Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[valient_Lucy]

acahome.org/submenu/docs/cslewis.htm

This is an article called “Priestesses in the Church?” by C.S. Lewis.

 

[Major_Tom]

A man can be a single parent, as can a woman. But a man is not a mother, nor is a woman a father.

My niece, who was raised by her mom after her father died, used to give her mom Father’s Day cards, as well as Mother’s Day cards, because she acted as both a mom and a dad to her. But by nature, she was a mom, not a dad.

A man cannot give birth, nor can he be a mother. (Though he can try to fulfill both functions if necessary.) A woman can give birth, and can be a mom, but not a dad, though she can try to fulfill both functions if necessary.

A priest’s primary function, which is imprinted by ordination, is to act “in the person of Christ.” Christ in his humanity is male. A woman cannot act in the person of Christ. Had Christ chosen to become incarnate as a woman, the situation would be reversed.

With respect, I still diagree. I think that your analogies are good ones, but with all analogies, the key question is how you to take them.

But a man is not a mother, nor is a woman a father.

A man cannot give birth, nor can he be a mother. (Though he can try to fulfill both functions if necessary.) A woman can give birth, and can be a mom, but not a dad, though she can try to fulfill both functions if necessary.

Not to parse words, but a man can certainly act ‘motherly’, and a woman can act ‘fatherly’.

A priest’s primary function, which is imprinted by ordination, is to act “in the person of Christ.” Christ in his humanity is male. A woman cannot act in the person of Christ. Had Christ chosen to become incarnate as a woman, the situation would be reversed.

Or how about stated mores simply: Christ is human, and the priest acts in the person of Christ. I didn’t have to use the word “man” or “woman”, yet I ended in the same place you did: acting “in the person of Christ”.

 

[curlycool89]

Or how about stated mores simply: Christ is human, and the priest acts in the person of Christ. I didn’t have to use the word “man” or “woman”, yet I ended in the same place you did: acting “in the person of Christ”.

Human is too general. Christ was also a member of the family Hominidae, which includes humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. But no one in their right mind would argue that a chimpanzee can be a priest.

I’d encourage you to take a look at the thread running in this forum about the necessity of Christ being a male as opposed to female. There’s some good remarks there.

 

[mpartyka]

My theory, and I stress it is a theory, it had something to do with original sin and if anyone has any insight in relation to Paul’s explaination of this and his statement that women are ‘saved through childbearing,’ please post as I am very interested in this topic. thumbsup:

See points 3 and 4 below:

…let’s look at Paul’s explanation of why there should be no women priests:

1 Tim 2:11-15

And elaboration on point 3:

A little more on this point: Eve listened to Satan, and consequently she ate from the Tree. To whom did Adam listen, so that he, too, ate from the tree? Eve. Is this why Satan chose to lie to Eve rather than Adam – because Satan knew that Adam wouldn’t listen to him, but Adam would listen to Eve? It’s a possibility. Personally, I think women have enormous power over men already. Sometimes all a woman has to do is bat her eyelashes, touch a man gently, or pout a little, and suddenly he’s caving in to whatever she wants. And now women demand religious authority on top of that? No way – we poor men would be doomed! :nope:

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Just want to add another distorted teaching: Sin passed to future generations from Adam, not Eve, because the man is the head of the woman.

Actually, the reason sin was thought to pass down from Adam and not Eve is due to the early Church’s understanding of the biology of procreation. Human procreation was thought somewhat identical to plant procreation – the man provides the seed, and the woman provides the soil from which the seed draws the nutrients it needs to become a fully-formed human being. Thus, “original sin” passes down from father to child because the father, not the mother, is the parent in whom the child has its “origin.” Because Adam was corrupted, the seed that came from him was therefore corrupted, too, and on and on from father to child down through the ages. The mother, on the other hand, contributes “flesh” (i.e., the building blocks needed to grow the seed into a child) but does not pass on corruption to the child because the child is only “hers” in the sense that she is the vessel for its growth and contributes the raw materials to effect its growth – she is not herself the “originator” of the child.

Of course, this is pretty well backwards from what we now know to be true, but that’s the theory under which the Prophets, Apostles, and Fathers were working for thousands of years, and it is this theory which informed their teachings on Christ’s virginal conception. (What a difference a microscope makes, huh?)

