Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[FCEGM]

I’d make the argument the differences are merely biological, not “soul deep”

True inspired religion was essentially different from pagan religion because true inspired religion was ordered toward the mysterious and eternal Fatherhood of God (see Eph. 3:14-15), and thus had male priests to image this Divine Fatherhood, whereas pagan religion worshipped forces of the created universe (as if they were gods), and thus had priestly ministers who imaged the qualities of these created forces, which were seen as either male (a god) or female (a goddess). The true God of Israel could not be imaged as a female, i.e., a receptive nurturer of life, since He is the initiating Creator of all, and thus a clear Progenitor and Originator of life - a role held in human and created biology by men, not by women. To depict God or His priest in a female capacity is essentially to say that God is “receptive” and “incubative” rather than a Progenitor, and thus part of Creation, rather than its supernatural Originator. This is the deepest problem with a proposed female priesthood for Christianity.

When God becomes Man, He makes everything about that Man revelatory, not only about God but about man. Thus that Man (Who is God) chooses water for baptism, oil for anointing of the sick, bread and wine for the Eucharist, and the Apostles for High Priests, definite men to take his place when He visibly exits; those and only those chosen material beings mediate the graces He wants mediated. We are not free to correct His choices. Thus a Tradition which is Divine in origin and Divine in being sustained by the Holy Spirit manifests the will of that Christ. Faith accepts that. Human perception and self-will do not respect that.

Given this insistence on the material medium as being essential for the validity of sacramental grace and not faith in it alone, a Catholic may not hold to another understanding of the priesthood. In Protestantism the personal sincerity self-affirmed is the interior condition alone which validates, and then the outward sign is merely expressing this already existing spiritual reality believed in so that it is merely a political issue to get the institution to accept the believed-valid spiritual reality already existing.

For Catholics the only valid spiritual reality is made present through the integrity of the sacramental signs which confer the interior reality. Any corruption of the sign (essential alteration of the matter, form, i.e., words and meaning, minister) invalidates the presence of the Reality.

An article which may help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a49.htm

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

True inspired religion was essentially different from pagan religion because true inspired religion was ordered toward the mysterious and eternal Fatherhood of God (see Eph. 3:14-15), and thus had male priests to image this Divine Fatherhood, whereas pagan religion worshipped forces of the created universe (as if they were gods), and thus had priestly ministers who imaged the qualities of these created forces, which were seen as either male (a god) or female (a goddess). The true God of Israel could not be imaged as a female, i.e., a receptive nurturer of life, since He is the initiating Creator of all, and thus a clear Progenitor and Originator of life - a role held in human and created biology by men, not by women. To depict God or His priest in a female capacity is essentially to say that God is “receptive” and “incubative” rather than a Progenitor, and thus part of Creation, rather than its supernatural Originator. This is the deepest problem with a proposed female priesthood for Christianity.

When God becomes Man, He makes everything about that Man revelatory, not only about God but about man. Thus that Man (Who is God) chooses water for baptism, oil for anointing of the sick, bread and wine for the Eucharist, and the Apostles for High Priests, definite men to take his place when He visibly exits; those and only those chosen material beings mediate the graces He wants mediated. We are not free to correct His choices. Thus a Tradition which is Divine in origin and Divine in being sustained by the Holy Spirit manifests the will of that Christ. Faith accepts that. Human perception and self-will do not respect that.

Given this insistence on the material medium as being essential for the validity of sacramental grace and not faith in it alone, a Catholic may not hold to another understanding of the priesthood. In Protestantism the personal sincerity self-affirmed is the interior condition alone which validates, and then the outward sign is merely expressing this already existing spiritual reality believed in so that it is merely a political issue to get the institution to accept the believed-valid spiritual reality already existing.

For Catholics the only valid spiritual reality is made present through the integrity of the sacramental signs which confer the interior reality. Any corruption of the sign (essential alteration of the matter, form, i.e., words and meaning, minister) invalidates the presence of the Reality.

