Click to expand...
Because that’s a woman’s job? Maybe the father could stay home and pass on the faith to the children while his wife works as a parish administrator or a papal nuncio.
 
Oh so I am absolutely not indulging the idea that an ex cathedra definition is wrong. I was originally asking for reasons it’s right but I have been and am still in agreement the priesthood is reserved for men.

What might be disordered hypothetically is that the role of priests as fathers in the church is overvalued compared to women as mothers and perhaps there is little space for women to act as complements to priests on a systemic level. And men do indeed need women; any male only system in absolute deject isolation from women will fail if the men are tainted by original sin. Adam was not defective but the world was infinitely better when creation was crowned with the first Woman. Now I can’t think of any organization which exists without any female (name removed by moderator)ut at all but I think it’s fair to say that since the sexes are complements that complementarity should carry through every aspect of our existence.

All this is to say. No men are not naturally pedophiles, no the priesthood isn’t sexist, and no giving women more power probably won’t fix the abuse in any way shape or form. But it is possible in principle that a organization like the church invites unnecessary toxicity by not letting the complementarity of men and women play out effectively in one or more aspects. I don’t know specifically what the folks putting this forward recommend but I don’t think it is necessarily man hating… though I do see why it seems that way
 
Fair enough. I’m saying in principal a lack of respect for women in positions of power to complement male positions of power can invite unnecessary toxicity. I am not claiming this is our current situation - in fact I’m fairly sure it isn’t. But we shouldn’t get angry at the suggestion that such a thing is in principal possible.
 
I think there’s something to be said here about kinds of power. You are right to point out that passing down the faith is clearly not the mothers job only. It’s really between the couple themself who should take on what role as long as the decision respects the children and the father and mother. So I’m more trying to address the church wide issue if there is one. Is there a lack of female voices On a church wide scale and does that cause serious problems? I don’t know but I think the question is worth looking into.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
There is no precedent for ordaining women, and no scripture or tradition to support it.
Click to expand...
Why must there be precedent for doing something? At one time, we could have said that here in the US there was no precedent for a woman, a black man or a Catholic to be President. And since there was no precedent for this, all Presidents had to be white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. And the Declaration of Independence says that “all men are created equal,” but doesn’t say “all men and women are created equal,” so it could be claimed that women should not have been given the right to vote.
 
Last edited:
I think maybe the difference is that instead of Thomas Jefferson/James Madison setting the precedent as a flawed human beings it was Jesus who is not flawed and didn’t make mistakes. And he didn’t care about social norms so it doesn’t make sense for him to ordain 11(12? Irrelevant) male apostles as bishops if it wasn’t deliberate.
 
Last edited:
JosephJohn said:
I think maybe the difference is that instead of Thomas Jefferson/James Madison setting the precedent as a flawed human beings it was Jesus who is not flawed and didn’t make mistakes. And he didn’t care about social norms so it doesn’t make sense for him to ordain 11(12? Irrelevant) male apostles as bishops if it wasn’t deliberate.
Click to expand...
Maybe Jesus didn’t think that the early Christians were ready to have women in positions of authority over them, yet. Society then was much more patriarchal. People frequently argue here in CAF that the Jews were allowed to do certain things because they weren’t ready for what was later required. They were allowed to divorce their wives, for example, presumably because they weren’t ready for a prohibition on divorce. I’m sure that denominations that have allowed women to be clergy believe that these decisions were guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
Then there would have to be something to fulfill the foreshadowing of a priesthood of both sexes. Christ fulfilled the law and instituted a law which was more. His law kept the old law but also added charity and in doing so divorce for example became impossible because marriage became more than it had been.

So there would have to be an event like the crucifixion to fulfill the law Christ gave us. The new covenant is also called the final covenant.

Maybe you are suggesting that he instituted a priesthood of both sexes but only with one sex represented … that’s possible but it’s not like Jesus to do anything because it was unpopular only. He told us to literally eat him and we had absolutely none of it. I think female priests would be less contentious than apparent cannibalism.
 
Lol…liberal jumping to conclusions. Who said anything about the role of the mother or father? Yes the parents (mother/father) are the first line in teaching the Faith to THEIR children. But I was referring to the article posted and talking about women in general teaching the Faith. A women teaching on why there can only be a male only priesthood is indeed powerful in a society that is opposing Jesus’ teachings on marriage and thinks women’s power is the ability to kill their child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top