Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[Tantum_ergo]

What I see as a problem in relation to debates concerning the ordination of women, is the negative image presented. Words such as; ‘can’t,’ ‘not allowed,’ and phrases such as, 'you can’t be a priest ‘cos your not a man,’ reinforce notions of patriarchy and negative, stereotypical images of the Church. We need to get rid of these notions in relation to ordination. The ordained are first and foremost, servants. Ordination should not about power and influence. If the role of women in the Church is portrayed in positive light, absent of notions of subordination, and the value of their influence for the good of the Church recognised, perhaps the fact women do not receive ordination would not be as much of an issue. However, I will openly admit to being an eternal optimist.

As someone else has pointed out, ordination is a sacrament. For a sacrament to be valid, certain conditions need to be met. A woman cannot receive a valid ordination any more than two men, two women, or three people (give it time!) can validly be joined in Holy Matrimony.

Just because society has been conditioned (especially in the West and especially in the U.S.) to be ‘independent, and ‘not take no for an answer’ doesn’t mean that we need to pussyfoot around because we might ‘appear’ (to those jaundiced and blinded eyes’) to be all ‘negative Normans’.

Pope Benedict just this week said something great and apropos on his trip to Britain, when asked about ways the Catholic Church could ‘make itself look more attractive’ to people. He said, to paraphrase, that it was not and should not be for the Church to concentrate on appearing attractive, and that focusing on that was ignoring WHAT THE CHURCH REALLY IS.

No matter how you slice things, it really does come down to cold hard fact. . .some things are possible in the world, and some are not. Trying to repackage a ‘not’ so it doesn’t look all mean and ‘negative’ isn’t going to change the ‘not’ and it really isn’t going to change anybody’s mind.

Because most people are going to look at the ‘positive spin’ and get to the heart of it: "Even though you’re not saying "women can’t because they aren’t men’, and you’re focusing on all the good women CAN have, your church still won’t ordain women. And now you don’t even have the guts to say it but you try to spin it and ‘look good’. ’

And they’ll have even less respect for the Church because they’ll feel the Church is trying to FOOL them into thinking they aren’t the mean anti-women freaks these people think they are.

I’m not saying we have to be offensive, but sometimes the truth is offensive to those who are so opposed to truth. It’s not the fault of the truth or the fault of the one who speaks truth, it’s the fault of those who reject the truth

 

[FOFEBA]

No, she was burned for being an enemy of England, by members of the English government. If there were members of the clergy present, they were acting as agents of the British Crown; not as agents of the Church. St. Joan of Arc was never found guilty of heresy by any Church tribunal, or else she could not have been declared a Saint.

Yes, I stand corrected on that. Thank you. Regardless of that particular case, probably the most famous which is far enough removed from us in history so as not to offend people here, is Galileo. He spent the latter part of his life under house arrest, instead of standing trial and probably being executed for heresy, because of his scientific views. This is just one of famous ones, of the many instances of this sort of behavior by the Church.

But let’s get to the real point that I was trying to make, which seems to be ignored in favor of picking at the details:

1. I believe that the Church has been in error many times in history, as one would expect of any political institution engaged in power exchange. There have been corrupt popes. The Church has acted out of political expediency at times, sometimes paying the price of moral depravity. The point is that the Church errs, and historically this has at times been in a very serious way. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment? The alternate view is that the Church has never erred, and based on history and Church doctrine, it cannot and/or will not err, which I claim to be preposterously naive.
2. If one accepts that the Church has erred in the past, and may be in err today and in the future, then how does one decide which of Church actions or doctrine are correct, and which is not correct?

 

[JimG]

The Church has made many mistakes throughout its history, with respect to political matters, personal (and personnel) matters, and of course all its members are sinners. But it has not taught error in matters of the Faith. In fact, the entire mission of the Church is to faithfully hand down the teachings which have been entrusted to it from the beginning.

The argument over women’s ordination is a tempest in a teapot. Ordination of women will never happen because it cannot happen.

The simple answer is that women cannot be ordained because they are not men.

Women can never be fathers, even though they can and sometimes must, perform the functions of fathers.

Men can never be mothers, even though they can and sometimes must perform the functions of mothers.

Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable.
Women and men are not interchangeable.

 

[minkymurph]

Just because society has been conditioned (especially in the West and especially in the U.S.) to be ‘independent, and ‘not take no for an answer’ doesn’t mean that we need to pussyfoot around because we might ‘appear’ (to those jaundiced and blinded eyes’) to be all ‘negative Normans’.

Pope Benedict just this week said something great and apropos on his trip to Britain, when asked about ways the Catholic Church could ‘make itself look more attractive’ to people. He said, to paraphrase, that it was not and should not be for the Church to concentrate on appearing attractive, and that focusing on that was ignoring WHAT THE CHURCH REALLY IS.