An article which may help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a49.htm

Outstanding!

 

[FCEGM]

I’m not sure if the “Cannot be married to the Church because they’re female” is an argument advanced by the Church. Men are part of the Church that will be married to Christ, while nuns sometimes see themselves as being married to Christ.

I think, though, that it’s still an effective way to help those opposed to the Church’s teaching better understand why she isn’t free to select women for the priesthood. It has to do with personal and ministerial activity. A man is never the Bride by himself personally, but only as part of the greater whole of the Body/the Bride (i.e., the Church/the congregation). Also, being the Bride (or part of the Bride) is not an active or ministerial role, but a passive, receptive role. The laity (as laity) do not serve the Church in a ministerial capacity, but rather are ministered to and receive sacramental service from the ministerial priesthood, which works actively (and personally) in the place of Christ the Head (in persona Christi Capitas) for the welfare of the Bride. So, the roles of Bridegroom and Bride are not congruent, but fundamentally distinct and different in their capacities.

Only a man can be a priest (i.e., serve in the place of the Bridegroom) individually and personally because his actions (his ministerial activity) require that he be male as the Sacramental sign of those actions. Unfortunately, the present, rampant abuse of using women (and lay men) as unnecessary and seemingly normative “Eucharist ministers” has distorted this dynamic and blurred the clear distinction between active clergyman vs. the receptive laity. I refer to the error of calling these lay helpers on the altar “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion” while using them “ordinarily” at almost every Mass. This is why so many modern Catholics find it difficult to appreciate the active - and thus male - exclusivity of the priesthood.

 

[kateriann]

Major Tom, I pretty much agree with you. Bibleguy, thanks for being a thinker. As long as we try to be guided by God in our thinking, I believe we’ll be ok.

First, let’s give thanks that the Church is not as restrictive as she used to be: women are allowed to approach the altar, we can serve as eucharistic ministers, and read the Word at Mass. In short, we are not silenced.

Here are some thoughts: in Jesus time, women were not allowed to be rabbis. That was in fact one of the distinctions between Judaism and many pagan religions. This had largely to do with the concept of uncleanliness during one’s menstrual cycle. Jesus demonstrated in many ways that he was a good Jew. Appointing women as priests/rabbis may have discredited his position. (Some believe Mary Magdelene was not the same as the unnamed prostitute, and was actually a woman of good standing, as was Mary Martha).

Another facet was the different role women had then, at that time, particularly Jewish women, They were mothers, who stayed home, and helped their husbands. They did not have careers, nor was it considered proper for them to even travel without a proper male escort.

If Jesus came back in this day, what would he say about working women? Would he tell all of us who hold lucrative careers that we should go home to our husbands or mothers and quit being so improper? Would he chastize the men who allowed their women to work?

Jesus showed a lot of respect for women when he walked this Earth. I think if anyone was going to get chastized, it would be anyone who did not pull his/her weight in the family.(examples: The woman who refuses to work when the man is scrambling to earn money for his family, or the man who works all the time and does not contribute to the care of house and children.)

So what would Jesus say about women as priests in this time and place? The point is, we don’t know. The Papacy has tried to explain, but I am in the “weak argument” camp.

Saying that it will never change is a little strong, I think. After all, we now have girls as altar servers, and women as eucharistic ministers, so things do change. All we can do is pray that they always change in a way that reflects Jesus’ love and purpose for us.

 

[Sugnaflow]

To the Editor:

The Catholic Church teaches that our gender identity is stamped onto our being, both physically and spiritually. This spiritual component, though invisible, is no less real or significant.
Most men I know do not feel like “second-class citizens,” to borrow Maureen Dowd’s phrase, because they will never be a mother. Similarly, it would seem silly to me to feel slighted that the church would never ordain me as a father.
Pope John Paul II once called women “God’s masterpiece,” and like it or not, we’re different from men.

Letters - Men, Women and the Catholic Church - NYTimes.com

 

[Scoobyshme]

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.

