Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[saveusfromhell]

I daresay they don’t really know. But then a lot of Catholics - a lot of people - don’t really care that priests are male and only male, so it makes sense that they might not seek the reasoning.

On another point, rules derive from what Jesus DID and DIDN’T DO as well as what He SAID and DIDN’T SAY.

Eg - at the Last Supper He did certain things (employed bread and wine in the sacrament) and did not do others (did not use lamb and water/doritos and coke/cookies and milk). So
in our Eucharist we are bound by what He did and did not do. Like Him we do use bread and wine, like Him we do not use doritos and coke or any alternative.

Jesus was crucified on a cross rather than stabbed or poisoned, so like Him we employ the Cross as a symbol of our faith, rather than a knife or a bottle of poison.

Jesus (pointedly IMHO) employed only males in the priesthood, and given the way they are portrayed in scripture quite obviously not out of any sense that they were in any way better or more holy than the women. So we do as He did.

i liked your reply:thumbsup: simply obvious and makes sense

 

[heaintheavy]

I’m glad that you seem to accept the teaching as explained to you by CurlyCool, heaintheavy. That’s something at least.

Now if we could only get you to understand that just because you do not see the words, “I the Lord say no women priests” in the Bible, that doesn’t mean Jesus never spoke on the topic****, and that the Catholic Church doesn’t make up rules on faith and morals, but always relies on the guidance of the Holy Spirit (who like Jesus is God), and not ‘from mere men alone’, we’d all rest easier.

Okay, but again.
(And I’d like, of course, for everyone to rest easy
If it came from the Holy Spirit…it still had to be relayed to someone, yes? And that person then had to–either verbally or in writing–tell others, yes?

Someone early on had to have said, “the Holy Spirit tells me that…and this is why…so this is what we have to do…”…?

I’m just trying to get to the origin of what CC said and understand, then, how it becomes doctrine (kinda like how does a bill become a law

Someone or a group of people had to get together and say, "Okay, the Holy Spirit says that only a certain kind of “giver” can be priests…not the female kind of giving, only the male kind of giving… so that means only men can do the Eucharist because…"etc.

Did the Holy Spirit speak to a specific person to relay this information?

Or, if it did not happen this way, how did it happen?
When you study how the religion developed in catechism class, is this detail is taught?
Or no?
(I may be asking a question over and over that no on knows the answer to?)

 

[heaintheavy]

well it certainly seems like there is a large group of non catholics who want women priests. search any thread on women priests if your not sure why we think this.

i think heaintheavy is unwilling to accept rather than not being able to understand.

But being non-Catholic is farrrr from being Atheist.

Atheist is not believing God exists, isnt’ it?

There are many, many non-Catholic religions that believe in God.

 

[heaintheavy]

well it certainly seems like there is a large group of non catholics who want women priests. search any thread on women priests if your not sure why we think this.
i think heaintheavy is unwilling to accept rather than not being able to understand.

Save Us…it is good, in this world, to ask questions to understand people’s actions better.
I want to understand this and I’m asking all the questions that come to me to help me understand.
It’s not helpful, when one is trying to learn, for someone to say “you are unwilling to accept!”
Perhaps you, and others, are just not good teachers. If so, no need to blame the student.

The human brain has to go through a reasoning process to understand.
Maybe you have been brought up Catholic your entire life and just accept everything without asking questions. But if you want non-Catholics to become Catholic (and as I understand it, you are to want to “evangelize”) or at least understand what it is you believe, it makes sense to try and explain rather than shutting a person down with a statement like that.

And if you’ve been Catholic your entire life, you already have a background in all this and it is familiar so perhaps when you try to explain, you are not taking into consideration that parts are missing for me in your explanation.

CC explained it in a way no one else did, and he hit the nail on the head and I got what he was saying. Why no one else said that earlier on, I have no idea.

I come in this forum to learn about this religion.
To a non-Catholic, this is ALL a mystery and very confusing.
Just because I am asking questions that maybe you cannot answer, or just because I am not understanding it right away, there is no cause for you to say what you said. I hope, if you have children, you don’t say that to them when there is something in class they are not understanding right away.

