What are the theological arguments for and against women’s ordination in the Catholic Church?

S

santhia petter

New member
I think the debate on women's ordination in the Catholic Church is a complex and thought-provoking one. Supporters argue that in Christ, all are equal, pointing to examples of strong women leaders in the early Church. On the other hand, opponents believe that Jesus specifically chose male apostles, and that the male priesthood reflects the unique relationship between Christ and the Church, which should be upheld as part of divine tradition.


What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you believe the Church should open the priesthood to women, or do you think tradition should be preserved? Share your perspective in the comments below! Let’s engage in a respectful conversation and explore the different viewpoints together.
 
Women have never been priests in either the Catholic or the Orthodox churches, the two churches which date back to the very beginning of Christianity and which have apostolic succession and all seven sacraments. It is a part of Catholic tradition that women simply cannot be ordained priests. It is a facile argument (not that you are making it, you're clearly not) to appeal to some kind of progress in human civilization to justify this, as though "for 2000 years we've walked in darkness, and we're just now getting it right". Equality does not necessarily imply equivalence or equipotency. Men cannot conceive and bear children, yet that does not mean they are inferior to women --- just different.

The whole Weltgeist of the 20th and 21st centuries, so far, has been to erase all distinctions between people, to try and make all of humanity (and even other living creatures, in more extreme incarnations, "speciesism" is a thing) just one big monotonous, socialist mush where anybody does anything they feel like doing, and everybody is seen as equally suited for everything, and equally entitled to everything. In this world, everyone gets participation trophies. That is what has informed the push by some for women's ordination, not some supposed ontological error that has stubbornly hung on until now.
 
While I understand your perspective, I believe the conversation around women's ordination is more nuanced. The traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox churches are deeply rooted in history, and these decisions reflect long-standing interpretations of Scripture and Church authority. However, it’s important to recognize that cultural contexts evolve, and many are now questioning whether these traditions should be reexamined in light of modern understandings of equality and the roles of women in society. Equality doesn’t necessarily mean sameness, but it does mean the opportunity to serve and lead in ways that align with one’s gifts and calling. It’s not about erasing differences but about ensuring that all individuals are given the opportunity to contribute to the Church and society, regardless of gender. Ultimately, this is a deeply personal and theological issue, and it’s worth considering how the Church can adapt while still honoring its core beliefs
 
I'm sorry, but this sounds like an AI-generated response. While there is no rule on this forum specifically prohibiting such content (not least because AI in its present form hasn't existed all that long), it runs contrary to the spirit and intent of this forum, in that we seek intelligent content from real-live participants. If a user wishes to employ AI, I would only ask that they label it as such, saying "here's what AI provided" or something such as that.

On a personal note, I am not categorically opposed to the use of AI --- I employ it myself in daily life --- but I discourage use of AI-generated content on this forum without it being clearly labeled as such. Thanks to everyone for your cooperation going forward.
 
Since you ask for our thoughts on the issue, here are mine, just two of them:

Despite the great weight of theological arguments against it, I suspect it is by no means impossible that the Catholic Church might decide, at some future date, to start ordaining women on a trial basis. If that happens, the most likely motivation would be that there are no longer enough men getting ordained to keep the numbers up.

All the same, and whatever justification they might bring forward, I’m pretty sure it would be disastrous for the Church. Most Catholics would simply stop attending Mass and going to confession. They might still expect their priests, even women priests, to provide what have now become essentially social functions, namely weddings and funerals, but no more than that.
 
Not going to happen. Even Pope Francis, as liberal as he is perceived to be by many, has definitively ruled it out.

For someone purporting to be a Pope to approve of women's ordination would signify, for me anyway (and not just me, there'd be millions), a situation of sede vacante, and those faithful to Catholic tradition would simply have to get by as best they could. There is a wide spectrum of opinion as to whether a Pope can ever fall into formal heresy (which this would certainly be), and if he does, whether he ceases to be Pope ipso facto or not., or whether it takes a future orthodox pontiff to declare him to have been an antipope.