There were no American believers in God back then. He only chose Jews for that reason.

Jesus set this up, not men. We don’t claim the authority to correct Jesus. Do you?

Besides, the priesthood is not a “job.” It is a vocation, i.e., a calling. Jesus called only men. And He continues to do so. Why? My guess is that men are not as given to being holy like women (generally speaking). We have many more women Saints than men Saints. He chose men, so we KNOW that the good things that come out of the Church are due to Him and not the men.

Bottom line is, we can’t know everything that God knows. And we don’t have to understand to give 100% religious assent and obedience. We need to be like little children and just obey faithfully.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Then riddle me this:

Ships are metaphorically described as girls, does this prevent women from being captains?
Cars are metaphorically described as girls, does this prevent women from driving cars?

Being captain of a ship is not a vocation. It is a job. BIG difference.

Driving a car is not a vocation. It is a task. BIG difference.

Next?

 

[Scoobyshme]

I’d make the argument the differences are merely biological, not “soul deep”

Well, you’ll have to argue with Jesus, then. We didn’t set this up. He did. We don’t claim the right to correct Him.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just a quick point or two:

Only priests are 'Eucharistic Ministers". Women (and men) may be Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC). Unfortunately ‘bad translations’ aren’t limited to the liturgy but, thanks be to God, they are being addressed. Please help stamp out the egregiously incorrect use of ‘eucharistic minister’ applied to those who are correctly EMHC’s.

Any priest may (at his discretion) permit–or NOT–girls serving at the altar. Their use is an indult (a permission not to observe the norm which is men/boys serving, usually for an extraordinary reason. For example, in times of war when most men would be ‘at the front’, there might be nothing BUT women available. The practice was not meant to be an indication that women were ‘equal’ (they have always been equal, but male and female roles are not; a man can never be a woman and a woman can never be a man), nor an indication that women could get more ‘power’ (service to the Lord is never about power) nor an indication that with this, women were moving ‘closer’ to priesthood (see above, it is not about power). Women cannot be priests any more than men can generate a child in their (nonexistant) wombs!

The Church did not permit various changes in its DISCIPLINES (which in any case are changeable by definition) in order to ‘bring women up from oppression’, but rather from a cultural (pastoral) sense in response to what the bishops felt was a genuine need that could be legitimately met.

But the more one reads from people (not necessarily anyone who has posted here, but rather just general reading on the topic) who obviously feel that this is all about 'getting the POWER" and 'a bit of payback from the years of OPPRESSION" the more one realizes that these disciplines are ripe for being changed ‘back.’ As a woman, I’m sad to say that in many, many cases, we as women haven’t brought ourselves to God to serve Him through having more ‘ways’ given us to serve, but have rather tried to TAKE OVER and grab what we think is power, and demand what we think we should have as rights, not to serve but to BE SERVED, not to give but to TAKE,

 

[Califman831]

Jesus only chose men to be apostles as other have stated and the bible teaches that women should remain silent during the mass (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

 

[JustaServant]

Regarding women priests and the Church, here is an observation by artist Timothy P. Schmalz:

Many times has the Catholic Church been criticized for not being fair to women. Some Catholic women feel that they know better then the Church that they are a part of, and feel it is their duty to fix or improve the Church. They criticize the Church as being unequal to women. Being an artist who does work for the Catholic Church and having high respect for this very old institution, I would like to defend the Church and present its position. The church does not limit the highest status the Catholic church has for women, I am not talking about the Priest, Cardinal or even Pope, I am thinking of Sainthood. As far as prestige, status and power (and that is the essence of the conflict, lets be honest) a saint trumps even a popular Pope. Who even remembers the Popes from the 17th century let alone Cardinals or Priests? The Saint on the other hand is remembered, revered and followed forever. Years ago, after finishing a sculpture which has more than 100 saints in it, I came to the realization that at least 50% of all saints throughout all periods of time are women. Mother Teresa, who was never even a Priest, and who soon will be made a Saint, had in her life and after, more influence than some Popes. Why not use her as a role model? Becoming a Priest takes a person that is humble. Even a man who feels it’s his right and is going to fight to become a God’s servant in this manner, suggests a person unfit for what must be one of the most difficult vocations possible. A Franciscan from Bethlehem once told me that the church thinks in centuries, not years. I believe that in 500 years from now there will be no women Priests but many more women saints and this is a very good thing.

