Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[bibleguy180]

Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?

 

[choy]

Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?

simply because Jesus himself never chose any women to be priests
while women played important roles in Jesus’ ministry on earth, none of them had the same roles as the Apostles, who are the ordained

 

[Vince1022]

Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?

Because the Church says it has never been done, and consequently the Church does not feel authorized to do so in order to remain faithful to what the Church sees as a tradition continuous with the ministry of Jesus…

There is a lot of debate about the reasoning behind the Church’s current teaching. The argument based on Jesus only choosing male Apostles (as presented in the Gospels) is likewise contentious. For instance, one could also argue that Jesus also only chose Jews. It’s a tough issue.

 

[davidv]

Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?

Please see this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6779526&postcount=2

 

[bibleguy180]

simply because Jesus himself never chose any women to be priests
while women played important roles in Jesus’ ministry on earth, none of them had the same roles as the Apostles, who are the ordained

But Jesus never chose any Americans to be apostles. But certainly there is no such law that would prevent me from becoming a priest if I feel called.

 

[Major_Tom]

There is a lot of debate about the reasoning behind the Church’s current teaching. The argument based on Jesus only choosing male Apostles (as presented in the Gospels) is likewise contentious. For instance, one could also argue that Jesus also only chose Jews. It’s a tough issue.

A lot of debate indeed! Further, Jesus had among his apostles married men. It was Peter who decided that they should be celibate. The argument “well, Jesus wouldn’t have wanted it that way” has always felt very weak to me.

 

[davidv]

A lot of debate indeed! Further, Jesus had among his apostles married men. It was Peter who decided that they should be celibate. The argument “well, Jesus wouldn’t have wanted it that way” has always felt very weak to me.

Fortunately this isn’t the basis of the teaching. See Post #4.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

But Jesus never chose any Americans to be apostles. But certainly there is no such law that would prevent me from becoming a priest if I feel called.

It that’s is how you think then it will never make sense to you, nationality and gender are not the same at all. Mary wasn’t a priest that should tell you al you need to know.

Christ was a man, the priest is an alter Christus, women not been men cannot become an alter Christus.

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

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0001.html

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

But Jesus never chose any Americans to be apostles. But certainly there is no such law that would prevent me from becoming a priest if I feel called.

It that’s is how you think then it will never make sense to you, nationality and gender are not the same at all. Mary wasn’t a priest that should tell you al you need to know.

Christ was a man, the priest is an alter Christus, women not been men cannot become an alter Christus.

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

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

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0001.html

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp

 

[catholic1seeks]

Let me just post this good answer from this link forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=120801

The reason that women are not to be ordained is because they are not men. Sounds politically incorrect, doesn’t it? But the fact is that God created men to be men and women to be women. When God chose to incarnate, he did not just choose to become a human being; he chose to become a man. Just as he chose to incarnate into a specific time, place, people, family, and woman, so he chose to become a specific human being, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). Thus, those human beings who serve as priests in the person of Christ are men and not women.

This shocking particularity of God is not limited to choosing men to become priests. To demonstrate this to proponents of women’s ordination, you might turn the question around and ask them what it is about men that makes them unfit to bear children. Surely a man is just as physically strong as a woman and psychologically and emotionally capable of the demands of giving birth. Surely he is not inferior to a woman. Isn’t it unfair to men that only women can have babies?

This line of logic descends into absurdity because women having children is a natural fact of life, something easily seen and understood. To shake one’s fist at the heavens and demand equal rights for men to give birth is to rail against the natural order. At that point you can establish that men being priests is a supernatural fact of life, and to object to it is to object to the supernatural order. The fact that the supernatural order cannot be seen and is not as easily understood as the natural order does not mean that the supernatural order does not exist (source, scroll to Q&A 8).

THE MAIN POINT is the profound fact that the priest acts in the Person of Christ.

See this link: catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201sbs.asp

***Just a tip: trying searching around for INFO already available on Catholic Answers. Go to the homepage, and just type in “Women priest” and you should fine tons of info!

 

[Renko]

Read the Bible,it say’s a woman shall not address the congregation.

 

[bibleguy180]

Ahh I get it now thanks!

 

[curlycool89]

If you need a little more, you can also look at the Old Covenant. The Jewish priesthood was also all male and it’s function was to offer sacrifices to God. Just like the new priesthood, which is inherently sacrificial in nature.

It’s the same argument as the Eucharist. It must be wheaten bread because that’s what Jesus used because that’s what the Jews were commanded to use at Passover. The Jewish priesthood was stated with Aaron and restricted to son’s in his line, and Jesus only ordained the 12 Apostles (who were all men). The Church doesn’t ordain women because She can’t, just like She can’t use rice for the Eucharist.

 

[LilyM]

But Jesus never chose any Americans to be apostles. But certainly there is no such law that would prevent me from becoming a priest if I feel called.

But Jesus wasn’t exactly surrounded by dozens upon dozens of Americans, or even non-Jews, Americans or non-Jews who were very important to him and to the Apostles, but were pointedly NOT called to be priests or ministers.

Remember, Jesus made a point of breaking social taboos in regard women - His conversation with the woman at the well, for example, His friendship with Martha and Mary, His kindness to the woman in adultery and His allowing Mary to anoint His feet - all were very much frowned upon under Jewish law of the time.

