What do you think would be the best argument against female priesthood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeonardDeNoblac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I am Catholic.
Dovekin said:
Judaism was a patriarchal society. It had sexist elements. That in no way means God was sexist as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
God gave the law of the Old Covenant to Moses. The male circumcision was a strict command of the Old Covenant. So, to say that this command was an indicator of sexism is to accuse God of being sexist.
 
Last edited:
Neithan said:
I don’t think Aquinas himself wrote that part of the Summa Theologica — he died before finishing it
Click to expand...
That position is also found in Aquinas’ commentary of 1 Corinthians.
Don’t get me wrong: Saint Thomas Aquinas is one of my favourite philosophers and theologians, and I have an high esteem of him. But he was not infallible, such as the case of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception seems to prove (he apparently denied it ). He took that position from Aristotle (even thought he changed it a little bit in order to adapt it to Christian doctrine, of wich Aristotle obviouslt couldn’t have been aware ) and from the limited scientific knowledge of his time, but it was never declared as a doctrine by the Church.
 
Last edited:
What do you think would be the best argument against female priesthood?

It depends on who you’re discussing this with. For those who are open minded, the answers that Peeps, Powdercoater and others here have offered will suffice. But if the person you’re having this discussion with is one of these “radical” feminist types, just give up and walk away. It isn’t worth the effort. You’d have an easier time covincing them that the Easter Bunny exists, then to convince them that only men can be priests. I question whether Christ Himself could even convince them! They’d probably roll their eyes at Him.
 
Last edited:
Powdercoater said:
Christ is the bridegroom, the church is the bride, the priest acts in persona christi, therefore priests are men.
Click to expand...
I understand he first three statements. If you could support the conclusion somehow?

My concern is also that “priests are men”/bridegroom sexualizes the priesthood in a way that may not be good for the priesthood.
 
😇 I get a kick out of your posts. Don’t give them a reason to flag you.

I actually agree that there is nothing in scripture that directly says woman can’t be clergy. I believe this scriptural argument is in fact fairly easy to make. Just keep putting scripture back in context. Keep the arguments focused only on scripture and do this to a fault.

On a personal level, I don’t know if woman should be priests, and my feelings are mixed. The only argument I can think of against is that perhaps women should be careful what they wish for…

FYI: I didn’t nor would I ever flag this.
 
The only real argument against admitting females to the priesthood and diaconate is that they should not be forced upon a Church that generally doesn’t want them. St John Paul II imposed a 15 year moratorium on debating the subject, so I won’t give my theological views. His main reason for the ban was because he was seeking dialogue and eventual unity with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Communions and any hint of female clergy would set things back 1,000 years. (The Greek Orthodox won’t even allow female chickens on the Mount Athos peninsula).

When I was asked the question by the Minister of our local (English) Baptist Church, I pointed out:
  1. You have female ministers of the Gospel: so do we.
  2. You have female ministers of Holy Communion: so do we.
  3. We don’t have female priests: nor do you. You don’t even have male priests.
 
Good analysis. In his commentary he states bluntly (¶ 880) that women are “deficient in reasoning”. I think Aristotle and Plato disagreed about that; and since Aquinas preferred Aristotle’s metaphysics, he might have followed him for consistency, even where he erred, badly. This shouldn’t undermine his other metaphysical arguments but it does underline the difference between a holy theologian who was writing his own thoughts, and a divinely inspired Apostle writing sacred scripture.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
Should God have instituted female circumcision for Jewesses?
Click to expand...
“Female circumcision” would be female genital mutilation. It’s a lot more painful and also doesn’t have the medical benefits of male circumcision. That’s not something God would have ever commanded
 
Last edited:
Neithan said:
This shouldn’t undermine his other metaphysical arguments but it does underline the difference between a holy theologian who was writing his own thoughts, and a divinely inspired Apostle writing sacred scripture.
Click to expand...
Yes, most of his philosophy and theology (the most important parts ) remains untouched by such an error.
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
I wold argue that, even thought men and women are fundamentally equal in dignity before God, their general natural tendencies are different;
Click to expand...
Peeps said:
During Mass, the priest stands in Personae Christae . Jesus is a man, not a woman.

Seems simple enough to me.
Click to expand...
This is it exactly. Male is male and female is female. Simple. A woman can not be male and a man can not be female.
LeonardDeNoblac said:
I think some would argue that, since God is neither man or female, Christ could have taken the body of a woman in the Incarnation (even thought He didn’t, and they could argue He did so because as a man He would have been listened more in a fundamentally patriarchal society ), and so there wouldn’t be any reason why women couldn’t stand in persona Christi.
Click to expand...
Even if He could have taken the body of a woman as you said, HE DID NOT. He was male in every step of His life. A woman can not physically be male.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
I just wasn’t sure if Dovekin thought it was sexist to exclude women from the command to be circumcised.
Click to expand...
Given what “female circumcision” would have been, I could say that it was almost a grace!
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure that I can in a way that would satisfy you. To me, the logic is clear. To you, it’s not. I also don’t see it in terms of sexualizing the priesthood at all. I mean Jesus wants to marry us, after all.
 
When this is being looked at based on contemporary secular mores, I don’t think there can be any convincing argument. Nothing less than the Church mirroring secular society will be acceptable
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top