 

[Mark77]

**Why aren’t men allowed to have babies?

God’s Wisdom is Perfect & we are completely imperfect!**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Stillkickin]

Peter Kreeft has a pretty good explaination. There is a recording of him speaking on it on his website www.peterkreeft.com titled “Women and the Priesthood” and there is also a book by the same name that he wrote in conjunction with Alice von Hildebrand, the book is out of print but I found a used copy of it online and purchased it about a year ago.

There are also some documents on the Vatican website or you could google them that might help. 1) Inter Insigniores 2) Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and 3) Responsum ad Dubium

Hope this helps,

Stillkickin

 

[curlycool89]

Major Tom, I pretty much agree with you. Bibleguy, thanks for being a thinker. As long as we try to be guided by God in our thinking, I believe we’ll be ok.

First, let’s give thanks that the Church is not as restrictive as she used to be: women are allowed to approach the altar, we can serve as eucharistic ministers, and read the Word at Mass. In short, we are not silenced.

Here are some thoughts: in Jesus time, women were not allowed to be rabbis. That was in fact one of the distinctions between Judaism and many pagan religions. This had largely to do with the concept of uncleanliness during one’s menstrual cycle. Jesus demonstrated in many ways that he was a good Jew. Appointing women as priests/rabbis may have discredited his position. (Some believe Mary Magdelene was not the same as the unnamed prostitute, and was actually a woman of good standing, as was Mary Martha).

Another facet was the different role women had then, at that time, particularly Jewish women, They were mothers, who stayed home, and helped their husbands. They did not have careers, nor was it considered proper for them to even travel without a proper male escort.

If Jesus came back in this day, what would he say about working women? Would he tell all of us who hold lucrative careers that we should go home to our husbands or mothers and quit being so improper? Would he chastize the men who allowed their women to work?

Jesus showed a lot of respect for women when he walked this Earth. I think if anyone was going to get chastized, it would be anyone who did not pull his/her weight in the family.(examples: The woman who refuses to work when the man is scrambling to earn money for his family, or the man who works all the time and does not contribute to the care of house and children.)

So what would Jesus say about women as priests in this time and place? The point is, we don’t know. The Papacy has tried to explain, but I am in the “weak argument” camp.

Saying that it will never change is a little strong, I think. After all, we now have girls as altar servers, and women as eucharistic ministers, so things do change. All we can do is pray that they always change in a way that reflects Jesus’ love and purpose for us.

Yep that whole culture thing. Oh wait, Jesus said the following anti-cultural things:

1. He said He was God (“I and the Father are one”), which would have been in opposition to the 1st Commandment (but of course He is God, but they didn’t quite get that). Probably punishable by death
2. He told people to eat His flesh, which the Romans later misinterpreted to be cannibalism and put early Christians to death.
3. He told them to drink His blood, contradicting Mosaic Law and probably worthy of death
4. He told them He was going to tear down the temple (He meant his body, but they didn’t know that), which the leaders of the time would amount to sedition (treason → death)
5. What finally got Him was all the talk about the Kingdom of God, for which He was crucified.

Yep, but Jesus was definitely too scared to contradict gender rolls. Because you know, adding another death sentence on top of the 5 you already have can be very scary

 

[Major_Tom]

Well, I know Someone else whoe is rigid with rules - remember those horribly rigid ol’ Ten Commandments?

Seems to be a fair amount of gray, actually. When honoring one’s mother and father, is there not a little ambiguity and interpretation? Isn’t there the slightest gray between what constitutues “murder” versus killing in self-defense?