There are many who say this situation has already happened, even without the issue of women's ordination being a factor, there are many other factors. I'm not one of them, but they are not insignificant in number, and they are very vocal these days.
 
santhia petter said:
I think the debate on women's ordination in the Catholic Church is a complex and thought-provoking one. Supporters argue that in Christ, all are equal, pointing to examples of strong women leaders in the early Church. On the other hand, opponents believe that Jesus specifically chose male apostles, and that the male priesthood reflects the unique relationship between Christ and the Church, which should be upheld as part of divine tradition.


What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you believe the Church should open the priesthood to women, or do you think tradition should be preserved? Share your perspective in the comments below! Let’s engage in a respectful conversation and explore the different viewpoints together.
Click to expand...
This question is constantly raised. It can be discussed, but to no avail. It has been definitively declared that men and women have equal human DIGNITY, but different roles, as God intended.
The Episcopal Church has everything that aspiring women pastors are seeking, as do the Methodists.
 
The idea is one of the handmaidens of the 20th- and 21st-century notion that the male-only priesthood was culturally conditioned, and now that society has moved in a direction of acknowledging both the equality and interchangeability of all persons whatsoever, and the roles with which nature endowed them, it is high time "finally to get it right" and start ordaining women. In this 'brave new world", men can be women, women can be men, reproduction can be separated from sex, and everything is just a social construct (except, perhaps, this idea of utter equality and equivalence).
 
As society evolves toward recognizing gender equality, it's argued that it's time to ordain women as priests, reflecting broader shifts in how we view gender and roles.
HomeschoolDad said:
The idea is one of the handmaidens of the 20th- and 21st-century notion that the male-only priesthood was culturally conditioned, and now that society has moved in a direction of acknowledging both the equality and interchangeability of all persons whatsoever, and the roles with which nature endowed them, it is high time "finally to get it right" and start ordaining women. In this 'brave new world", men can be women, women can be men, reproduction can be separated from sex, and everything is just a social construct (except, perhaps, this idea of utter equality and equivalence).
Click to expand...
 
santhia petter said:
As society evolves toward recognizing gender equality, it's argued that it's time to ordain women as priests, reflecting broader shifts in how we view gender and roles.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. The Church does not change her teachings to suit society or the times. Rather, society needs to change to come into conformity with the Church's traditional teachings, and the times need to reflect that faithfulness.

The Church is "in the world but not of it".
 
santhia petter said:
I think the debate on women's ordination in the Catholic Church is a complex and thought-provoking one. Supporters argue that in Christ, all are equal, pointing to examples of strong women leaders in the early Church. On the other hand, opponents believe that Jesus specifically chose male apostles, and that the male priesthood reflects the unique relationship between Christ and the Church, which should be upheld as part of divine tradition.


What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you believe the Church should open the priesthood to women, or do you think tradition should be preserved? Share your perspective in the comments below! Let’s engage in a respectful conversation and explore the different viewpoints together.
Click to expand...
If I may weigh in here as a non-Catholic, evangelical, and apart from my position on Catholicism, what is missing in responses here is what the inspired Scriptures teach on the subject.. Which is that, while aspects such as what women keeping silence in the church (Acts 21:9, 1 Corinthians 11:4, versus 14:34) pertains and extends to can be somewhat debatable, nevertheless, women pastors in spiritual leadership over men is forbidden by Scripture, both via precept and practice, and requires men to take primary responsibility.

Authoritative leadership of women over men is nowhere sanctioned, aside from extreme temporary Deborah-type situations of necessity (which was more of a civil function than spiritual. though not separate from it) where the man shamefully fails to provide leadership, and in the context of Israel in Judges, and in which many extraordinary things are seen. Exceptions in this context do not constitute sanction as a norm.

