Issue with Ordaining Women

[semper_catholicus]

I’ve read that the reason women are not allowed to be placed in these roles is because Jesus didn’t choose any women to be his apostles.

This reason should be sufficient in itself.

 

[1ke]

Hi everyone. I am currently in RCIA, and I am coming from an Episcopal background. I am battling with the issue of women not being allowed to become deacons, priests, or bishops.

Interesting because I converted to the CC from the EC precisely because of this issue. Because it led me to examine authority in the church.

In fact what led me to convert was the disregard the Americans EC had for their own bishop’s council on this matter when the AC voted against women’s ordination and the EC thumbed it’s nose at the council and did it anyway. I could not reconcile that with Acts where in the Council of Jerusalem the council decided and they were silent (i.e. what is decided in council yields submission by the church). From there it was a hop, skip, and jump to the idea that the EC/AC has no authority to separate themselves from Rome in the first place. Well, then I had to wrestle with the question, “to whom shall we go?”

I’ve read that the reason women are not allowed to be placed in these roles is because Jesus didn’t choose any women to be his apostles. Besides this, is there any other reasons for it?

Yes. I encourage you to read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, it’s available on the Vatican website.

I am female, an attorney, an elected official, a wife, a mother, and a leader all combined into one

I am a female, a wife (we were not able have kids), a leader at my church, a senior director in my work world, an MBA (who thought about law school ) and more— all combined into one.

I think if women were allowed to fulfill these holy roles they would make very good leaders in the church (especially when the number of men going into the priesthood is falling).

Women can be and are leaders in the Church, and have been from the beginning— see Phoebe et al.

To think that one must be a priest to be a leader is to misunderstand the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of all believers— they are distinct but equally important.

 

[1ke]

Post 2 of 2

Moreover, the likelihood of females becoming pedophiles is low, so that also would thwart the current problem in the church.

Nah. For two reasons: 1) the “current problem” is not one of Pedophelia, and 2) the sacrament of ordination is not based on cultural situations of any time or place, it is a sacrament instituted by Christ and therefore not possible to change.

I am a bit dismayed that women aren’t allowed to be placed in these roles simply based on the difference of anatomical parts.

That is not at all the reason.

think women have a lot to offer if given the opportunity, so I am having a hard time with this rule/tradition.

It’s not a rule or a tradition, it’s doctrinal and at the heart of the sacramental theology of the Christ’s Church.

Women do have a lot to offer the Church, and there are many women in leadership roles, teaching in seminary, running ministries, working in the Vatican, working in society. Women were disciples traveling with Christ. Women were business women supporting the early Church.

It is not about women being leaders.

 

[StJemma]

Thank you!

 

[Brendan_64]

The issue is not about women not making good leaders, pastors etc, nor is it an equality issue. Woman cannot share in the male nature of Christ and therefore cannot act in persona Christi. The priest become an alter Christus (another Christ) when celebrating Mass, consecrating the Eucharist, or during Confession. A woman, by the fact of her female nature, cannot share in the essential male nature of Christ. The Church’s teaching on a male only priesthood isn’t a rule, it is a recognition of a reality.

 

[OraLabora]

Woman cannot share in the male nature of Christ and therefore cannot act in persona Christi.

For me this is the crux of the matter.

My favourite actress is Meryl Streep. Heck she’s my favourite actress or actor. She’s absolutely great. I’ve seen her play Margaret Thatcher or a southerner or a Polish concentration camp survivor with equal effect.

But I would not cast her in the role of Winston Churchill.

It does not take away from her skills that she cannot play Winston Churchill. It’s related to her nature. The same goes for a priest standing in for Christ. I know the abbess of a monastery of Benedictine nuns. A skilled and able leader, and a skilled musician. As fine as any I know. But she still cannot be ordained, because she is not of the same nature as Christ. And I cannot give birth to a child, because as a male I’m not of the same nature as a woman.

 

[Fauken]

My favourite actress is Meryl Streep. Heck she’s my favourite actress or actor. She’s absolutely great. I’ve seen her play Margaret Thatcher or a southerner or a Polish concentration camp survivor with equal effect.

But I would not cast her in the role of Winston Churchill.

Funny enough that’s close to the same sort of example I once used to defend the male-only priesthood. One of my roommate’s friends (who was a guy, we were all girls) was asking me about it. I asked him, “Let’s say we’re having auditions for a movie about Christ here. Everyone in this apartment is auditioning for the role of Christ. Among us, who would get it?”

That pretty well settled it.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

The deeper issue is this: Did God really create intentionally? Did he REALLY want there to be male and female humans?

This surely did not have to be the case. God could have only created angels. Or some other biological species that did not have male/female divide.

Why would God do this? Reproduction is one thing, sure. But is it really out of the question that God wanted there to be SOME sense of complementarity and difference? Why is this concept such a hot-topic? Isn’t it just a given, once we grant that God truly did create with purpose and intent?

Now hone in on Jesus’ ministry and the foundation of the Church. It’s sacramental through and through. It’s earthy. It’s physical. God became human. He took on flesh. Our religion is a sacramental, incarnational one. Matter is meaningful.

Christians are not Gnostics. However, it seems some branches of Christianity have fallen into Gnosticism of some form: it’s not really the body that matters. It’s the “mind” or the “spirit.” Matter is what we want it to be.

But this is not how Christianity formed. Jesus used water, bread, wine, oil. He works through matter, even humans. The priesthood itself demonstrates this.

