Female Priests

[TheGoodLife]

The priest becomes an alter Christus (another Christ) when he consecrates the elements and thus it is actually Christ (in all his maleness) working through the priest to offer His own body to His Bride, the Church. It would be impossible for a woman to fit that role, not because she’s less worthy or less competent but because of the necessary iconographic representation.

But that’s the thing–the Church is trying to compare physical biology to an ancient iconographic representation. I honestly don’t see the comparison.

It would be just as absurd to think that a man can get pregnant than to think that a women can be a priest.

I can’t help but wonder if this line of thinking is the same as the thinking that “justified” white men enslaving black people for so long in the United States. It’s absurd to me that a women cannot be a priest just because of some notion that we’ll be condoning the practice of homosexuality by having female priests. The logic just doesn’t add up for me.

 

[CCM08]

In Orthodoxy it’s a matter of the priest acting as a living Icon of Christ, when Christ became man he was a man. We wouldn’t accept a written Icon that showed Christ as a woman, much less so should a living Icon be incorrect in that fashion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by TheGoodLife
The human race has advanced so much (physcially and mentally) that I think the notion of women and men having separate roles to play in life is not accurate anymore. True, biology holds that the woman must carry the baby (for now at least–I could see some technological advance coming along to allow men’s bodies to harbor babies). But really, what does biology have to do with women becoming priests?

Quote:
The idea that the human race has advanced so much mentally is really backwards, I would have to say that the human race has slide back so much. If you look back at history you would really have a hard time finding humans who have no idea who they are sexually. Men have always took on the protector role while women have always taken on the nurturing role. If you were to take a close look at modern humans, we seem to have no idea of what it is a man is suppose to be. A women is expected to be everything and do everything. A women strongest role through out history has always been of nurturer, but the modern woman will do her darndest now to run from that role that is so natural even to the point of murder. And our society not only tells her that it is alright they encourage her to do so simply because woman are not only the same as man but actually even better.

I don’t see any evidence that we are more intelligent than some of the Ancients – like Aristotle or Eratosthenes. So I don’t see that we can claim to have advanced mentally.

And I look at ancient statues, and see we always had two arms, two legs, two eyes and so on – so where is the advancement physically?

 

[TheGoodLife]

St. Lucy, I can understand some of what you’re saying. But I don’t see know women priests are going to jeopardize humanity. It’s not as if the role of a priest depends upon his malehood–unless you go by sacred tradition, which I think is outdated and unnecessary on this issue.

 

[CCM08]

But that’s the thing–the Church is trying to compare physical biology to an ancient iconographic representation. I honestly don’t see the comparison.

Christ came in the flesh, and that allowed Icons to be made. Unless you’re trying to argue that Jesus was really a woman this point is nonsensical. Christ was a man, the priest is an icon of Christ and must also be a man. Christ chose 12, all of them men and all of them Jews because that was a requirement before the completion of Christ’s mission on earth.

This whole line is about as silly as men crying “discrimination” because the Virgin Mary is held in such high esteem and honor.

I can’t help but wonder if this line of thinking is the same as the thinking that “justified” white men enslaving black people for so long in the United States.

Wow, as the term strawman was redefined we stood and watched in awe.

It’s absurd to me that a women cannot be a priest just because of some notion that we’ll be condoning the practice of homosexuality by having female priests. The logic just doesn’t add up for me.

I don’t think anyone thinks it has anything to do with homosexuality.

 

[st_lucy]

St. Lucy, I can understand some of what you’re saying. But I don’t see know women priests are going to jeopardize humanity. It’s not as if the role of a priest depends upon his malehood–unless you go by sacred tradition, which I think is outdated and unnecessary on this issue.

There is a reason why the modern world rejects the sacred tradition, because they wont to destroy something that is of God. Jesus, gave Peter the right to bind and loose, Peter said men are priest by following what God Himself choose. So what you see as outdated the Church sees as necessary. As a Catholic you are asked to be obedient to this. It is alright to wonder but in the end you most be obedient. Those who fail at being obedient only land up acting like spoiled children who like to pretend that they know best.

 

[TheGoodLife]

I don’t see any evidence that we are more intelligent than some of the Ancients – like Aristotle or Eratosthenes. So I don’t see that we can claim to have advanced mentally.

And I look at ancient statues, and see we always had two arms, two legs, two eyes and so on – so where is the advancement physically?

That’s a goof on my part for not explaining myself better. I was thinking more along the lines of society coming to terms with the fact that women aren’t physically all the different or more frail than men (i.e., we can run without damaging organs, weight train without ‘turning into’ men, etc.). Women athletes are continuing to catch up to mens’ speeds (not there yet, by a long shot, but haven’t been in the game all that long either).