Yet I do not write this as one who seeks to serve, versus having an animus to obeying women, which, under male leadership can give orders to men as holy Abigail did to servants in saving David's noble men from the ignoble Nabal. (1 Samuel 25). And of course, to children, Sussana Wesley being a profound example (despite her unworthy pastor husband).

Of course, this reality of the proscription reproves Prot churches and denominations which sanction women pastors, which, apart from liberal branches in which Scripture is reduced to being a loose, elastic figure-head authority, the practice of women pastors in conservative Prot. is due to elevating the perceived, subjective, leading of the Holy Spirit over that of the objective authority of the Scriptures. And also that of elevating the teaching of church leadership over that of the plain teaching of Scripture.

Traditional Catholics such as I have frequently debated are alarmed at a liberal trend of RC leadership in certain areas, yet, while women do occupy positions of leadership, the ban in female priests has been reaffirmed.

Which is despite a majority of support for female priests among Catholic laity in 2024, being "strongest in Brazil (83%) followed by Argentina (71%), Chile (69%), Peru (65%), the U.S. (64%) and Colombia (56%). Only in Mexico did a majority of Catholics (51%) oppose ordaining women to the priesthood." Similar to 2013, (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyt...3/03/05/us/catholics-poll-graphic.html?ref=us)

View attachment 242025
- https://religionnews.com/2024/10/03...avor-women-priests-more-than-married-priests/
 
Definitely an AI bot (sigh!) but I'll respond for the sake of lurkers.

According to Church teaching, the priest, serving as a vessel of Christ, must approach the altar and consecrate the Eucharist *in persona Christi.* Opponents of female ordination argue that being female undermines this purpose, while proponents say that being biologically male is not a prerequisite for meeting this standard any more than sharing other attributes of Christ in human form, e.g. circumcised, ethnically Jewish, etc.

Another debate: Opponents of female ordination argue that Christ chose male disciples and therefore wants male successors at the altar. Proponents argue that even without joining His traveling crew, women like the Samaritan women and Mary Magdalene were also commissioned by Christ to share His Gospel.

Homeschooldad already brought up another argument - that the Church has never ordained women. That's the way it's always been, and the Church shouldn't have to sacrifice its tradition just to "get with the times." Meanwhile, women's ordination advocates point to exceptions, like Ludmila Javorova, who was ordained in 1970 in the underground Catholic Church of Iron Curtain Czechoslovakia.

I'm sure I've left out some stuff, but this is a start. I'm not posting these arguments to invite any nitpicking - just sharing what I've heard debated.
 
blackforest said:
Meanwhile, women's ordination advocates point to exceptions, like Ludmila Javorova, who was ordained in 1970 in the underground Catholic Church of Iron Curtain Czechoslovakia.
Click to expand...
Whatever his motivations in doing so, the bishop who "ordained" her did not confer valid orders. He may have gotten caught up in some progressivist theology of the time, heaven knows enough of them did in those days.

Interestingly, she was his vicar general, which leads me to wonder "does a vicar general necessarily have to be a priest"? The chancellor of a diocese doesn't, in fact, the chancellor can be a woman, and this situation exists in some dioceses.

Here's Wikipedia's article on Javorova:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludmila_Javorová
 
Some people are never satisfied. Who spent all 33 years+40 days in the presence of Christ? Our Lord could easily have made the Blessed Virgin one of the twelve, but did not. Could it be that there were different roles among those of equal dignity?
 