 

[Major_Tom]

Major Tom:
Have you bothered to go to any of the links that other posters have provided?
eg Joanna Bogle`s “Women Priests - No Chance” is a perfect starting point.
The relationship between Christ (and His priests) and the Church stems from the very inner Life of God, but your denial of the truth of The Blessed Trinity would be a major stumbling block. Any heresy ends up contaminating the whole creed system.
Harsh, but true: Unitarianism is NOT Biblical.

Yes, I have bothered to visit links that people have posted, including the first two from Post #4. I commented on them in my subsequent posts.

Major Tom:
Harsh, but true: Unitarianism is NOT Biblical.

Debatable, but I think that would be veering off topic.

Technically, now, you aren’t talking strictly Bible, either, right? But rather the Bible-inspired truth as unfolded to the Catholic Church (and not, say, Protestants).

 

[Major_Tom]

Jesus, Himself, refers to “eunuchs for The Kingdom of Heaven”: Matthew 19:12.

Saint Paul`s reasoning is that a celibate priest can devote himself to God, and not have to be concerned with the wellbeing of a wife and children.

The celibate priest can concern himself with the BRIDE: ie the Church.
Again, your creed is preventing you from seeing the true role of a faithful Catholic priest.
It`s not an easy life for a faithful priest.

Curious point. What do you think Jesus meant by that eunuch reference? Was he speaking literally or figuratively? I would say figuratively, as no one I know has ever suggested that priests become eunuchs. Again, figurative language at play here…

Paul’s reasoning is accepted as truth, even though it appears to be in direct contrast with Jesus’ actions: Jesus selected a married man as the Rock of his Church.

 

[LilyM]

Seems to be a fair amount of gray, actually. When honoring one’s mother and father, is there not a little ambiguity and interpretation? Isn’t there the slightest gray between what constitutues “murder” versus killing in self-defense?

Nice try. Wanting women to be priests isn’t ‘a little ambiguity’. On the contrary, it’s as revolutionary as flat out saying there’s no such thing as adultery or no such thing as theft under any circumstances.

 

[Major_Tom]

Because the Church has always been she. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Just to recap, a bride is female.

And it’s based on the Bible actually, you can read it here.

Great link! First sentence, it says that the reference is a metaphor.

 

[Major_Tom]

It’s not meant in a particularly literal sense. The description makes it more understandable though.

“Bride” and “Bridegroom” imply a whole host of functions and roles and attitudes that the congregation is to have vis a vis the priest and the priest vis-a-vis the congregation. The nature of the priest’s role is such - ‘representing’ Christ doesn’t describe it remotely adequately, after all a wooden statue ‘represents’ Christ - that it can’t be properly fulfilled by a woman.

Christ didn’t come to earth as a man for no reason - God doesn’t make such choices idly. Israel had plenty of female prophets - even in His day Anna was one who proclaimed him to be Messiah, along with Elizabeth - and other women of notable leadership quality, including Miriam, Deborah and Judith.

It wouldn’t have been too hard for Him if He’d come to earth in fact as female instead. And the Gentiles who would convert to Christianity had long traditions of priestesses, so they would’ve had no problems with a female priesthood at all.

So His choices, both to come to earth as a man and appoint male only Apostles, and the choice of those Apostles also to restrict themselves to appointing only male successors - are significant. Not merely based on cultural considerations, which were of far less import than you seem to think, but on the soul-deep differences that distinguish man and woman from each other.

Points taken, but again, the ‘bride’ and ‘bridegroom’ thing are metaphors.

Especially when you recall that God is ultimately sexless, the literal uses of the male/female metaphor just seem to be missing a deeper understanding. Yes I know that Jesus was a radical when it came to all things, but his successors felt societal pressure, and imparted their own thoughts and temperaments into the mix (again, Paul and celibacy), and there’s no denying that this society was extraordinarily patriarchal at the time.

So His choices, both to come to earth as a man and appoint male only Apostles, other.

Interesting. He didn’t appoint Paul, yet that hasn’t stopped people from listening to him!