 

[CCM08]

I don’t see any evidence that we are more intelligent than some of the Ancients – like Aristotle or Eratosthenes. So I don’t see that we can claim to have advanced mentally.

And I look at ancient statues, and see we always had two arms, two legs, two eyes and so on – so where is the advancement physically?

Too many people assume that having more technology makes us “smarter.” Truth is humans today are no smarter than they were 1,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago for that matter. In the last several decades people have gotten larger in some parts of the world, it’s not evolution by any means, it’s simply a matter of people having access to meat and better diets.

 

[CCM08]

That’s a goof on my part for not explaining myself better. I was thinking more along the lines of society coming to terms with the fact that women aren’t physically all the different or more frail than men (i.e., we can run without damaging organs, weight train without ‘turning into’ men, etc.). Women athletes are continuing to catch up to mens’ speeds (not there yet, by a long shot, but haven’t been in the game all that long either).

Honestly, this is silly. I think women playing sports is great, the notion that they’re “catching up” in terms of preformance to male athletes is silly. The notion that some how one’s athletic abilities are developed by one’s ancestors is absurd to say the least. Today’s elite female athletes have been competing their entire lives with access to the same training as their male counterparts, they aren’t catching up. Women are smaller and weaker than men as a matter of biology, while training will continue to improve female elite athletes it will have the same effects on men keeping the gap about the same. There’s a reason why the women’s pro soccer league went under and the NBA has to fund the WNBA. The level of play is so different women’s sports can’t compete with men’s sports. Hell, I’ve played hockey with a number of Canada’s women’s olympic team. Their certainly not bad players, but you’re run of the mill midget team (14-17 year olds) could take them apart. If allowed to check a decent Bantam team (12-15 year olds) could do the same. I hope more and more girls get involved in sports, it’s good for everyone. The idea they’re going to catch up to their male counter parts is wishful thinking to say the least.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Too many people assume that having more technology makes us “smarter.” Truth is humans today are no smarter than they were 1,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago for that matter. In the last several decades people have gotten larger in some parts of the world, it’s not evolution by any means, it’s simply a matter of people having access to meat and better diets.

And to those who say we have advanced physically, I invite them to jump off the observation platform of the Empire State Building and fly to a safe landing at Rockefeller Center.

The crux of the argument is that the modern world (with abortion, gay marriage and so on) is somehow so moral that we should chuck all that old Christianity and get with the times

 

[mapleoak]

But that’s the thing–the Church is trying to compare physical biology to an ancient iconographic representation. I honestly don’t see the comparison.

It is not really a comparison, but a parallel. Everything physical is ordered and made to parallel the sublime truth of that which is invisible. Our very bodies, being made in the image and likeness of God, as man and woman, each possessing a portion of that great mystery which becomes complete when consumated through the sacrament of matrimony, the two become one and the fruit of that union is potentially created. This in a way, though imperfect since nothing physical is perfect, mirrors the mystery of the Holy Trinity. A man cannot be a woman and a woman cannot be a man. They are separate and distict yet become one through marriage, just as the Father is not the Son and the Son not the Father. They are really distinct, yet are one God, and the fruit of that Union being eternally the person of the Holy Ghost.

I can’t help but wonder if this line of thinking is the same as the thinking that “justified” white men enslaving black people for so long in the United States. It’s absurd to me that a women cannot be a priest just because of some notion that we’ll be condoning the practice of homosexuality by having female priests. The logic just doesn’t add up for me.

Please explain, not sure what this has to do with women priests, nor where homosexuality is condoned or feared if there were women priests.

 

[Ender]

I don’t see know women priests are going to jeopardize humanity. It’s not as if the role of a priest depends upon his malehood–unless you go by sacred tradition, which I think is outdated and unnecessary on this issue.

I don’t think you fully understand what it is you’re asking. To me, the most significant part of JPII’s statement on the ordination of women is this: “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.” That is, regardless of our personal view on the subject, this is the way of the priesthood since Christ created it and the Church has no authority to change it. Your question is really directed to Christ, not his Church.

Regarding sacred tradition, you are rather too dismissive of it. It is an indispensible component of Catholicism and can no more be considered “outdated and unnecessary” than can the Bible. JPII (Dei Verbum): “… sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.”

