Is it possible for the US gov to mandate Catholic church to ordain woman?

[HereAndThere]

This HHS mandate has me thinking. Could the government claim that the Catholic church is discriminating against women and make them ordain woman priests?

Read the arguments and opinions in the recent US Supreme Court case “Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)”. If you don’t know about this case, you should, it’s very important and relevant. Although not the focus of the case, forcing Catholics to ordain female priests is brought up in the arguments. With that unanimous decision I feel I can safely say that I am not worried at all about the above with the current composition of the court, or with the retirement of 1 or 2 justices. In my young children’s lifetimes, though? I would not entirely rule it out.
Links to the arguments and opinions in the Hosanna-Tabor case can be found here.
It will give you some hope, I hope.

 

[Geist]

From ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS Emphasis mine.

This is not only an infallible statement, it is hard to see how it could be more authoritatively stated.

Thing is, by the logic there since all the disciples were male, all clergy must be male, why not take it to the logical point and require our priests and bishops only come from a Galilean Jewish background since not one Gentile numbered among the disciples?

Male only apostolic succession is a weak argument if not taken all the way and the Priesthood is not restricted to Galilean Jewish males.

It’s not an issue I really feel strongly about, I mean, I don’t see the point of excluding women, but I see the merit of keeping that tradition, but this is an area IMO where the Churchs line of thinking is on very shaky ground and strikes me as stubbornness more than a meaningful tradition to maintain into the 21st century.

 

[sedonaman]

No… that would be up to the church to decide. And we all know the answer to that. It wont happen. But that’s okay. Why not just be a nun?

Because the people pushing for this are against inequality and discrimination in any form.

 

[sw85]

Thing is, by the logic there since all the disciples were male, all clergy must be male, why not take it to the logical point and require our priests and bishops only come from a Galilean Jewish background since not one Gentile numbered among the disciples?

Male only apostolic succession is a weak argument if not taken all the way and the Priesthood is not restricted to Galilean Jewish males.

It’s not an issue I really feel strongly about, I mean, I don’t see the point of excluding women, but I see the merit of keeping that tradition, but this is an area IMO where the Churchs line of thinking is on very shaky ground and strikes me as stubbornness more than a meaningful tradition to maintain into the 21st century.

For one thing, prior to Christ, there was no universal church – only the Jews.

Why is it you can see the merits of it (whatever you think they are), but anyone else who sees them and argues for them is just being stubborn? A little hubristic, don’t you think?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Thing is, by the logic there since all the disciples were male, all clergy must be male, why not take it to the logical point and require our priests and bishops only come from a Galilean Jewish background since not one Gentile numbered among the disciples?

Male only apostolic succession is a weak argument if not taken all the way and the Priesthood is not restricted to Galilean Jewish males.

It’s not an issue I really feel strongly about, I mean, I don’t see the point of excluding women, but I see the merit of keeping that tradition, but this is an area IMO where the Churchs line of thinking is on very shaky ground and strikes me as stubbornness more than a meaningful tradition to maintain into the 21st century.

Souls have gender, they don’t have ethnic background or home areas.

 

[sedonaman]

… I don’t see the point of excluding women, but I see the merit of keeping that tradition, but this is an area IMO where the Churchs line of thinking is on very shaky ground and strikes me as stubbornness more than a meaningful tradition to maintain into the 21st century.

There is an old African proverb that goes something like, “Never tear down a fence until you find out why it was put up.” Since the burden of proof is on the advocate of change, and not the traditionalist, the traditionalist doesn’t have to explain “why not;” rather, the advocate has to justify “why”. Have you checked out the recent histories of other Christian denominations that have ordained women?

 

[jmjconder]

Anything is possible in a country where it is legal to commit murder against the unborn.

Anything is possible in a country where politicians from both parties publicly oppose the Church on life issues and yet nary a single public excommunication (that I am aware of) of these politicians (from both parties) by the Catholic hierarchy.

Anything is possible in a country where the Constitution is trashed by both parties.

**Francis Cardinal George said this in 2010;

“I expect to die in bed. My successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”**

We all need very strong knees.

 

[tafan]

This HHS mandate has me thinking. Could the government claim that the Catholic church is discriminating against women and make them ordain woman priests?

There is an minister exception to US employment laws that the supreme court has recognized. Recently, there was a case of a Lutheran school that had terminated a female teacher and she filed a lawsuit. It went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Here is a link becketfund.org/hosannatabor/ .

What is interesting is that the Obama Administration filed a bried arguing against the school, saying they could not count her as a minister. It shows how out of touch the Obama administration is that the Supreme Court eventually ruled UNANIMOUSLY against them. That means even the 4 liberal judges did not agree with them.

So do not think it out of the realm of possibility that the government would try this, the Obama administration has a very limited view of freedom of religion. You will notice, that everytime Obama refers to this, he uses the term “freedom of worship” as opposed to “freedom of religion”. This is VERY telling as to his philosophy. There is a big difference between saying I have a freedom to worship, as opposed to having a freedom of religion. Think of it this simple way: on Sunday I can go to church an worship as I see fit, on Monday I cannot practice my religion in my day-to-day life without the government’s consent.

He does not believe, at all, that Churches should not abide by government dictates.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Thing is, by the logic there since all the disciples were male, all clergy must be male, why not take it to the logical point and require our priests and bishops only come from a Galilean Jewish background since not one Gentile numbered among the disciples?

Male only apostolic succession is a weak argument if not taken all the way and the Priesthood is not restricted to Galilean Jewish males.

It’s not an issue I really feel strongly about, I mean, I don’t see the point of excluding women, but I see the merit of keeping that tradition, but this is an area IMO where the Churchs line of thinking is on very shaky ground and strikes me as stubbornness more than a meaningful tradition to maintain into the 21st century.

My position: Roma locuta est, causa finita est

Your position: That only makes since if we only ordain Galilean Jews.

My response: …The Heck?

 

[Geist]

My position: Roma locuta est, causa finita est

Your position: That only makes since if we only ordain Galilean Jews.

My response: …The Heck?

If you’re going to restrict based on the disciples gender, why not their ethnicity?

Discrimination is often hard to justify, take your time.

 

[sw85]

If you’re going to restrict based on the disciples gender, why not their ethnicity?

Discrimination is often hard to justify, take your time.

It is rarely ever hard to justify, when it’s rational. As I said, there was no universal Church prior to the Pentecost, hence His disciples had to be Jews – Jews being the “type” or primitive representation of the Catholic Church.

They did not have to be women. There were women among the Jews, after all. None of them were chosen.

Rational reflection on the nature of the sexes also suggests the importance of a male-only priesthood. Society can make do with fewer sexually active men than it can with fewer women.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

For the sake of argument, the Boy Scouts of America have female boy scouts. Wasn’t that a court decided action? Isn’t that similar in nature to OP’s scenario?

There are no girl Boy Scouts. THere are women in positions of leadership within the various levels of BSA structure. At 14 years old, boys and girls begin to co-exist in Venture Crews and Sea Scouts. But from 7 to 14, only children that are genetically male are allowed to be Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Thing is, by the logic there since all the disciples were male, all clergy must be male, why not take it to the logical point and require our priests and bishops only come from a Galilean Jewish background since not one Gentile numbered among the disciples?

Male only apostolic succession is a weak argument if not taken all the way and the Priesthood is not restricted to Galilean Jewish males.

It’s not an issue I really feel strongly about, I mean, I don’t see the point of excluding women, but I see the merit of keeping that tradition, but this is an area IMO where the Churchs line of thinking is on very shaky ground and strikes me as stubbornness more than a meaningful tradition to maintain into the 21st century.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Here give that a read through. Its not the preservation of tradition. Pope John Paul was quite clear that the Catholic Church does not possess the authority to ordain women. Period.

“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.” Pope John Paul II - Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

My position: Roma locuta est, causa finita est

Your position: That only makes since if we only ordain Galilean Jews.

My response: …The Heck?

I am not here to justify, reason, argue or debate. What I said was, when translated into english, “Rome has spoken, so the matter is settled.” What you replied was that I needed to drag opinion conjecture and debate in order to hear and obey the successor of St.Peter authorized by Christ as the keeper and interpreter of tradition. He was not ambiguous as to whether Christ in the deposit of faith permitted the Church to ordain women.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

If you’re going to restrict based on the disciples gender, why not their ethnicity?

I am not here to justify, reason, argue or debate. What I said was, when translated into english, “Rome has spoken, so the matter is settled.” What you replied was that I needed to drag opinion conjecture and debate in order to hear and obey the successor of St.Peter authorized by Christ as the keeper and interpreter of tradition. He was not ambiguous as to whether Christ in the deposit of faith permitted the Church to ordain women.

Discrimination is often hard to justify, take your time. Okay if you insist, I’ll make one debate post.

No it isn’t. Lets say you are made to drink 4 of 8 shot glasses of liquid; 4 are hydrofluoric acid, and 4 are filtered water. Would you discriminate? I would without doubt. Next hypothetical: You are choosing from a group of people who should be spiritual fathers to your people and represent you as the son of God. Do you choose Men, Women, or some combination? Would you discriminate? Christ did without a doubt.

If you want a debate, make a thread for it, and I’ll make an appearance. But food for thought, it seems you are making a very fashionable but very wrong assumption. It seems you are assuming that there is no significant difference between men and women, and that they are no different from each other than a brown haired man and a black haired man.

 

[Nicko]

My understanding would be that this would be a clear violation of the Second Amendment. It is difficult to see how a lawyer could be competent enough to pass the bar exam, yet incompetent enough to lose this case. It is a slam-dunk of such magnitude that I cannot imagine any White House even trying to enact such a mandate, let alone getting away with it.

The deal is supposed to be: religion keeps its dogma out of the law; government keeps its law out of dogma. As a secularist, I am opposed to any attempt by any government telling a faith what its dogma should be, provided the faith in question does not require its adherents to commit actual crimes.

People who find the RCC’s stance on female priests discriminatory or otherwise offensive are completely free - in a secular society - to leave the faith and join one they find more agreeable. Its not like the RCC’s stance on such matters is some kind of secret, after all.

 

[sedonaman]

…Discrimination is often hard to justify, take your time.

Discrimination is not hard to justify. Everybody does it every day. Whenever you make a choice, you have discriminated *.

The law does not and cannot treat all persons – young and old, weak and strong, rich and poor, male and female, and so on – as equal in all regards.

The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, burglary statutes distinguish burglars from non-burglars. Felons, children, and aliens do not have the right to vote; non-felon citizen adults over 18 years do.

There is no requirement of equality other than the tautology that all people must be treated in accordance with their legal rights. – Constitutional Law Professor Lino Graglia

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

If you’re going to restrict based on the disciples gender, why not their ethnicity?

Discrimination is often hard to justify, take your time.

It’s rather simple actually, souls have gender, but they don’t have race. Souls are male or female, but there is no such thing as a black or white soul

 

[Arizona_Mike]

My understanding would be that this would be a clear violation of the Second Amendment. It is difficult to see how a lawyer could be competent enough to pass the bar exam, yet incompetent enough to lose this case. It is a slam-dunk of such magnitude that I cannot imagine any White House even trying to enact such a mandate, let alone getting away with it.

I agree with you, Nicko, but I don’t think you meant the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to firearms. Although no doubt some would be willing to take up arms, like the Christero Movement in Mexico, if their religious rights were violated.

 

[Nicko]

I agree with you, Nicko, but I don’t think you meant the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to firearms. Although no doubt some would be willing to take up arms, like the Christero Movement in Mexico, if their religious rights were violated.

Sorry.

I’ve recently been arguing on another forum about Second Amendment issues. Got my wires crossed. First Amendment is of course the applicable one.