No matter how you slice things, it really does come down to cold hard fact. . .some things are possible in the world, and some are not. Trying to repackage a ‘not’ so it doesn’t look all mean and ‘negative’ isn’t going to change the ‘not’ and it really isn’t going to change anybody’s mind.

Because most people are going to look at the ‘positive spin’ and get to the heart of it: "Even though you’re not saying "women can’t because they aren’t men’, and you’re focusing on all the good women CAN have, your church still won’t ordain women. And now you don’t even have the guts to say it but you try to spin it and ‘look good’. ’

And they’ll have even less respect for the Church because they’ll feel the Church is trying to FOOL them into thinking they aren’t the mean anti-women freaks these people think they are.

I’m not saying we have to be offensive, but sometimes the truth is offensive to those who are so opposed to truth. It’s not the fault of the truth or the fault of the one who speaks truth, it’s the fault of those who reject the truth

I’m sorry, but I have absolutely no idea how any of this relates to my post. I don’t have the guts to say what? I am trying to ‘spin’ and look good? How can you make such comments about someone you know only from a post on the internet? Is there not at least a possiblity you are jumping to conclusions about me as a person because of terminology I used on an internet post? I say this because your words suggest it.

Not one of my posts suggest I am in favour of the ordination of women. I have not argued for the ordination of women in any of my posts. Not one of my posts suggests we should sacrifice truth to please a pressure group, or change truth in an attempt to make Catholicism more attractive to those who reject it. I have agreed with statements you have made and quoted them.

I had one intention in my posts. To prompt people to think more deeply about their faith for the purpose of gaining a deeper understanding of their faith. In contemporary society, ‘obey’ and ‘Church is always right’ insufficiently feeds the faith of the people. Anyone who works with teenagers, as I do, may well tell you the same. I don’t think it is unreasonable for young Catholics to ask for answers beyond, ‘do as you are told’ and unreasonable for those answers to be provided. Anyone who thinks this is an adequate response will find it difficult to fill the spiritual needs of contemporary society. Nowhere in my posts have I questioned Catholic teaching, or stated no one needs to believe it. I have said it needs to be explained in a way it can be understood. If anyone thinks it should not, nothing more to say.

You say I am trying to repackage a ‘not’ so it doesn’t look all mean and ‘negative.’ I make no apology for repacking a mean and negative intension. There is any amount of evidence that religion has distorted the maleness of Christ and used it as a way to subordinate women, look at fundamentalism and Saudi Arabia. If Catholicism is presented in the same light, which it should not be because Catholicism does not endorse such teachings, but let’s take our rose coloured glasses off, it would be naive to think no Catholic would ever use the fact that the Church does not ordain women as a means of endorsing the subordination and inferiortiy of women. I know many men, including priests, who would say the pages of history are littered with mistreatment of women. Nowhere in my posts have I suggested this is why the Church does not ordain women. But did God Himself not utter a prophecy that treating women as inferior would be a consequence of sin? (Gen 3:15)

I have sliced nothing. I have repacked nothing. If you think I have, lay it on the line what and we can discuss it like intelligent, rational human beings in the absence of notions concerning each other than may or may not be true. Anything I have said here is the truth according to how I have been taught.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, no, no, minky, I wasn’t saying that YOU were putting on the spin, etc. Obviously I wasn’t clear!

I’m of an (older) generation that is used to using the word ‘you’ as a generic ‘you’. I tend to forget that not everybody will look at even a neutral kind of statement like,

“You should always consider others”. . .

as a simple kind of, "yeah, that’s a rule we all (You) need to follow’. …

And will instead think, “Hey, that person is saying that need to consider others, therefore that person is saying that right now I’m NOT considering others. How dare they!”

What I meant (hopefully this will clear things up) is that, just like you, I was commenting on the broader picture of Catholicism in society. And you (in my posts) was directed at “generic you”, not at only you, minkymurph!! Commenting on possibles and never accusing any one individual!

I was not --not, not, NOT–commenting on you, minkymurph, personally, and attributing all kinds of things to YOU!

 

[minkymurph]

No, no, no, minky, I wasn’t saying that YOU were putting on the spin, etc. Obviously I wasn’t clear!

I’m of an (older) generation that is used to using the word ‘you’ as a generic ‘you’. I tend to forget that not everybody will look at even a neutral kind of statement like,

“You should always consider others”. . .

as a simple kind of, "yeah, that’s a rule we all (You) need to follow’. …

And will instead think, “Hey, that person is saying that need to consider others, therefore that person is saying that right now I’m NOT considering others. How dare they!”

What I meant (hopefully this will clear things up) is that, just like you, I was commenting on the broader picture of Catholicism in society. And you (in my posts) was directed at “generic you”, not at only you, minkymurph!! Commenting on possibles and never accusing any one individual!

I was not --not, not, NOT–commenting on you, minkymurph, personally, and attributing all kinds of things to YOU!

Well, it just shows how easy it is to come to all sorts of conclusions based on the way things are phrased. Glad we cleared that up. :hug3:

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)