Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[minkymurph]

Or officiate at a marriage, or be deacons.

In the Catholic tradition women cannot be deacons.

Officiate at marriage, I don’t know.

Can anyone enlarge as to why?

 

[LilyM]

In the Catholic tradition women cannot be deacons.

Officiate at marriage, I don’t know.

Can anyone enlarge as to why?

Canon law - only a priest or deacon may officiate at the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony:

"Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist … ’

So no women.

 

[adrift]

In the Catholic tradition women cannot be deacons.

Officiate at marriage, I don’t know.

Can anyone enlarge as to why?

Canon law - only a priest or deacon may officiate at the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony:

"Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist … ’

So no women.

Deacons are part of the priesthood.

In the Latin Rite, the mininsters of Holy Orders is the couple. The priest acts as the witness for the Church.

 

[LilyM]

Deacons are part of the priesthood.

In the Latin Rite, the mininsters of Holy Orders is the couple. The priest acts as the witness for the Church.

Exactly - and a woman can’t act as that witness for the Church in the way the priest does.

Without him and his presence and blessing there isn’t a valid marriage, there is no sacrament at all. Even if the couple went through everything on their own. So he is de facto a minister of the sacrament even if he isn’t called such, along with the couple, and every bit as important to the process as bride and groom.

And, as I said, a woman can’t perform the same function, she can’t give the Church’s blessing or put the sacramental seal on the marriage of any other couple, unlike a priest.

I think you mean Matrimony rather than Holy Orders, though.

 

[Vince1022]

Thanks. It does indeed help.

However, you would be incorrect to say that the question is not definitively closed. “All doubt has been removed”, says JPII. And "this judgment is to be held definitively."

Yes?

Ok, yes, in the terms the Pope used, it’s closed “definitively.” My point is, that does NOT mean it’s taught infallibly, which means it is open, however narrowly, to future reinterpretation or further understanding. So while Pope John Paul II obviously intended to teach “definitively” he seemed to stop short of teaching infallibly.

 

[diggerdomer]

Everyone offers something that no one else offers.

To explain, Paul writes of the different gifts we have; some have gifts of healing, some prophecy etc. He further illustrates this through the imagery of a body; all have a role to play but not the same one and no role is better, or superior to another role. In offering our lives to God, we offer it in different ways. Doctors do not offer themselves to God in the way teachers do, because they are not teachers.

The manner in which the priest offers himself is different to everyone else as he is standing in place of Christ. Not everyone stands in place of Christ during the Mass. If they did, the whole ethos of the Mass would change. The priest uses the term ‘this is my body’ because Christ is operating through him in a manner he is not operating through anyone else. If Christ was operating in the same manner through everyone, anyone could say the Mass. This again would change our whole understanding of the Mass.

But the Church is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not an individual. So, everyone present offers the Body of Christ.

 

[diggerdomer]

Question: does it matter to you whether not this teaching is infallible?

Yes. Very much so.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and some conservative Anglicans, strongly believe the ordained priesthood is reserved for men alone. Various reasons have been given for this, but the main ones seem to be that in the NT, Jesus only ordained men as the key leaders of the church, and also the historical church never developed a practice of ordaining women into ministries of leadership. It does not seem to be so much about gender as such, as about the lack of historical evidence from the Bible and church tradition supporting the argument women should be ordained to the deaconate, priesthood and episcopate. Thus many conservatives in Anglicanism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy regard the ordination of women as an unwarranted ‘innovation’ designed to accomodate the centuries-old traditions of the church to modern demands of women for freedom, dignity and equality with men in the church.

Also, many Protestant churches don’t appear to be comfortable with women in leadership roles because certain passages of scripture appear to condemn it, i.e. passages in the Letters of Timothy for example.