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

I just thought of another distorted teaching concerning the Church. Women cannot teach in the Church because the head of a woman is a man. Therefore, women cannot teach men.

Well, this is close, actually. The head of the household is the man – the woman is under the man but over the children born of their union. The priest, in turn, is head of the household of God, which consists of all the households in the church, so the priest, too, needs to be male. And considering that in the Church’s formative years, you could have married priests, a woman priest would have caused much disorder, as a married woman priest would have been head of her husband in her role as priest, yet her husband would have been her head in his role as husband.

–Mike

 

[minkymurph]

Well, this is close, actually. The head of the household is the man – the woman is under the man but over the children born of their union. The priest, in turn, is head of the household of God, which consists of all the households in the church, so the priest, too, needs to be male. And considering that in the Church’s formative years, you could have married priests, a woman priest would have caused much disorder, as a married woman priest would have been head of her husband in her role as priest, yet her husband would have been her head in his role as husband.

–Mike

Some do take these words of Paul very literally.

These words were written against a certain cultural backdrop and Paul writes his letters in answer to controversies and difficulties at the time. There are occasions were Paul states he speaks ‘as to the Lord’ and other times he speaks ‘as to his own opinion.’ There are many who would argue these words are the words of an Apostle and in the Bible. Therefore, they can be taken almost as a command. I don’t believe this to be the case. I do not believe Paul intended his opnion to be taken a the word of the Lord and the text itself and the historical backdrop of the Pauline letters supports this. I believe Paul states he writes ‘not as to the Lord but as to his own opnion’ to enable readers to discern the difference. When reading the Bible, discerning the intention of the author is a crucial factor in deepening our understanding of divine teaching.

Concerning the historical backdrop, there were Christian women whose husbands were not Christian. Their husbands would have owned them in a similar way to slaves. These men were head of these women. Paul asks them to continue this way for cultural reasons, such as; avoiding an unecessary divorce or becoming destitute. There is nothing in text to suggest Paul intended marriage to continue this way for all time.In addition, the Gospel writers confirm that Jesus strongly suggests otherwise. For example, his teaching on divorce restored the human dignity of women and marriage to the original state God intended, an equal partnership.

As far the arguement that Satan tempted Eve rather than Adam because he knew Adam would give in to Eve but not Satan, no one can presume to know what Satan thought and
there is nothing in the Bible to support this view. There are texts that support the view that the sin of Eve and the sin of Adam were different, and there are texts that support the view that as a sacrifice, the maleness of Christ is important. These texts do not support the view that the maleness of Christ is important because God gave men authority over women in marriage and the Church.

We humans manage authority very badly. When we are given authority, we assume it means others must in some way be subservient to us. We struggle to grasp the divine concept of being equal in the sight of God but having honour that denotes authority bestowed on us by God. I would argue that women cannot equally share the imaging of God with men, if men were given authority over them. Therefore, if men and women are equal in the sight of God, they are equal in marriage.

I would further state, while parents have authority over their children, this relationship changes over time. In time, our children will become adults and make their own decisions based the guidance we have given them and when we are old, we may become the child and they the adult. A sign of divine love, is the ability of that child to become the parent, while respecting the human dignity of their mother or father as their parent.

My kids respect me as their mother, but I still need to programme the remote, despite the fact they are 8 and 6!

 

[minkymurph]

Actually, the reason sin was thought to pass down from Adam and not Eve is due to the early Church’s understanding of the biology of procreation. Human procreation was thought somewhat identical to plant procreation – the man provides the seed, and the woman provides the soil from which the seed draws the nutrients it needs to become a fully-formed human being. Thus, “original sin” passes down from father to child because the father, not the mother, is the parent in whom the child has its “origin.” Because Adam was corrupted, the seed that came from him was therefore corrupted, too, and on and on from father to child down through the ages. The mother, on the other hand, contributes “flesh” (i.e., the building blocks needed to grow the seed into a child) but does not pass on corruption to the child because the child is only “hers” in the sense that she is the vessel for its growth and contributes the raw materials to effect its growth – she is not herself the “originator” of the child.

Of course, this is pretty well backwards from what we now know to be true, but that’s the theory under which the Prophets, Apostles, and Fathers were working for thousands of years, and it is this theory which informed their teachings on Christ’s virginal conception. (What a difference a microscope makes, huh?)