Thanks - that's interesting stuff, especially the primary sources being cited. Apparently archaeological evidence is emerging depicting women as priests in the early Church. This information is readily available on a favorite search engine, so I won't delve into it here. I don't expect that this topic will go away any time soon.
 
blackforest said:
Thanks - that's interesting stuff, especially the primary sources being cited. Apparently archaeological evidence is emerging depicting women as priests in the early Church. This information is readily available on a favorite search engine, so I won't delve into it here. I don't expect that this topic will go away any time soon.
Click to expand...
There could be any number of explanations for these representations:
  • Are the personages being depicted indeed women?
  • Are they indeed priests?
  • Could they be the wives of priests? (Eastern Christianity has a number of names for the wife of a priest, pana, khouria, presvytera, and so on. It doesn't mean that they are priests themselves.)
  • Or could women being putatively elevated to the priesthood in the early Church have been later suppressed by the nascent magisterium as a theological error?
I'm always skeptical of assertions that "such-and-such was found in the early Church, therefore we need to get back to it". The Latter-day Saints claim that the various features of their sect, such as the Aaronic and Melchidezek priesthoods, temple ordinances, and so on, were part and parcel of the early Church, and then soon died out only to be revived by Joseph Smith and his disciples. And some Baptists will tell you that the early Church was pretty much the same as they are now, and that the sacramental "system", as they put it, along with priests as ministers of those sacraments, came along later, with "true Christians" becoming a clandestine and persecuted remnant.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
There could be any number of explanations for these representations:
  • Are the personages being depicted indeed women?
  • Are they indeed priests?
  • Could they be the wives of priests? (Eastern Christianity has a number of names for the wife of a priest, pana, khouria, presvytera, and so on. It doesn't mean that they are priests themselves.)
  • Or could women being putatively elevated to the priesthood in the early Church have been later suppressed by the nascent magisterium as a theological error?
I'm always skeptical of assertions that "such-and-such was found in the early Church, therefore we need to get back to it". The Latter-day Saints claim that the various features of their sect, such as the Aaronic and Melchidezek priesthoods, temple ordinances, and so on, were part and parcel of the early Church, and then soon died out only to be revived by Joseph Smith and his disciples. And some Baptists will tell you that the early Church was pretty much the same as they are now, and that the sacramental "system", as they put it, along with priests as ministers of those sacraments, came along later, with "true Christians" becoming a clandestine and persecuted remnant.
Click to expand...
We are to live by the rule and not by the exception. Those who desire to re-construct the faith; those who cannot accept that faith as it is, and as it was once for all delivered to the saints, tend to focus on the exceptions. Where is the denial of self? Where is holiness of life in the emulation of and the inviting of the prevailing culture into the sanctuary? Some souls are not at peace, not at ease and "seem to" desire to conform God to their image. Christ meek and humble of heart. We are the best followers when we model our consciences after Him.
 
You are absolutely correct. Religion teaches us how to live life in the right way, but in today's era, many people present religion according to their personal interests, which is undoubtedly wrong. The true purpose of faith is to improve oneself, treat others with justice, and seek the pleasure of GOD. However, when we use religion for personal or worldly gains, its essence is lost.

It is our responsibility to understand faith in its true form and convey its authentic teachings to others. Acting with sincerity and honesty is the true spirit of religion, and this is what benefits both our worldly life and the hereafter.
 
santhia petter said:
You are absolutely correct. Religion teaches us how to live life in the right way, but in today's era, many people present religion according to their personal interests, which is undoubtedly wrong. The true purpose of faith is to improve oneself, treat others with justice, and seek the pleasure of GOD. However, when we use religion for personal or worldly gains, its essence is lost.

It is our responsibility to understand faith in its true form and convey its authentic teachings to others. Acting with sincerity and honesty is the true spirit of religion, and this is what benefits both our worldly life and the hereafter.
Click to expand...

These are nice thoughts, but they're awfully generic, and have little to do with the question of women's ordination.

Once again, a reminder, AI-generated content is discouraged on this forum. Repeated instances could result in deletion of one's account and all such content.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
These are nice thoughts, but they're awfully generic, and have little to do with the question of women's ordination.

Once again, a reminder, AI-generated content is discouraged on this forum. Repeated instances could result in deletion of one's account and all such content.
Click to expand...
Can you pull up the IP address? Might speak volumes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top