Ender

 

[LittleDeb]

The Good Life,
I think I can see where you are still struggling. Before I say anything more though I do want to emphasize one important point. Another poster pointed out that we are to be obedient in this, because “The Church says so.” I totally agree with this! During this time of struggle, yes be obedient. Asking questions about Church teaching is what a faithful Catholic can do. Dissent is never healthy. I am not saying you are dissenting. I just wanted to clarify that statement so it is not misunderstood. Obey because the Church says so, then in safe, calm environment ask all the questions you need. We expect nothing less from our children, and God expects nothing less from His.

So I think I can see where you are coming from with the idea of things merely being “outdated.” I used to think like that too. It does get down to some fundamental questions. Are there differences in men and women based solely on sex? If so, what are those differences? Are men and women interchangeable in all situations? Let’s take the slavery example. The argument was that blacks were somehow mentally or physically inferior. Since they hadn’t developed their technology at the same rate (or more accurately in the same way) as “white” society it was presumed they were inferior. Yet the minute you took even one average black child and one average white child, of the same sex, and raised them in the same environment, they ended up the same. Not even just equal, but the same. For all intents and purposes they are interchangeable, the same. Skin color had no bearing on results.

Now take a boy and a girl. Same height, weight, basic intelligence, etc. Raise them in the same environment. In some areas they will come out the same. Mentally they will probably be neck and neck. Their number of skills and ability to do them will still be the same. But certain things will be completely different. You will see that some of the things they do will be complementary-completely equal and yet balanced at the same time. While this will happen in the same sex environment too, it will be much more prevalent in the opposite sex environment. They both may have an interest in a sport, but how they do it will be different, based solely on their sex.

In the end they will not be the same. They will not be interchangeable. They will be equal, but not the same. There will still be certain things that girls or boys do better simply because of their sex. Child bearing happens to be the most obvious one to point out.

Now how does this long-winded, meandering response answer your question? You said maleness is not essential to the priesthood. Why not? If we were talking about mental ability, I would certainly agree. We aren’t talking interchangeable abilities. We are talking something that is distinct to maleness. He is the Groom. Why is being groom important for Christ? It has been pointed out by those much greater than me, that Scripture begins and ends in with a marriage. From Adam and Eve to Christ and His Church. Marriage is the way to look at this. The roles are not interchangeable. The groom must always be masculine, the bride always feminine. Again, why? because the very definition of masculine is ‘to give.’ The definition of feminine is ‘to receive.’ Both roles are entirely necessary, and are completely different. What Christ does in His consecration is the height of masculinity. He gives. His maleness is necessary to show that. I need to repeat again. Masculine and feminine are not a result of being male or female. Male and female are the result of masculine and feminine. God is masculine, yet not male. We are all feminine in our reception of him, whether we are male or female.

Again, I recommend the audio by Peter Kreeft. He gets there a little more directly than my scenic route.

 

[TheGoodLife]

Thanks, everyone, for the replies and efforts to clarify this issue for me. I am very grateful.

LittleDeb, again, your post is the one making the most sense for me. I agree that it’s important to still be obedient while questioning the Church’s teachings. I have not given up faith with the Catholic Church. I will look into that that Peter Kreeft recording. Thank you for suggesting it.

 

[Nita]

I do see where you are coming from. I really do! My own mother, a devout Catholic, held a similar belief that women should be ordained, for many years. It wasn’t until she saw the damage to my femininity that she is starting to look further into her previous belief. Do question it! Look at it from all angles. Shine a light on it, and don’t just accept, “Because the Church says so,” as an explanation.

The phrase by Fr. Corapi is a good place to start, “Men and women are equal in dignity, but not the same.” What does equality really mean if it is just interchanged with “the same?” Why are we made as male and female? What is the real meaning of masculine and feminine? Is the ability to impregnate and be impregnated really that variable or random? Is there really a difference between men and women in our very souls? Is your daughter’s very soul feminine? If so what does that mean to every part of how she interacts with her world?

One of the things at the very heart of this question is really about our sexuality. No matter what I do, I am a woman doing it. I am a human doing it. None of those two things ever change. I can roll around on the floor and wrestle with my son, yet I am still his mother. Nothing I do or say will change that. My husband can nurture him all he can, but he is still his father. No one would deny that. But how a woman wrestles and how a man nurtures are not the same. We may nurture equally, but no matter what it will never be the same.

What I found, in my own life, is that having a mom who believed women could be priests played a part in misunderstanding my own femininity. It made me fight to be the same as men, instead of just making sure we were always equal. Since beginning my very long study into “Theology of the Body” around 1993 my self respect has improved. Not only do I appreciate who God made me, but I have a deeper appreciation for men too. I no longer attempt to compete with them. Instead I am able to appreciate their strengths as men. My appreciation for other women has grown too. I am not as catty as a was, and I find I have deeper friendships than I used to.

Most importantly, I have found that my relationship with God is better. As I have understood more deeply what it means that He is Father, not mother, has helped me to be more receptive in what He is giving me.

I hope that helps.

Thanks for your post LittleDeb. It confirms something I’ve long suspected - that there are a lot of unhappy mixed up women in the world today because of being raised on the “feminist” propaganda.

Nita

 

[Nita]

Hi TheGoodLife,

Just wanted to share something I’ve done throughout the years when reading the Bible. (Have to make clear first that I believe absolutely in what Scripture reveals about God and that God is sovereign. Also that He desires only what is best for our immortal souls.) When I come to difficult parts of Scripture or Church doctrine, where God asks for something that seems contrary to what I would have thought, I start pondering on “why”. “You said it God, so it’s true. Why did You want it this way; why is this the best way?”

I think if you start to ponder the priesthood from this viewpoint and with this trust in God’s love and wisdom, you will start to understand the male priesthood. Not all at once perhaps; God has a way of revealing His wisdom a little at a time - if we truly desire it.

Nita

 

[LittleDeb]

Thanks, everyone, for the replies and efforts to clarify this issue for me. I am very grateful.

LittleDeb, again, your post is the one making the most sense for me. I agree that it’s important to still be obedient while questioning the Church’s teachings. I have not given up faith with the Catholic Church. I will look into that that Peter Kreeft recording. Thank you for suggesting it.

Good to hear, thank you. I get so darn long-winded that I fear I annoy people. Get a good handle on Peter Kreeft’s talk, then come back here and see where you are.

After that I will be bringing out the big guns: Theology of the Body! Your life will never be the same again.

Thanks for your post LittleDeb. It confirms something I’ve long suspected - that there are a lot of unhappy mixed up women in the world today because of being raised on the “feminist” propaganda.

Nita

YUP! And the sad part is we were raised on the radical feminist garbage, not the original “men and women are equal” message of the suffragettes. They were all pro-life and pro-family. They were faithful wives and mothers or devout celibates.

What is on just this home page www.theologyofthebody.net sums up very well everything I discovered.

 

[Riley259]

But that’s the thing–the Church is trying to compare physical biology to an ancient iconographic representation. I honestly don’t see the comparison.

I can’t help but wonder if this line of thinking is the same as the thinking that “justified” white men enslaving black people for so long in the United States. It’s absurd to me that a women cannot be a priest just because of some notion that we’ll be condoning the practice of homosexuality by having female priests. The logic just doesn’t add up for me.

Read these two essays by C.S. Lewis and Michael Novak respectively on the subject of woman priests. They explain it much better than I. God Bless.

theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/12The/SxTh/WmO/WmOLewis.htm

womenpriests.org/theology/novak.asp

 

[PLAL]

2-13-06 Can Women Be Priests by Monica Miller on “Catholic Answers”…

catholic.com/radio/calendar.php

6-19-05 Women Priests by Fr. Thomas Loya on “Light of the East” (click on “radio”)…

byzantinecatholic.com/

Women and the Priesthood - This Rock Magazine…

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311frs.asp

Women Priest No Chance

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0001.html

See 13th Post by American Phoenix on 6-29-06…

jillstanek.com/archives/2006/06/new_stanek_colu_4.html#comments

by the way Jill Stanek is a Pro-Life Protestant (not “Catholic”).

Also, Fr. Corapi has a great CD on this if you can find it!!!

 

[down_under]

What perecent of the early converts were roman? My my understadning for at least the first century the majority were jews compaired to genitles, theri decision far outweighed anyone elses.

I always find it funny when catholics go back to, ‘well jesus said so’ arguement. When this sort of argument, sadly to say, has been used to support horrible institutions, like slavery (if you don’t believe me go read 18th century writings who aruged on the same logic you are using!). It is so problematic to go back to well Jesus didn’t ordain it, so we don’t follow it mentality. Why can all other traditions and even sacraments (liek the sacrament of reconciliaton) evolve yet nothing else can? PATRIARCHIAL undertones, in both ancient and modern society!

There were quite a few pagan converts among the gentiles.
and I think you are missing the point. The Catholic church is patriarchial in nature. At least the way I understand the word. We are talking about keeping the teaching of the apostles, the deposit of the faith, the same as it ever was. So if Jesus did not teach it, and the apostles did not teach it. well yeah we are stuck. P. S. reconciliation did not evolve it was there in the beginning we are removed of the burden of public confession true. But it is still the same sacrument.