The other argument in favour of women’s ordination is that the refusal to ordain women is not based on lack of evidence but more on a patriarchal culture which came from Israel and Roman/Greek culture and reproduced the social and cultural inequality outside of the church within the church. This patriarchal inequality is reproduced through the history of the church and infects the essence of the church itself, to the top of the episcopate. The exclusion of women from leadership in the church though in modern times is unjust, considering that women are now admitted to secular occupations that were once the exclusive perserve of men only (i.e. law, medicine, science, engineering, politics, the military, etc).

I can see the merits of both sides. I personally don’t have a problem with women’s ordination since from the early days of the church women have played key roles, though those roles may have been toned down due to sexist presumptions on the part of Biblical and church writers. Still, many people feel uncomfortable with the idea of women’s ordination so I think where it is allowed (i.e. in the Anglican church) it should not be forced on conservative branches that do not want it. There are many ways women can positively take part in the church without being ordained. But I think the notion of a male-only ‘off-limits’ zone for women in a professional occupation is becoming increasingly alienating and irrelevant in the 21st century when most places on Earth are giving women their humanity and rights and recognition, not as an inferior ‘second sex’, but as full members of the human family. I see no reason why this recognition should extend to allowing women to take full part in all levels of the ordained ranks of ministry. But it is for each communion to decide for itself on the question.

Careful. The Catholic Church has not ruled definitively on the ordination of women as deacons.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, yes, in the terms the Pope used, it’s closed “definitively.” My point is, that does NOT mean it’s taught infallibly, which means it is open, however narrowly, to future reinterpretation or further understanding. So while Pope John Paul II obviously intended to teach “definitively” he seemed to stop short of teaching infallibly.

Fair enough.

The matter is closed and has been definitively taught.

(I don’t mean that this thread is closed–not that I have the power to declare it so. I simply mean that while we can and ought to discuss amongst ourselves, Catholics are not free to declare that women’s ordination is legit.)

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. Very much so.

Why is it so important to you?

When you proclaim something to your children (if you’re not a parent, imagine yourself one )
do they ask, “With what degree of certainty are you declaring that I have to be home at midnight?” or “Are you infallibly stating that I turn right at the McDonald’s to get to Aunt Vi’s house?” or “Even though you said that you were definitively stating and I couldn’t watch that movie, I watched it 'cause you didn’t meet the criteria we’d established for 100% certainty.”

 

[minkymurph]

But the Church is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not an individual. So, everyone present offers the Body of Christ.

This is the first time I had heard this so I can’t comment.

I will check it out with the Priest whose area of expertise is the sacraments when I return to college.

I would ask one question. Do you think the person who offers the Mass needs to be ordained? Irrespective of the answer, what are your reasons for thinking this.

 

[Mikel12]

I saw this article somewhere, hope it helps:

Among the most vocal controversies in the Catholic Church in the late 20th century and early 21st has been the question of the ordination of women. As more Protestant denominations, begun ordaining women, the Catholic Church’s teaching on the all-male priesthood came under attack, with some claiming that the ordination of women is simply a matter of justice, and the lack of such ordination is proof that the Catholic Church does not value women. The Church’s teaching on this matter, however, cannot change. Why?

At the most basic level, the answer to the question is simple: The New Testament priesthood is the priesthood of Christ Himself. All men who, through the sacrament of Holy orders, have become priests (or bishops) participate in Christ’s priesthood. (Hebrews 5:10). And they participate in it in a very special way: They act in persona Christi Capitis, in the person of Christ, the Head of His Body, the Church. Christ, of course, was a man; but some who argue for the ordination of women insist that His sex is irrelevant, that a woman can act in the person of Christ as well as a man can. This is due to the misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the differences between men and women, which the Church insists are irreducible; men and women, by their natures, are suited to different, yet complementary, roles and functions.

Yet even if we disregard the differences between the sexes, as many advocates of women’s ordination do, we have to face the fact that the ordination of men is an unbroken tradition that goes back not only to the Apostles but to Christ Himself. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph. 1577) states:“Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose men to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

Of course others argue that some traditions are made to be broken. But again, that misunderstands the nature of the priesthood. Ordination does not simply give a man permission to perform the functions of a priest; it imparts to him a permanent spiritual character that makes him a priest. Hebrews 5:1-6 explains this ministry and its connection to Melchizedek Psalms 110:4.