–Mike

The problem with this view is that the Israelites traced their geneology through the mother, not the father. To truly be Jewish, one had to be born of a Jewish woman. I stand to be corrected but as far as I know, you must be born of a Jewish mother to have Israeli citizenship. You can have Israeli citizenship if you do not have a biological father who is a Jew, but you cannot have Israeli citizenship if you have a biological father who is Jewish and a mother who is not. You can live there, but you can’t have citizenship. Of course there is much diversity within Judaism and some Jews are more liberal than others.

Perhaps it’s due to the fact that as women give birth, you can always be sure who your mother is, not so easy with a father. I think this is significant in relation to the birth of Jesus.

 

[mpartyka]

Concerning the historical backdrop, there were Christian women whose husbands were not Christian. Their husbands would have owned them in a similar way to slaves. These men were head of these women. Paul asks them to continue this way for cultural reasons, such as; avoiding an unecessary divorce or becoming destitute. There is nothing in text to suggest Paul intended marriage to continue this way for all time.

But the idea that the husband is the head of the wife, and that the wife should submit to the husband in his capacity as head of the household, is something repeated in Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter, and it isn’t couched in in any “this is my opinion” language in those places. And if there is nothing in the text to suggest that marriage ought not to continue this way for all time, there is certainly nothing in the text to suggest that marriage ought to deviate from this model, either.

As for the argument that Satan tempted Eve rather than Adam because he knew Adam would give in to Eve but not Satan, no one can presume to know what Satan thought and there is nothing in the Bible to support this view.

Well, I’m trying to be charitable, because what Paul specifically says with regard to why women shouldn’t be priests is, “Adam wasn’t deceived by Satan, but Eve was.” Rather than assume a chauvinistic attitude on Paul’s part, I’d prefer to give him the benefit of a doubt and guess that (1) Paul was simply standing on precedent, and/or (2) Paul thought perhaps that Satan targeted Eve not because she was particularly gullible but because Satan knew Adam would listen to her.

We humans manage authority very badly. When we are given authority, we assume it means others must in some way be subservient to us.

Well, that probably comes from being taught things from the Bible like, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Pretty cut-and-dried, isn’t it? But let’s not forget who established this hierarchy in the Church as well as in the household, and why: namely, God, and because of Eve’s conduct which led to the Fall – “he shall rule over thee.” (Gen 3:16)

I would argue that women cannot equally share the imaging of God with men, if men were given authority over them. Therefore, if men and women are equal in the sight of God, they are equal in marriage.

Maybe in a pre-fallen state that would – and could – be true, but husbands and wives today cannot live together in the harmony that Adam and Eve shared before the Fall. (Even Adam and Eve themselves didn’t have that harmony after the Fall.) This is why God made a command decision and put the man in charge of the household – somebody had to have the final say, and God chose that it would be the man because Eve fell through listening to the devil, whereas Adam fell through listening to Eve.

The problem with this view is that the Israelites traced their geneology through the mother, not the father.

Modern Israelites do this, but in the Bible one’s lineage is always traced through the male side.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

…as women give birth, you can always be sure who your mother is, not so easy with a father.

One of the funniest sitcom scenes I ever saw was from “ER” (the 1/2-hour sitcom starring Elliot Gould, not the well-known Michael Crichton hour-long drama): a teenager comes into the ER with her mother complaining of severe constipation, only to go into labor. As she’s giving birth, the girl looks at the mother and says, “That’s not my baby, Momma!”

–Mike

 

[minkymurph]

But the idea that the husband is the head of the wife, and that the wife should submit to the husband in his capacity as head of the household, is something repeated in Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter, and it isn’t couched in in any “this is my opinion” language in those places. And if there is nothing in the text to suggest that marriage ought not to continue this way for all time, there is certainly nothing in the text to suggest that marriage ought to deviate from this model, either.

In the early Christian Church, many women were married to pagans and to men who had more then one wife. Hence, Paul writes to all Churches concerning marriage, which is why it is repeated. I agree, Paul does not specifically state that marriage ought to deviate from this model. However, Jesus did. Through his teaching, Jesus restored the true nature of the marital relationship as God created it.