And just because a person asks a lot of detailed questions, doesn’t mean they mean offense.
I am asking these questions with much gusto and fervor because I really want to know the details. If you don’t like someone asking questions, just hang back instead of giving a glib, canned, cliched remark like that.
It’s not true, and it’s not fair.

 

[LilyM]

The ‘group of people’ is called the Magesterium of the Church, comprised of the Pope and all the Bishops. That is the someone the Holy Spirit tells. And they verbally or in writing tell others.

Now I do know that, for example, the Code of Canon Law sets out the requirements for the priesthood - adult male, not marrried etc. The Code of Canon Law is a bit like the US Constitution, amendments get made from time to time. The last time was in the 1980s, before that I believe it was 1917 and so on. If you’re asking me when the first time was that Canon Law specified that only men could be priests, I don’t know. A very learned and specialized Church historian might be able to tell you.

Think of it like this - there was never at any time any law specifically saying ‘women cannot vote’ in the US that I am aware of. What there was was law stating that men were eligible to vote under certain conditions. It was obvious to women for a very very long time that they didn’t meet the criteria.

Up until the last 1-200 years almost nothing had to be said or written about women voting, because not enough of them asked to be allowed, or cared about voting, to make it an issue.

Same with the priesthood. Up until 1-200 years ago incredibly few women wanted to take a clerical role in any Christian denomination - probably not in other religions either. Why bother wastig time making written law about it at a time when only a tiny number of women in the history of Christianity would have cared, or asked? May as well ask the Church to formulate written law about what we are to do in the event of Martians making contact with us - that’s how foreign the concept of women wanting to be priests was to most people a few hundred years ago.

Much easier at that time just for these few women to be told, as individuals, by their jndividual priests or bishops, that it could not be done. Just like it is easier to wait for the unlikely event that we DO come into contact with Martians and THEN worry about the implications, the law making, the written policies and detailed discussions.

This is exactly how most Church doctrine often comes to be formulated. For centuries most people more or less happily accept a common understanding that, say, Christ is both divine and human. There may b a few dissenters here and there, but they are dealt with on an individual basis.

Until someone like an Arius comes along and strongly challenges that common thinking - and sways a lot of people to side with him. In response, the Magisterium then gets together in Council, or the Pope makes an infallible proclamation (very rare those, btw) to clarify matters and reassert that the common understanding is the right one.

Okay, but again.
(And I’d like, of course, for everyone to rest easy

If it came from the Holy Spirit…it still had to be relayed to someone, yes? And that person then had to–either verbally or in writing–tell others, yes?

Someone early on had to have said, “the Holy Spirit tells me that…and this is why…so this is what we have to do…”…?

I’m just trying to get to the origin of what CC said and understand, then, how it becomes doctrine (kinda like how does a bill become a law

Someone or a group of people had to get together and say, "Okay, the Holy Spirit says that only a certain kind of “giver” can be priests…not the female kind of giving, only the male kind of giving… so that means only men can do the Eucharist because…"etc.

Did the Holy Spirit speak to a specific person to relay this information?

Or, if it did not happen this way, how did it happen?
When you study how the religion developed in catechism class, is this detail is taught?
Or no?
(I may be asking a question over and over that no on knows the answer to?)

 

[saveusfromhell]

, I have no idea.
detailed questions, doesn’t mean they mean offense.
I am asking these questions with much gusto and fervor because I really want to know the details. If you don’t like someone asking questions, just hang back instead of giving a glib, canned, cliched remark like that.
It’s not true, and it’s not fair.

okay that’s fair enough I’m not going to answer all of your last post because it’s late. sometimes the meaning of people’s posts come across different than intended by the poster. if you are genuine than I apologize if I have offended.
often when involved in threads it looks as though the poster is being condescending rather than looking for answers. whether intended or not, you asked the same question a number of times, even after it was explained to you why their can’t be women priests.
this particular subject has irked me this week more than it normally would because a large number of priest in my country are looking to change this. they, above anyone understand why this can’t happen, yet they want to change this and many of the core tenants of the faith to suit themselves.
this may likely lead to a schism, in here. there is many here who do not understand or maybe even know why and what the church teaches. when priests come out and go against doctrine it leaves it extremely hard to evangelize, as you put it never mind the struggle it will be to inform the conscience of my kids

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So much more special and awesome? Or so much more in need of divine help because they were so much LESS awesome maybe?