That men should be priests is above all a sacramental meaning.

Just as bread and wine were established as the signs and material elements for Christ’s body and blood, and just as water was chosen to illustrate and be the means of dying to sin and newness of life in Baptism, so the male priesthood suggests Jesus Christ himself, who was truly male.

Christians aren’t Gnostics. That Christ was a male human is meaningful.

In my view, while it may not seem so dramatic especially with today’s modern lens (including the the rightful equality and new sense of dignity of women), changing ordination to include women would be like allowing the Eucharist to be pancakes and orange juice, or hamburgers and beer. It may make more sense today (bread and wine are no longer “staples” as they were in the ancient world). But we cannot change the nature of the sacrament.

 

[RCbkw]

The book, The Catholic Mystique, is a collection of women’s conversion stories. Among those stories are some of women who gave up an ordained ministry in Protestant churches to become Catholic. You might find reading those helpful. It’s an Our Sunday Visitor book.

 

[vsedriver]

I’m just more puzzled as to why Catholics don’t. Are there other historically theological reasons (besides Jesus not having any female apostles)?

the priest also acts ‘in persona Christi’. Since Christ was male it isn’t possible for a woman to fill that role.

 

[PennyinCanada]

I have a friend who is female and married. Someone asked her in the summer if she cut the grass or if her husband did that. Her reply was that 'If I did that, I would be doing everything. lol

Sometimes I come to that idea, that if women were priests in the church, they literally would be doing everything.

I appreciate very much that there is a male priest, front and center, praying with and for the community. I think our boys need this excellent example of a man of prayer, a man of service. Especially today when dads seem to be absent. Many women are in the pew without a husband and their kids grow up seeing that.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Women, by definition, cannot be fathers. That fact doesn’t lessen women or make them of no importance, but it’s simply so. And I believe part of the Church’s argument is that a priest stands in a specifically paternal relation to his flock … and in more than a merely figurative way. A Catholic priest literally is a father in a mystical, but entirely true sense. If one believes that, then the Church’s teachings on female clergy follow almost of themselves.

 

[StJemma]

Hi Rob:

I don’t find it a very convincing reason either (at least by my standards regarding legal arguments and logic). I’m now at the stage of whether to accept it or not (the stage where you are). I’m doing some soul searching.

Thank you for your honest reply!

 

[StJemma]

Hi Penny:

I hadn’t thought of it that way, but it does certainly seem that women tend to be the one shouldering a lot of life’s responsibilities (like your lawn mower story). I think your analogy was a very good one. Thank you!

 

[StJemma]

Thank you! I will definitely look at that for guidance!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Sometimes I come to that idea, that if women were priests in the church, they literally would be doing everything.

I actually find this to be one of the stronger arguments for keeping the priesthood male-only. Catholic men, at least European-American men (Latinos are a different story), seem to be getting increasingly less involved with the Church and leaving more stuff up to the women. The “Roman Catholic Man” prayer group, that’s supposed to be oriented towards men, is at least three-quarters female. Sure, we are tough prayer warriors and that, but where are the men?

I don’t want the Church to turn into the proverbial pink-collar ghetto. We need an equal number of men involved to set the example for the next generation of men. Having the priest, the leader without whom Mass and sacraments don’t happen, be a man is one way to make sure you will have at least one strong male role model. I suspect if we started ordaining women, pretty soon we’d have mostly women priests, rather than half of each gender.

 

[Aquinas11]

Women, by definition, cannot be fathers. That fact doesn’t lessen women or make them of no importance, but it’s simply so. And I believe part of the Church’s argument is that a priest stands in a specifically paternal relation to his flock … and in more than a merely figurative way. A Catholic priest literally is a father in a mystical, but entirely true sense. If one believes that, then the Church’s teachings on female clergy follow almost of themselves.

Tim Staples on a CAF video went into more detail on this too and said that Priests have to be male since they stand in role of Jesus and Jesus acted in masculine capacity by spreading his seed (word) throughout the Church and that the Church acted as the feminine by receiving Jesus’ seed (word). Tim goes into great detail on this.

 

[edwest]

What does this have to do with the topic?

 

[Usige]

I am a bit dismayed that women aren’t allowed to be placed in these roles simply based on the difference of anatomical parts.

In your logic, there’s essentially no distinction between men and women, except, as you say, anatomical parts.

This is a very important point. As Catholics we don’t believe that the distinction between male and female is purely a matter of anatomy. We beleive that there are fundamental differences in the very nature and being between males and females.

In philosophy this is what is called the ontic nature (the factual reality of being) of the human soul. Humans are not simply the physical manifestation of anatomy, but also are united with a soul that is also male or female if you would. This is one on the reasons why a person that undergoes female to male surgery is not able to be ordained even if they’ve tried to alter their anatomy. Their true nature is what God created them as and not whatever a person believes is true or how they try to modify part of their being.

This is important since the sacrament of Holy Orders makes an ontological change (i.e. fundamental change of being} and as such ordination is not purely a matter of granting authority by human agency. As part of that, the person to be ordained has to have the correct nature to start with.

 

[PickyPicky]

He asked the then primate of the Anglican Communion what was their theological reason for the ordination of women. The answer he received was a sociological answer.

This is an interesting story. Do you have a source?

(Incidentally, I point out in passing that there is no such person as the primate of the Anglican Communion).