Well, I’m trying to be charitable, because what Paul specifically says with regard to why women shouldn’t be priests is, “Adam wasn’t deceived by Satan, but Eve was.” Rather than assume a chauvinistic attitude on Paul’s part, I’d prefer to give him the benefit of a doubt and guess that (1) Paul was simply standing on precedent, and/or (2) Paul thought perhaps that Satan targeted Eve not because she was particularly gullible but because Satan knew Adam would listen to her.

Yes, Paul does say Adam was not deceived. Interpreting Paul’s words to mean Adam was therefore more responsible also does not assumae a chauvinistic attitude on Paul’s part. It assumes a theological discussion on the distinction between the sin of Adam and the sin of Eve and Paul loves deep theological discussion! I mean that as a compliment. I return to Jesus teaching on marriage. The Pauline letters are not independant of the Gospels and should be read in light of them.

Well, that probably comes from being taught things from the Bible like, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Pretty cut-and-dried, isn’t it? But let’s not forget who established this hierarchy in the Church as well as in the household, and why: namely, God, and because of Eve’s conduct which led to the Fall – “he shall rule over thee.” (Gen 3:16).

Again, how literally should we take one sentence in a whole passage? Are women not to speak in their husbands presence? There are some countries today were this is law. If a man cannot read, would it not be permissible for a wife to teach him? Is it not permissible for a woman to teach her husband anything about Christianity? In the Roman Empire, of which all the Churches Paul writes to were part of, women were nothing. Men had authority over women in a manner which is contrary to the teaching of Christ. Therefore, Paul offers Christian women in this situation council. He also tells women not to wear make up, paint their bodies, get their hair cut. How far do we take literalism? Assuming the individual words are an accurate translation.

There is nothing in the Bible to support the view that men were given authority over women because of Eve’s conduct. ‘He shall rule over thee’ was a prophecy. Sin severed the relationship between man and God, and between man and woman. God prophecied men would come to dominate women as a consequence of sin. This was not a punishment on women for Eve’s sin, as some would believe; but a prophecy. Some have even termed periods and pain in childbirth ‘Eve’s curse;’ believing it to be a punishement for Eve’s sin. God also foretold the nation of Israel what would happen if they had a King. He granted their desire but warned them in advance Kings would be injust and oppress the poor.

Maybe in a pre-fallen state that would – and could – be true, but husbands and wives today cannot live together in the harmony that Adam and Eve shared before the Fall. (Even Adam and Eve themselves didn’t have that harmony after the Fall.) This is why God made a command decision and put the man in charge of the household – somebody had to have the final say, and God chose that it would be the man because Eve fell through listening to the devil, whereas Adam fell through listening to Eve.

God was not compelled to alter the relationship, putting men ‘in charge’ because of Eve,; or because of Adam. God prophecied it would happen. Husbands and wives today can live together in harmony. I say this because I am a Catholic. Catholics believe marriage is a sacrament and when received as a sacrament, God bestows on the couple the necessary graces to live out the vocation of marriage. That does not mean we live out the vocation of marriage perfectly, but by grace we have a relationship that does not depend on one party being submissive to the other. Such a relationship will make one party unhappy and unfullfilled. As a Catholic I hold to the belief that marriage is an equal partnership. There are no bosses in my house, there is no need for one and I’ve been married 25 years.

 

[minkymurph]

Modern Israelites do this, but in the Bible one’s lineage is always traced through the male side.

–Mike

Geneological lists recorded in the Old Testament were a common way of writing narratives in Ancient texts. Their purpose was to lead the reader from one part of a story to another. The Bible is written in the same way, for example in Genesis and Judges. There is no historical or literary evidence the author intended them to be taken as an accurate geneological record and there is certainly no evidence the author was attempting to communicate men were head of the household by recording these lists. Matthew and Luke include women in their list of Jesus geneology. The lists also differ. It became almost impossible to trace the geneology of the Jews following the Babylonian exile as there was so much intermarriage. In addition, women were frequently raped by invading soldiers.

Haven’t included it here, but I liked your story about ER. I’m a ER fan too. However, it wouldn’t surprise me in this day and age if a woman gave birth and wasn’t sure if it was hers. Further to the true nature of the relationship between men and women, I watched a programme about a guy who wanted to marry a sheep. I really must get out more!