Few religious conservatives would agree with that logic (at least if their honest).

It might help if I provided some context and explained my views more fully.

Women have pretty much always been regarded as lesser than men.
No one knows exactly how human males became so dominant (although the fact that were significantly bigger, more aggressive, and don’t get pregnant were probably important factors), but the fact remains that virtually all societies in recorded history have been patriarchal (many violently so).

That is why most of the leaders, artisans, warriors, architects, celebrities, etc. throughout history have been men. Human males took the credit for more or less everything that was seen as important and prestigious.

Nevertheless, there are just 3 absolute essentials when it comes to maintaining a civilization/society.

1. Keeping everyone fed.
2. Finding shelter for everyone.
3. Taking care of and raising next generation.

Historically, men and women have both played a large part in maintaining food and shelter for everyone (the modern housewife is a historical anomaly that wasn’t possible until the emergence of a large middle class). However, women have shouldered most of the burden when it comes to raising the young.

But despite the importance of this task, its never been something that had many tangible rewards or received much recognition (except perhaps from a woman’s immediate family). In fact, it was considered women’s work, and ‘women’s work’ was something of a insult (or at least dismissive remark) when used by men.
So the social norm was that men and manly activities were vastly better and more important than women and women’s work. And this state of affairs was more or less taken for granted by everyone.

Until recently.
In the 20th century women began to gain social, economic, and political power on par with men (at least in the West). Suddenly what women thought, desired, and wanted mattered in a way that it never had before. As a result, institutions that would have admitted with little hesitation that they thought women were inferior not long before, claimed that they had been on women’s side all along.

The Catholic Church appears to be one of the those institutions. I am not aware of ONE official Church document or statement by a pope prior to the 20th century saying that women are of equal worth, dignity, value, etc. (compared to men).
But even if I am wrong about what Church offiicals believed and practiced, the fact remains that throughout most of its history the Church accepted and took for granted the (often brutally) unfair way women were treated.
Thus when it says that women cannot be priests (simply because their women) but it has nothing to do with regarding or treating women as inferior, the Church’s credibility is compromised at best.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

From this post, Angry, I assume that you were once a fundamentalist Christian, and never a well-catechized Catholic before leaving Christendom for atheism?

For this demonstrates all of the arguments that Fundamentalists throw at Catholics but lacks a well-formed Mariology.

Please see here here and here for the Catholic Church’s teachings on Mary. If you search, you’ll find all of these words attached to Mary: courage, hope, intelligence, willpower, discipline, or fortitude (list taken from your earlier post.)

And how did she demonstrate any of those qualities?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, now.
That is the FIRST time in all these years I have ever heard someone explain it where it actually makes sense!

I mean…I don’t agree** with the logic of it, of course…we could look as women as “gift givers” because we grow and deliver babies to the world, we give milk, we nurture and feed (so the giving of the wine and bread makes even more sense)…I still would disagree that Jesus would say a woman can’t “become” the body of Christ, since it is more a spiritual than a physical…and he welcomed women in everything else…and more.
But!
At least I now understand the church’s thinking process.
The others weren’t as clear and detailed as you to get the point across. The “it’s who you are, not what you do” was still too vague.
So thanks, CC!

I am aware of that line of metaphysical reasoning.
It always struck me as rather vile and senseless myself.

Implying that men are like God because their initiators (when it comes to procreation) and women are like the Nothingness that existed before the universe (because their contribution to procreation doesn’t count I guess).

Keep in mind that the Greeks who inspired much of Christian thought assumed that women were little more than incubators during pregnancy. That everything that would become the baby essentially came from the man.

 

[PRmerger]

And how did she demonstrate any of those qualities?

After you have read the links I offered, and you still want to ask that question, we’ll discuss.

But right now I can see that you didn’t do the searching/research/reading/studying that I suggested, so we really can’t chat until then.

 

[PRmerger]

The Catholic Church appears to be one of the those institutions. I am not aware of ONE official Church document or statement by a pope prior to the 20th century saying that women are of equal worth, dignity, value, etc. (compared to men).