And if worthy women could also be priests - surely His mother and Mary Magdalene were as fit as anyone, gender aside, and surely they WOULD have been called to be priests, if His desire was to have women serve in that capacity. But it wasn’t.

 

[doanli]

I’d like to know why some women want to be men? Or at least usurp traditionally male dominated roles.

Isn’t being a wife, mother, nun, or sister religious ENOUGH?

Different bodies, different wiring, different roles.

Hasn’t “feminism” done enough damage to our gender? To the nuclear family itself?

 

[Major_Tom]

Fortunately this isn’t the basis of the teaching. See Post #4.

I’ve always felt those to be specious arguments. In the first article of the link you posted, they cite how women can’t have authority over men. Warning bells start going off… but wait. Further, the article says “Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34–38).”. I’ll repeat that: women can’t publicly challenge the teaching of the clergy. This is the logic that buttresses the argument? Tired old patriarchy.

Then the second link discusses the “biology” argument. “Well, men can’t have babies, what makes you think that men and women can do all things equally?” Since when is biology necessary to shepherd God’s children?

It’s very reminiscent of the “seperate but equal” doctrine that was rightly quashed during the civil rights movement; a lame attempt to justify and institutionalize inconsistent treatment.

 

[jmcrae]

My understanding is that the reason the Levitical priesthood was male was because Adam, who was the one who broke fellowship with God through sin (Eve’s sin did not, in and of itself, do this - it was not until Adam also partook with her in sin that the bond was broken) was male.

Because it was the male who broke the bond, it is the male who must restore it, by means of sacrifices for sins, and by means of the priesthood. Thus, only males could become priests (even Deborah, though she was a Judge and a warrior, was never a priest) - and thus, Jesus, being born a Son, became the second Adam, to undo what was done by the first Adam, and following that, the Christian priesthood is also males only.

Women have other, equally important work to do in God’s kingdom - not least, giving birth to new members of it, and training them up to worship God in holiness and in truth.

 

[curlycool89]

I’ve always felt those to be specious arguments. In the first article of the link you posted, they cite how women can’t have authority over men. Warning bells start going off… but wait. Further, the article says “Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34–38).”. I’ll repeat that: women can’t publicly challenge the teaching of the clergy. This is the logic that buttresses the argument? Tired old patriarchy.

Then the second link discusses the “biology” argument. “Well, men can’t have babies, what makes you think that men and women can do all things equally?” Since when is biology necessary to shepherd God’s children?

It’s very reminiscent of the “seperate but equal” doctrine that was rightly quashed during the civil rights movement; a lame attempt to justify and institutionalize inconsistent treatment.

To men went the priesthood and to women went childbearing. St. Paul even says it in 1 Timothy 2:15.

No offence Major Tom, but your argument is very fluffy. You’ve said nothing in lots of words. There’s no scripture that you appealed to. You’ve pretty much said “I don’t like it”. I I I I I I me me me me me. Remember that God guy?

 

[doanli]

It’s very reminiscent of the “seperate but equal” doctrine that was rightly quashed during the civil rights movement; a lame attempt to justify and institutionalize inconsistent treatment.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the US Supreme Court, nor up for a vote, sir. Nor is Heaven Itself.

Have you ever read the books of female saints in our Church?

I’ll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge if you can name one who said or wrote that she should have been a priest.

I think it comes down to good ole fashioned PRIDE. Isn’t it bad enough that my fellow female Eve was the first to disobey God in the Garden of Eden. Didn’t Pride lead her to do that?

Whatever happened to HUMILITY? You will find a lot of that in our saints, male or female.

Again, we are called to have DIFFERENT roles.

Your analogy would work if women were being denied Holy Communion based on gender. But we’re not.

Why do some of you think you know better than Jesus Himself and insist on YOUR will instead of His will?

 

[Major_Tom]

To men went the priesthood and to women went childbearing. St. Paul even says it in 1 Timothy 2:15.

No offence Major Tom, but your argument is very fluffy. You’ve said nothing in lots of words. There’s no scripture that you appealed to. You’ve pretty much said “I don’t like it”. I I I I I I me me me me me. Remember that God guy?

In short: it’s inherently unequal. The Church suggests that there are reasons for the inequality. I suggest that those reasons do not pass muster. Which leaves the original inequality.

Again, consider the ‘seperate but equal’ argument used to defend keeping blacks in seperate schools from whites. All kinds of words are twisted to make it seem defensible and logical. Some of the recent posts here even echo those similar condescending tones: “Wow, why would women even WANT to do that? They’re usurping things that don’t belong to them”.

Further, I suggest that Paul’s push to celibacy shows that Jesus’s original intentions for his Apostles (future priests) were changed. This change is allowed, because Paul said so? Yet any additional change (allowing women) is simply not an option. Not even to be discussed as a possibility, now or ever, says John Paul II. Double-standard. PETER- the Rock of the Church- was married! The man whom Jesus makes the Rock of the Church is married. And Paul says what? Nah, y’all really need to be celibate. (sorry, it’s late! I get sarcastic when I’m tired! )