How to explain to non-Catholics why women can't be priests

[edwest2]

Jesus Christ is God. He acted as God. Human cultural norms were not his concern in this.

From Pope John Paull II:

"2. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)

"In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)

"In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)

“3. Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Ed

 

[Another_Andrew]

And…then there are the recently-restored frescoes of women as priests in the catacombs.

.

Those are controversial and may not show women priests. That has yet to be demonstrated.

 

[cena]

Hmmm. If only you could have been there to tell him what he “should” have done.

There are a lot of things Jesus didn’t specify that Catholicism follows today.

I’d say the fact that Mary M was so integral and involved along the way, as his encouragement and approval, is much more than a hint.

.

you are the one saying he should have instituted woman priests. As God he knew everything that would happen I mean he was telling people stuff that would happen at the end of the world. Don’t you think he would have done ordained women or something? He did not seem to care about some of the social norms regarding women
Jesus gave the apostles authority and those apostles passed to their successors.
Mary, who the Catholic Church teaches is above all the creatures even the Angels, never became a priest. She literally brought into the world and raised him who was more involved than her?

 

[cena]

Today, women are allowed to baptize without wearing headcovering, in spite of what is mandated in Scripture. The baptism is valid even though the woman did not wear a headcovering, as long as she observes the rules for valid Baptism. Are there any examples of women baptizing without headcovering either in the New Testament or in the early Church? Isn’t Baptism a Sacrament of the Church which women are allowed to perform without wearing headcovering, even though we do not see this in the early days of the Catholic Church?

Anyone even an atheist can baptize someone in the case of an emergency. They just have to use water, say the words, and intend to do what the Church teaches. Otherwise a priest or deacon can do it.

 

[cena]

I’m actually basing it more on the words he said and what he did, common sense, how the doctrines were formulated, and the context of that era.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the liberal doctrine of feminism.”
So called “feminism” doesn’t have a doctrine, and that term is painfully out of date.
That movement, fifty years ago, was about getting equal pay and job opportunity etc. Today, we would look at most of what “feminism” fought for back then as a human right and cannot imagine living without it’s rewards.
Feminism is really more about “humanism”.

.

That was first wave feminism.

Second and third wave feminism have gotten way out of hand and they are not about equal rights.

 

[edwest2]

I’m actually basing it more on the words he said and what he did, common sense, how the doctrines were formulated, and the context of that era.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the liberal doctrine of feminism.”
So called “feminism” doesn’t have a doctrine, and that term is painfully out of date.
That movement, fifty years ago, was about getting equal pay and job opportunity etc. Today, we would look at most of what “feminism” fought for back then as a human right and cannot imagine living without it’s rewards.
Feminism is really more about “humanism”.

.

The radical feminism I lived through was not solution oriented. It was us versus them. Women versus the patriarchy, including the Church. I read an article not long ago where a leader of a certain group decried the fact that most businesses " are still not run by women." Power and control, followed by women are the automatic victims class and men are the eternal enemies class. Yes, feminism is based on human invention. And while it proposed a few things I thought were good, it has not become a force for good today.

Feminism does have a doctrine. Like Betty Friedan comparing the family to “a comfortable concentration camp.” Or Gloria Steinem stating “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Who would not be appalled by such statements?

Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

Today, women are allowed to baptize without wearing headcovering, in spite of what is mandated in Scripture. The baptism is valid even though the woman did not wear a headcovering, as long as she observes the rules for valid Baptism. Are there any examples of women baptizing without headcovering either in the New Testament or in the early Church? Isn’t Baptism a Sacrament of the Church which women are allowed to perform without wearing headcovering, even though we do not see this in the early days of the Catholic Church?

What is mandated in Scripture is a question determined by the Church, the same body that mandated which Scriptures would be considered as authentic and authoritative.

The Scriptures don’t tell the Church what to do. The Word of God does. Paul is a member of the Church. He was speaking to a particular congregation and not “mandating” anything like a general principle.

Do you even know why he said what he did, or does that matter to you?

It should matter because the intended meaning of the author is one of the first principles of exegesis.

Your interpretation of what Paul said is not the authoritative one that MUST be followed. Paul, as an authoritative voice was doing in a particular instance what the Church as a whole is authorized to do: make determinations regarding practice based upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I will trust the Church’s guidance by the Holy Spirit on the question, above your interpretation of Paul’s words, taken out of context and situationally removed from the specific issues that he was addressing. The Church, like Paul, has authority from Christ to determine on those practical questions.

 

[Tomdstone]

What is mandated in Scripture is a question determined by the Church, the same body that mandated which Scriptures would be considered as authentic and authoritative.

The Scriptures don’t tell the Church what to do. The Word of God does. Paul is a member of the Church. He was speaking to a particular congregation and not “mandating” anything like a general principle.

Do you even know why he said what he did, or does that matter to you?

It should matter because the intended meaning of the author is one of the first principles of exegesis.

Your interpretation of what Paul said is not the authoritative one that MUST be followed. Paul, as an authoritative voice was doing in a particular instance what the Church as a whole is authorized to do: make determinations regarding practice based upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I will trust the Church’s guidance by the Holy Spirit on the question, above your interpretation of Paul’s words, taken out of context and situationally removed from the specific issues that he was addressing. The Church, like Paul, has authority from Christ to determine on those practical questions.