Perhaps you’re not familiar with Genesis, which states that we are all, male and female, created in the image and likeness of God?

Starting in the Old Testament we have the examples of Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, Judith…New Testament models include, of course, the Blessed Mother–esteemed above all men–Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary. The early church venerated women martyrs such as St. Lucy, St. Agatha who gave their lives in the earliest days of Christianity. There were Desert Mothers such as St. Syncletica, St. Theodora who were held in high admiration and whose theological opinions were sought. Throughout church history we will see women abbesses of large monasteries, women who led hospitals and orphanages, women like St. Teresa of Avila who led successful efforts to reform the Church. In relatively modern days we have the examples of women scholars such as St. Edith Stein.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The Catholic Church appears to be one of the those institutions. I am not aware of ONE official Church document or statement by a pope prior to the 20th century saying that women are of equal worth, dignity, value, etc. (compared to men).

Perhaps you’re not familiar with Genesis, which states that we are all, male and female, created in the image and likeness of God?

Starting in the Old Testament we have the examples of Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, Judith…New Testament models include, of course, the Blessed Mother–esteemed above all men–Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary. The early church venerated women martyrs such as St. Lucy, St. Agatha who gave their lives in the earliest days of Christianity. There were Desert Mothers such as St. Syncletica, St. Theodora who were held in high admiration and whose theological opinions were sought. Throughout church history we will see women abbesses of large monasteries, women who led hospitals and orphanages, women like St. Teresa of Avila who led successful efforts to reform the Church. In relatively modern days we have the examples of women scholars such as St. Edith Stein.

I am familiar with Genesis, which seems to say that Woman (Eve) was created both at the same time and after Man (Adam).
I am also familiar with the Pauline verse that says that Man Is Created in the Image of God, but Woman is Created in the Image of Man (which is why Man is better leadership material according to Saint Paul).

 

[PRmerger]

The Catholic Church appears to be one of the those institutions. I am not aware of ONE official Church document or statement by a pope prior to the 20th century saying that women are of equal worth, dignity, value, etc. (compared to men).
But even if I am wrong about what Church offiicals believed and practiced, the fact remains that throughout most of its history the Church accepted and took for granted the (often brutally) unfair way women were treated.

It is interesting to note that Christianity had so many female converts in its earliest centuries. Some anti-Christian writers from the early years of the Church used to put down Christianity by reminding their readers about how the Christian Church was so full of poor people and women.

I think that speaks to the dignity that Jesus gave to those who were on the margins of society at that time - namely the poor and women—Bryan Jones, faculty, Kenrick Seminary, Paul VI class

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Perhaps you’re not familiar with Genesis, which states that we are all, male and female, created in the image and likeness of God?

Starting in the Old Testament we have the examples of Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, Judith…New Testament models include, of course, the Blessed Mother–esteemed above all men–Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary. The early church venerated women martyrs such as St. Lucy, St. Agatha who gave their lives in the earliest days of Christianity. There were Desert Mothers such as St. Syncletica, St. Theodora who were held in high admiration and whose theological opinions were sought. Throughout church history we will see women abbesses of large monasteries, women who led hospitals and orphanages, women like St. Teresa of Avila who led successful efforts to reform the Church. In relatively modern days we have the examples of women scholars such as St. Edith Stein.

Wrong.
Jesus Christ was also a man (according to the Church) and the Virgin Mary is certainly not esteemed more than HIm. That’s the reason only men are considered fit to be priests after all.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

As I said earlier in this thread, when it comes to maintaining a society there are 3 essentials. Making sure everyone has food and shelter, and raising the young.

Traditionally men and women shared responsibility for getting food and shelter. But most of the burden of child raising fell on women.

This was dismissed as women’s work and generally not regarded as the absolutely essential activity that it is.

Frankly, a society can get by without writing, a sophisticated system of ethics, beautiful buildings, well maintained armies, great artwork, and the like. These things are important, but people can survive without them. However people will soon die without food a shelter, and a group will die out without people taking care of the young.

Nevertheless, all the things I mentioned above were generally valued more than women’s work. Manly activities were considered more important. Women’s work consisted of activities that men didn’t want to do or considered beneath them (which were often one and the same).