 

[minkymurph]

This is an extremely long post of mine but there is something else I must say. It is quite feasible, that Paul is eluding to the fact that Adam was more responsible than Eve because he was not deceived. Eve was less responsible because she was deceived. Perhaps Satan did think it would be easier to tempt Eve than Adam. That being the case, Adam would be even more responsible as he was, alledgedly, harder to tempt.

However, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that women succumb to temptation, or that Adam was more capable of resisting temptation from Satan than Eve was. Is this not the significance of Jesus temptation in the wilderness? He succeeded were Adam failed? If Jesus was fully human, and Adam was more likely to give in to Eve than Satan, then very thing to tempt him with would have been a woman. Perhaps Satan tried this at another time, but it is not recorded.

 

[mpartyka]

Through his teaching, Jesus restored the true nature of the marital relationship as God created it.

Jesus’ teaching on divorce says zero about the structure of authority in the household. All it does say is that Moses’ allowance of divorce was a concession to the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts at the time. Jesus nowhere taught that the woman ought to be head of the household or share headship of the household with her husband.

In the early Christian Church, many women were married to pagans and to men who had more then one wife. Hence, Paul writes to all Churches concerning marriage, which is why it is repeated.

I do not see for a moment how Paul could have written the following about women submitting to their husbands if all he intended to convey by it was, “Because the pagans have an authority structure within marriage that puts the men as head of household, so shall you, for their sake.”

Eph 5:22-33 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

One would have to argue that if Paul only meant that wives should submit to their husbands according to the example of the pagan marriages around them, then Paul similarly only meant that husbands should love their wives according to the example of the pagan marriages around them! But the fact is that nowhere in this text is Paul giving references to the pagans, but rather he is intimately binding up the roles of husband and wife with the roles of Christ and the Church. What, is Christ supposed to share His Lordship with the Church now? Do Christ and the Church possess an “equal partnership”?

And when Peter wrote, “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands…even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement” (1 Pet 3:6), was he encouraging the women of his day to follow the example of a godly woman in a pagan marriage with a pagan husband, or was he giving them the example of a godly woman in a godly marriage with a godly husband, in which the man and woman acted in accord with their God-given roles?

How far do we take literalism?

We take it at least so far as to accept what is clearly taught: that it is not a woman’s prerogative to assume the position of head-of-househould over a man – not in a marriage, and not in the Church. How that specifically works out in the life of a marriage or in the life of the Church is open for discussion so long as this outworking doesn’t obviously contradict the clear and concise instructions that Paul gives to the Church.

There is nothing in the Bible to support the view that men were given authority over women because of Eve’s conduct.

And yet when Paul justified his prohibition on women being priests, to where did he point for support? To the Creation (“For Adam was first formed, then Eve”), and to the Fall (“Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived”).

That does not mean we live out the vocation of marriage perfectly, but by grace we have a relationship that does not depend on one party being submissive to the other. Such a relationship will make one party unhappy and unfullfilled.

I’m sure it will if the party who is not in authority cannot let go of her pride and recognize the vocation to which she has been fitted.

As a Catholic I hold to the belief that marriage is an equal partnership. There are no bosses in my house, there is no need for one and I’ve been married 25 years.

Sorry, but you are quite wrong. There is a boss in your household, and it’s your husband. Whether he chooses to fulfill the responsibilities of “bosshood” himself or delegates them to you is his prerogative, but you’re only the boss yourself insofaras you are acting as his delegate. That’s not the way you might think of it, but that’s the way it actually is.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Look at it this way: A marriage is like a car. There’s only room for one driver, and it’s the husband who drives, even if he chooses to let the wife tell him where to turn, where to speed up, where to park, whether to turn the headlights on/off, etc. And if at any point he needs to override the wife’s instructions and take the family down a different course, that’s his prerogative because he’s the driver, not the wife.

Now, at the same time, the husband’s decision-making capabilities are supposed to be turned entirely first to what satisfies God and second to what satisfies the needs of his wife and children, and only then is he to think of himself, so there is balance in the household. The husband rules, but rules according to Christ’s example of servanthood, laying down his own needs and wants for the sake of his wife and children, but the husband rules nonetheless.

