how Catholic women feel about no ordination of women

[dmftx]

We, as women, have our place in the Church. This question could be presumed to indicate that the Church finds women inadequate to serve our Lord. When in Catholic school, I always wanted to be a nun and I hold them in high reverence. We all serve the Lord in our own way and I am perfectly happy with my path.

I want to add that I am in awe of the priests and deacons in my church. These men were truly led to their calling which, we know, comes with significant sacrifice. Yet, when I listen to them speak, and see their true love of the Word, my heart is so grateful for their guidance. Thank you, Jesus!

 

[tabycat]

jesus never ordained any women…so why should we? The women has a special role in the church. Look at the blessed mother. She is a woman and the most perfect of all creatures in this world/quote

amen!!!

 

[Jenny35]

I don’t understand why I would be expected to have “feelings” about this. I don’t have “feelings” about facts. I don’t have “feelings” about the existence of Mars, gravity, the doctrine of the Trinity, or any other facts of faith or the larger world.

Those who have “feelings” on this topic are somehow under the misconception this is something other than a fact, somehow a matter on which there can be opinions.
It is a fact that female human beings are invalid matter for the sacrament of holy orders.

Fantastic response.

 

[DeniseNY]

Doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

 

[Mike_Dye]

If this is in the wrong forum, a moderator can feel free to move it. I was watching videos of “women priests” celebrating the “Mass” and most of the negative comments were in fact from men. (I also saw a video where a female “bishop” said that 70% of Catholics support the ordination of women, and that in Persona Christi actually means in the presence of Christ.) I have wondered for a while how Catholic women actually feel about this issue? Is it a hard teaching to accept?

First of all there is no such thing as a female bishop.Second, “Persona Christi” does not mean in the presence of Christ. Third, In order to state that 70% of Catholics support the ordination of women would mean that someone would had have to surveyed 100% of Catholics to come up with that figure, and finally even if someone did question the 100% and 70% did respond in that manner it really wouldn’t be all that strange that a majority don’t follow Christ’s teaching.

 

[TimothyH]

When someone persists with me on this topic, and asks me when the Church will allow the ordination of women, my typical reply is “when men can have babies”.

We have been given distinct but equally important gifts. As a man it would do me no good to whine about my “rights” being offended because I can’t have a baby. It just is what it is.

If we think about it for a minute though, the gift of being able to make Christ and His grace literally present for us, would be totally meaningless if women didn’t have the gift of being able to nurture life within them; they are distinct but totally complementary gifts.

Unfortunately in today’s society the gift of giving life is given short shrift what with abortion, ABC, etc. We’ve made that gift a very banal matter unfortunately. It’s probably no wonder then, that some women feel somehow “cheated” that they can’t priests. If we properly restored dignity to human life in all phases of life, and the role of women in nurturing life, perhaps things would be different and women would realize that the often lonely life of a priest isn’t so attractive as being a giver of life.

This is very profound and hits the nail on the head. Thank you.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Well, it doesn’t bother me at all. Being a priest isn’t a job. It’s more like a family role. Mothers can’t be fathers and fathers can’t be mothers. They relate differently to their children. Priests have a role in the Church. Sisters have a different role. The amazing variety of work that modern Sisters are doing (not just nursing and teaching) is not something that seems to be well known. Perhaps the Church could talk about that more. There are Sisters running businesses, teaching at universities, and running a cattle ranches. Oh yeah, and one gutsy Mother started the largest Catholic television network (EWTN). Love who you are.

 

[InLight247]

Woman should not be ordained as a priest. That is not a woman’s role. And I am a female.

 

[jilly4ski]

If this is in the wrong forum, a moderator can feel free to move it. I was watching videos of “women priests” celebrating the “Mass” and most of the negative comments were in fact from men. (I also saw a video where a female “bishop” said that 70% of Catholics support the ordination of women, and that in Persona Christi actually means in the presence of Christ.) I have wondered for a while how Catholic women actually feel about this issue?

I have no feelings about this.

Is it a hard teaching to accept?

No.

 

[asia53]

I’m a female. I have no problem with only male priests. As pianistclare said—It is what it is!

Listen, we can’t get the women in the ladies guild to agree on Mayonnaise vs. Miracle Whip let alone…

Besides, there is an army of women in every parish fulfilling a myriad of roles, and being of great service to the Church.

Oh my gosh, you made me laugh. Our ladies guild has the same problem with Mayo and Miracle Whip.

And… thank God for the army of women. We have some very fine male volunteers, however, we women outnumber them by a great majority .

 

[QuasiCatholic]

I don’t really care either way, but I’ve never understood the idea that because a priest is in the place of Christ, and Christ was a man, therefore the priest must be a man.

If Christ can give us his body in the form of a communion wafer, I’m sure he could handle a woman standing in for him at the altar. After all, God created men AND women in his image. And there’s nothing about what a priest actually does that requires a man for the job in terms of actual physical ability to complete the task.

The only other justification for that rule I’ve heard is that Jesus only had male disciples. So only male priests. But Jewish law at that time would have prevented women from associating that closely with men they weren’t related to, or from living/traveling by themselves, etc. which was important for what the disciples were doing. So who’s to say Jesus wouldn’t have liked some female disciples but just couldn’t work it logistically in that era’s social climate.

In other words, I don’t really care if the church doesn’t want female priests. But I disagree with the logic they use for that decision.

Also, pet peeve, they are FEMALE priests, not woman priests. Woman is a noun, not an adjective.

 

[casslean]

I believe in the Church and her teachings, and this is one of them. Case closed.

 

[vsedriver]

I don’t really care either way, but I’ve never understood the idea that because a priest is in the place of Christ, and Christ was a man, therefore the priest must be a man.

If Christ can give us his body in the form of a communion wafer, I’m sure he could handle a woman standing in for him at the altar. After all, God created men AND women in his image. And there’s nothing about what a priest actually does that requires a man for the job in terms of actual physical ability to complete the task.

Christ’s relationship to the Church is that of a bridegroom to the bride. So to be ‘in persona Christi’ the priest must be a bridegroom. Only men can be bridegrooms.

The only other justification for that rule I’ve heard is that Jesus only had male disciples. So only male priests. But Jewish law at that time would have prevented women from associating that closely with men they weren’t related to, or from living/traveling by themselves, etc. which was important for what the disciples were doing. So who’s to say Jesus wouldn’t have liked some female disciples but just couldn’t work it logistically in that era’s social climate.

many women followed Jesus and his disciples, including his Mother and Mary Magdalene. Jesus often broke with gender rules, he spoke to the woman at the well, stopped a stoning etc. Since the world was very familiar with the idea of priestess it would not be an unusual for Jesus to have female Apostles if he wanted them. Women did tend the temple etc.

In other words, I don’t really care if the church doesn’t want female priests. But I disagree with the logic they use for that decision.

I think you just need a little more info on which their logic is based.

Also, pet peeve, they are FEMALE priests, not woman priests. Woman is a noun, not an adjective.

good point.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Years, going on decades , ago before my conversion I had a problem with women not being able to be priests. I believe I once said, “I would never be a nun but I would be a priest.”

Wut? Sound reasoning there, BR.

Only a short time later I totally embraced the teaching of the Church. I didn’t have to struggle with it, it was almost like an instantaneous healing. So I don’t have feelings about no ordination of women but I am amused or something when I observe female wanna-be priests and those that support them get their grunders in a bunch over this issue because NONE of them appear to possess some of the most important traits of a good priest: obedience and humility.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Christ’s relationship to the Church is that of a bridegroom to the bride. So to be ‘in persona Christi’ the priest must be a bridegroom. Only men can be bridegrooms.

But that analogy was given by someone living at a time when husbands and wives had very specific social roles. So acting as “a groom to his bride” (or a husband to his wife) implied a very specific power structure that his listeners would have been intimately familiar with. It’s not saying Jesus is the guy and the church is the girl. (How can a worldwide organization have a gender?) It’s saying Jesus is the leader and the church is the follower.

This is the same relationship we see in this passage: “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”

Since we now accept that a woman can be in a leadership position, it doesn’t seem like this is a valid argument for male-only priests anymore.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Jesus had some wonderful women among his followers. But they were not apostles. If He intended for women to become priests, He would have made them apostles from the beginning. Why wouldn’t His own Mother have been an apostle? Surely, she knew Him better than anyone. He didn’t, so the Church doesn’t to this day. I don’t know why He didn’t, but I accept His view because to not accept it is like glossing over the gospel and skipping the parts that hurt our pride. Leave your pride out of it. Follow Him.

 

[Dorothy]

I believe in the Church and her teachings, and this is one of them. Case closed.

Amen! I so appreciate Our Lord giving us the teaching authority of the Church - the Magisterium.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Jesus had some wonderful women among his followers. But they were not apostles. If He intended for women to become priests, He would have made them apostles from the beginning. Why wouldn’t His own Mother have been an apostle? Surely, she knew Him better than anyone. He didn’t, so the Church doesn’t to this day. I don’t know why He didn’t, but I accept His view because to not accept it is like glossing over the gospel and skipping the parts that hurt our pride. Leave your pride out of it. Follow Him.

I know I’m not going to change anyone’s mind here, but here’s my take on it. If I had a new product, and I wanted to sell it to the masses, I would hire sales people who I thought my target audience would respond to.

In a society where most (if not all) of the political leaders, religious leaders, teachers, prophets, etc. are men, and where women are limited in their ability to travel and speak freely, I would bet my money on male salespeople.

If, in the future, women became the better educated, more influential members of society, I might adjust my approach.

The church’s stance is that Jesus picked all men because he intended for all priests forever and ever to be men. Maybe he was just making a shrewd managerial decision based on the prevailing business climate.

 

[vsedriver]

But that analogy was given by someone living at a time when husbands and wives had very specific social roles. So acting as “a groom to his bride” (or a husband to his wife) implied a very specific power structure that his listeners would have been intimately familiar with. It’s not saying Jesus is the guy and the church is the girl. (How can a worldwide organization have a gender?) It’s saying Jesus is the leader and the church is the follower.

it’s not about power, it’s about relationship.

This is the same relationship we see in this passage: “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”

yes, this is the same relationship. But you have to understand the fullness of this relationship. One of the reasons marriage is in so much trouble is that people have lost this understanding.

Since we now accept that a woman can be in a leadership position, it doesn’t seem like this is a valid argument for male-only priests anymore.

The priesthood isn’t the only leadership position in the Church. Women occupy many leadership positions in the Church. But a woman can never be a man and Jesus was a man. To act fully in the persona Christi you have to be a man otherwise you deny Christ’s full humanity.

 

[vsedriver]

I know I’m not going to change anyone’s mind here, but here’s my take on it. If I had a new product, and I wanted to sell it to the masses, I would hire sales people who I thought my target audience would respond to.

fortunately Jesus was not selling a product.

In a society where most (if not all) of the political leaders, religious leaders, teachers, prophets, etc. are men, and where women are limited in their ability to travel and speak freely, I would bet my money on male salespeople.

this is a common myth. Women were not exactly hidden away. There were many powerful, well-educated women, and the majority of religions also had priestesses. If you’ve ever read the Old Testament you will see that Jewish women had a lot of rights and protections. It is one of the reasons women had so much freedom under Christianity.

If, in the future, women became the better educated, more influential members of society, I might adjust my approach.

so you believe only people with power have value?

The church’s stance is that Jesus picked all men because he intended for all priests forever and ever to be men. Maybe he was just making a shrewd managerial decision based on the prevailing business climate.

LOL, well, I think he set up his Church knowing it would stand till his return. He said, “he who hears you, hears me.” If the Church is wrong in what she teaches on the priesthood then there is no point in believing in anything the church teaches and we have all been left as orphans.