The reasons for barring women’s ordination have nothing to do with “gender equality” and everything to do with Jesus and the history of the Church. Women can prophesy and pray (1 Cor. 11:5), but other Christian denominations in an attempt to justify ordaining women, have had to change their understanding of the nature of the priesthood from one which conveys a permanent (indelible) spiritual character on the man who is ordained, to one in which the priesthood is viewed as a mere function. To abandon the 2,000-year-old understanding of the nature of the priesthood would be a doctrinal change. The Catholic Church could not do so and remain the Catholic Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ok, yes, in the terms the Pope used, it’s closed “definitively.” My point is, that does NOT mean it’s taught infallibly, which means it is open, however narrowly, to future reinterpretation or further understanding. So while Pope John Paul II obviously intended to teach “definitively” he seemed to stop short of teaching infallibly.

And again, I think you misunderstand ‘infallibility’. Infallibility is NOT limited to the Pope making an ex-cathedra statement.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Careful. The Catholic Church has not ruled definitively on the ordination of women as deacons.

But any kind of ‘deacon’ position for women would not involve Holy Orders. That IS definite. A ‘deaconess’ position would be considered to have the same relation to the male diaconate as a nun has to a priest. A nun is a religious but does not receive Holy Orders. A priest does. A deacon also receives Orders. A woman who was a ‘deacon’ (just like a nun in professing her vows) would not receive Orders.

 

[jmcrae]

Ok, yes, in the terms the Pope used, it’s closed “definitively.” My point is, that does NOT mean it’s taught infallibly, which means it is open, however narrowly, to future reinterpretation or further understanding.

No, it isn’t.

So while Pope John Paul II obviously intended to teach “definitively” he seemed to stop short of teaching infallibly.

He did, in fact, use the phrase “I declare” - which seems to signify that he intended to speak infallibly.

 

[adrift]

I think you mean Matrimony rather than Holy Orders, though

That is what I meant.

Exactly - and a woman can’t act as that witness for the Church in the way the priest does.

Without him and his presence and blessing there isn’t a valid marriage, there is no sacrament at all. Even if the couple went through everything on their own. So he is de facto a minister of the sacrament even if he isn’t called such, along with the couple, and every bit as important to the process as bride and groom.

And, as I said, a woman can’t perform the same function, she can’t give the Church’s blessing or put the sacramental seal on the marriage of any other couple, unlike a priest.
.

It is the couple
From the catechism.

According to the Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. 1626
The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that “makes the marriage.” If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

Remember that the Church assumes marriages between baptizes parties of other faiths are sacramental and valid. The priest has his role but it is not as a “de facto” minister.

 

[adrift]

This is the first time I had heard this so I can’t comment.

I will check it out with the Priest whose area of expertise is the sacraments when I return to college.

I would ask one question. Do you think the person who offers the Mass needs to be ordained? Irrespective of the answer, what are your reasons for thinking this.

Me to.
diggerdomer can you provide documentation?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would ask one question. Do you think the person who offers the Mass needs to be ordained? Irrespective of the answer, what are your reasons for thinking this.

Oh, I like to answer!

Of course, not only ordained but must be a priest (a Deacon is ordained but cannot say Mass). Why? For a Mass to be valid, the the person must complete the sacrifice of the Mass, that is to offer bread and wine, consecrate it into the body and blood of Christ, and then receive himself. Since only a priest can consecrate bread and wine, then only a priest can celebrate a valid Mass.

 

[clmowry]

As I said before, I accept Pope John Paul II’s teaching. Was I not clear on that? Thanks.

No.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

I would say I agree with Church teaching, though I also think the question is not completely and definitively closed to further development (i.e. it’s not taught infallibly).

Does that help? thanks!

No.

Chuck