This system lasted for a long long time.
Then in the 20th century, women were pushed into the workforce (largely due to World Wars one and two).
Although women had always worked before this, but usually with their husbands and fathers (on farms, family businesses, etc.). For perhaps the first time in the West, larger and larger groups of women were economic agents in their own right. This was accompanied by women getting the vote, giving them political power as well.

Not surprising, many women preferred the *manly *world of business because their economic activities were valued (and rewarded in a concrete form) in way that their domestic work had never been. The that idea valuing money, fame, and glory more than raising children is a new thing is a patently false.
Society has always valued money, fame, and glory more than women’s work.

Moreover, its makes sense that this new breed of women (who think that they are just as good as men and therefore have the right to do traditionally male things) would be hostile or at least indifferent to the Virgin Mary.
The Virgin Mary’s defining characteristic is that she gave to birth one very special boy (Jesus) and is completely and utterly loyal (to the point of not even having contradictory thoughts or feelings) to a masculine entity (God the Father).

To women who want to raise their status by doing traditionally male things (such as earning money and exercising authority) this is a not an attractive idea. In fact you could argue (as Feminists such as the late Mary Daly have) that the Virgin Mary ideal was used to oppress and demean women by teaching that all women should be like her.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It is interesting to note that Christianity had so many female converts in its earliest centuries. Some anti-Christian writers from the early years of the Church used to put down Christianity by reminding their readers about how the Christian Church was so full of poor people and women.

I think that speaks to the dignity that Jesus gave to those who were on the margins of society at that time - namely the poor and women—Bryan Jones, faculty, Kenrick Seminary, Paul VI class

As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, in the past one of the best ways to put down a man was to call him womanly or to suggest that what he was doing was women’s work.

So its not surprising that the Romans would say such things about their enemies.

Moreover, all Christianity would have to do to be attractive to women would be to treat them better than the reigning pagan religions. It wouldn’t necessarily have to treat them as equals (or even that well by modern standards).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It is interesting to note that Christianity had so many female converts in its earliest centuries. Some anti-Christian writers from the early years of the Church used to put down Christianity by reminding their readers about how the Christian Church was so full of poor people and women.

I think that speaks to the dignity that Jesus gave to those who were on the margins of society at that time - namely the poor and women—Bryan Jones, faculty, Kenrick Seminary, Paul VI class

Its also worth noting that Christianity has changed a great deal since the time of Jesus.
From when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire to the Reformation it was the religion of the power elite and status quo in Europe.

 

[Tenofovir]

Its also worth noting that Christianity has changed a great deal since the time of Jesus.
From when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire to the Reformation it was the religion of the power elite and status quo in Europe.

I don’t see what being a “religion of the elite”, as in the elite chose it because some of them sought God with their heats while others were just copy-cats, has to do with anything.

Christianity was originally the religion of outcasts, the poor and the rejects and remained the religion of outcasts and the poor. Just because certain ruling classes adapted it with their tribesmen does not mean it suddenly became something else. Unless of course being a member of the elite classes is wrong per se. Not sure how one could argue that.

 

[nickybr38]

Its also worth noting that Christianity has changed a great deal since the time of Jesus.
From when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire to the Reformation it was the religion of the power elite and status quo in Europe.

Please tell me you don’t believe that Constantine was the official founder of Christianity/the Catholic Church. crosses fingers Please, please…

 

[Tenofovir]

It wouldn’t necessarily have to treat them as equals (or even that well by modern standards).

Except feminists such as yourself, are not satisfied with equal status. You want more. You want to be treated better than the male. But under atheism, your religion, both men and women are machines and accidents. Our minds are accidents. There is no need to treat anyone anyway beyond what one considers fashionable but it’s all irrational at the end of the day for under atheism people don’t really exist. There are only collections of matter and energy in such and such configuration which we happen to call a man or a woman, and other collections of matter/energy which we call a stack of hay, a meteor or a tree.

A bit of advice, live and let live. People don’t have to be Catholics. People don’t have to believe in God. But don’t force your views on others and say what others must do. You have no moral right to do that. Your atheism does not grant you that, no matter how much serotonin pulses through your brain’s limbic system.