Are there any examples of women baptizing without headcovering in the New Testament ? Or is this a development that came much later?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are there any examples of women baptizing without headcovering in the New Testament ? Or is this a development that came much later?

I know of no instances of women baptizing in the New Testament. Do you mean being baptized?

 

[Tomdstone]

I know of no instances of women baptizing in the New Testament.

When is the first recorded case of a woman without a headcovering baptizing someone?

 

[Gorgias]

When is the first recorded case of a woman without a headcovering baptizing someone?

I’m confused by your insistence on the ‘headcovering’ issue. I’m not getting the link you’re seeing between ‘headcovering’ and ‘baptism.’ Can you help me understand what these two have to do with one another?

With respect to women participating in baptisms, though, there’s historical evidence that they did participate, but for a very practical reason: baptism was done by full immersion, and for the sake of propriety, men did not assist in the ‘dunking’ of women – women did.

 

[ericc]

The priest at the local Catholic Church here associated with the university, said it was a mistake and that the Church should have allowed women priests a long time ago.

The mistake was a personal feeling or an official Church mistake? I haven’t heard of a Church proclamation that not having women priests was a mistake. However, I have heard that the Pope has said the Church is not authorized to ordain female priests.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m actually basing it more on the words he said and what he did, common sense, how the doctrines were formulated, and the context of that era.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the liberal doctrine of feminism.”
So called “feminism” doesn’t have a doctrine, and that term is painfully out of date.
That movement, fifty years ago, was about getting equal pay and job opportunity etc. Today, we would look at most of what “feminism” fought for back then as a human right and cannot imagine living without it’s rewards.
Feminism is really more about “humanism”.

.

So it seems you are challenging the 2000 year history of Church experience and doctrine with your own “take.” That was already done in 1500 by the Protestant Reformation.

You admit Feminism is about humanism; and humanism is about liberalism. Today liberalism is modern orthodoxy. To be non-liberal is to be narrow-minded, rigid, dogmatic, judgmental, and ultimately extremist and terrorist as the US Military informs us the Catholic and Evangelical religions are.

You are comfortably ensconced in your liberal mind with a liberal culture. It is no wonder you have problems with Catholicism.

 

[Tomdstone]

So it seems you are challenging the 2000 year history of Church experience and doctrine with your own “take.” .

For 1900 years women were supposed to wear headcovering in Church. That changed after Vatican II. Women were told to keep silent in Church. That also changed after Vatican II with women celebrating the communion service. Women were not allowed to be altar girls. That changed. Women were not allowed to dance at the altar and around the Church during the Mass. That changed as we now see women dancing as part of the Mass. For 1900 years Satan was pictured as a dragon and St. Michael the Archangel was seen slaying the evil dragon. Now, however, during the Chinese New Year celebrations, dragons are seen snaking throughout the Church and the Catholic faithful are told from the altar that they will get good luck if they touch the dragon as he is snaking through the Church on Chinese New Year. Clowns have been seen at Mass celebrations, although for 1900 years they were not visible in the Church during Mass. So 1900 years of Church experience has already been changed.

 

[JonNC]

I would like to start by saying that I have read the (very) brief article answering this question on this site already, as well as many threads on this site above it. So I’m looking for some arguments a bit more in-depth than those. I would also like to mention that this doesn’t bother me much–it’s explaining why this does not make women unequal in the Catholic Church that is difficult.

Here are some specific things I need addressed:

• The only real reasons the Church has given for her male-only priesthood come down to “it hasn’t been done before” which can be easily argued to be for historical/cultural reasons.
• What about women who genuinely feel called to the priesthood and meet all the expectations of a true vocation to the priesthood?
• Many men feel that they are better able to serve people by being a priest. If a woman feels the same, why can she not have that opportunity?
• All leadership positions of any significance in the Church are filled by men. What about women who are born leaders? The options for them are far, far fewer.

As I said, I need this explained so I can show atheists/agnostics that my Faith is not outdated or sexist.

I don’t know if this helps with atheists and agnostics, but perhaps a “non-Catholic” explanation.

lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1099

Jon

 

[JimG]

Women cannot be Fathers for the same reason that men cannot be Mothers.
It is an ontological impossibility.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not saying he should have instituted female priests.
I’m saying he did..

I would be very interested to hear what evidence you have to support your position.

Christians commonly look to Sacred Scripture, then Tradition and then other historical evidence to support their beliefs.

Let’s start with scripture. What verses would you use to support the idea that Jesus established women as Apostles? (I say “Apostles”, because the priests of the NT were not established until later due to the growth of the Church.)

Thanks.

 

[Tomdstone]

Women cannot be Fathers for the same reason that men cannot be Mothers.
It is an ontological impossibility.

In the Anglican Church, the women priests are sometimes addressed as Reverend.

 

[JimG]

In the Anglican Church, the women priests are sometimes addressed as Reverend.

Yes. Of course Anglican priests do not have valid orders in any case, and women are not valid matter for ordination. A priest is to be a spiritual father to his people. If the Son of God had become incarnate as a woman I am sure that there would be woman priests; they would not be called Father. But that is not the case.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes. Of course Anglican priests do not have valid orders in any case, and women are not valid matter for ordination. A priest is to be a spiritual father to his people. If the Son of God had become incarnate as a woman I am sure that there would be woman priests; they would not be called Father. But that is not the case.

There is also an issue that Protestants bring up about calling anyone Father.