Once again, to any woman who is not content to live in a marriage having an authority structure consistent with the teaching of Scripture, I give the following advice: Don’t get married. But if you do get married, be certain that the man whom you marry is one whom you would trust to be your head, because once you marry him, that’s what he will be. (Personally, I think a lot of bound-to-fail marriages could be prevented if women would just take this advice. I know one co-worker of mine who lived with her boyfriend for 8 years, finally married him, and they were divorced in a year. Then she married her second husband, and she told me, “I didn’t realize this before, but with my first husband, I never got the feeling that he would lay down his life for me, but with my second husband, I do feel that.” And I believe that because she felt that, she knew she could trust him to be her head.)

–Mike

 

[minkymurph]

Sorry, but you are quite wrong. There is a boss in your household, and it’s your husband. Whether he chooses to fulfill the responsibilities of “bosshood” himself or delegates them to you is his prerogative, but you’re only the boss yourself insofaras you are acting as his delegate. That’s not the way you might think of it, but that’s the way it actually is.

–Mike

With respect, please do not make assumptions about my marriage. You cannot assume my husband chooses not to fulfill his responsibilties. You cannot assume to know what I think, and you cannot assume to know how we as a married couple live day to day. If you choose to hold this opinion, that is your perogative, but your opinion is based on things you do not know. The only thing you know about me is what is posted on the internet. Not a good bases for making assumptions about someone’s marriage.

With further respect, I am quite wrong in your opinion . The way I would read the Pauline letters is certainly not infallible, and no one else will loose salvation because they disagree with me. On the other hand, I am not obliged to believe someone else’s interpretation is more valid than mine and they have greater insight into Paul’s meaning than I do.

I stand by what I have said to date on marriage and the priesthood, as I’m sure you will. We will have to agree to differ.

 

[minkymurph]

Eph 5:22-33 –

One would have to argue that if Paul only meant that wives should submit to their husbands according to the example of the pagan marriages around them, then Paul similarly only meant that husbands should love their wives according to the example of the pagan marriages around them! But the fact is that nowhere in this text is Paul giving references to the pagans, but rather he is intimately binding up the roles of husband and wife with the roles of Christ and the Church. What, is Christ supposed to share His Lordship with the Church now? Do Christ and the Church possess an “equal partnership”?

Christ actually does in a sense makes us his equal in that he makes us like God; capable of divine love. This is fully realised in heaven, but some develop the ability to love in the divine sense on earth through faith.

 

[minkymurph]

I promised myself I wouldn’t do this, but I can’t resist replying to the post about driving.

A real man is one who knows when to give his wife the wheel of the car.

A real man is one who recognises his wife may well be the better driver.

A real man knows when to step back when his wife knows better.

A real man knows when and how to assert himself when his wife does not know better.

A real man recognises his wife’s gifts and weaknesses.

A real man knows when a wife wants an arm around her shoulder and not told what to do.

A real man is one who is not threatened by a strong, confident woman but at the same time knows how to handle her.

What is a real woman? All of the above, just replace ‘man’ with ‘woman’ and ‘wife’ with ‘husband.’

What’s the definition of good ‘boss/manager?’ Anyone know any good ‘bosses\managers?’ I’ve encountered a few in my time, but not many. What made them a good ‘boss\manager?’

 

[minkymurph]

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?

To come back to the thread.

My answer to this question would be because a woman cannot offer the Mass. I have outlined reasons why I believe this in other posts.

Why women cannot be priests/ministers/ pastors in some protestant Churches, I do not know; other than some Protestant denominations believe women were not created equal to men because of the way they interpret the Pauline letters.

 

[DCNBILL]

I promised myself I wouldn’t do this, but I can’t resist replying to the post about driving.

A real man is one who knows when to give his wife the wheel of the car.

A real man is one who recognises his wife may well be the better driver.

A real man knows when to step back when his wife knows better.

A real man knows when and how to assert himself when his wife does not know better.

A real man recognises his wife’s gifts and weaknesses.

A real man knows when a wife wants an arm around her shoulder and not told what to do.

A real man is one who is not threatened by a strong, confident woman but at the same time knows how to handle her.

What is a real woman? All of the above, just replace ‘man’ with ‘woman’ and ‘wife’ with ‘husband.’

What’s the definition of good ‘boss/manager?’ Anyone know any good ‘bosses\managers?’ I’ve encountered a few in my time, but not many. What made them a good ‘boss\manager?’

and,

A real man knows who is head of the house…

and how to keep her happy:thumbsup: