Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[Major_Tom]

It seems this should end the debate for any true Roman Catholic.

“I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). John Paul II

I’m in the middle of reading A Short History of the Catholic Church, by Hans Kung. He’s a Catholic priest who makes a strong case that the Church has many policies (current and historical) that are anti-woman. He’s very critical of John Paul II, and as such, John Paul had Kung’s teaching credentials revoked. I bring him up to illustrate that the issue isn’t simply a “Catholic church against the world” issue, and that there are very learned Catholic theologians who make strong cases that current church policy should be reformed.

 

[Major_Tom]

And while St. Peter had a mother-in-law, well let’s put it this way. If I were married, my spouse’s mother would be my mother-in-law. And if my spouse died, she would still be my mother-in-law, wouldn’t she? IOW–by tradition, it is commonly supposed that St. Peter was a WIDOWER. No mention of his ever remarrying either. . .

I’ve read scholarship by Catholic theologians that most, if not all, of the apostles were married. So the idea that Peter wasn’t really married doesn’t pass muster.

 

[Deconi]

I’m in the middle of reading A Short History of the Catholic Church, by Hans Kung. He’s a Catholic priest who makes a strong case that the Church has many policies (current and historical) that are anti-woman. He’s very critical of John Paul II, and as such, John Paul had Kung’s teaching credentials revoked. I bring him up to illustrate that the issue isn’t simply a “Catholic church against the world” issue, and that there are very learned Catholic theologians who make strong cases that current church policy should be reformed.

We (Catholics) are mindful that Luther too considered himself a learned Catholic theologian who wanted church policies reformed!

The error may not be in the ‘consideration’ itself, but in pushing the point beyond what The Vicar has decreed.

There is absolutely no evidence in the Old Testament, New Testament, Sacred Tradition or Holy Writ that speaks of or to a priesthood of women! History may be littered with musings of theologians but when the dust is cleared, all will see that they are ‘musings.’

 

[Prophesy]

I’m in the middle of reading A Short History of the Catholic Church, by Hans Kung. He’s a Catholic priest who makes a strong case that the Church has many policies (current and historical) that are anti-woman.

It would be haughty to say that Küng’s teaching authority was revoked because of his criticism of John Paul II. Remember that we are talking about a Pope who visited people who shot him. John Paul the Great wasn’t a man who would have revoked Küng’s authority because he disagreed with him. Theologian’s don’t have teaching authority, that is reserved for the Magisterium, the theologians can be learned, but they’re not always right. Especially Küng.

-Prophecy

 

[choy]

He strongly advocated it, and, as you know, he was a major player in shaping doctrine in the early church days.

it was Paul who advocated celibacy, as evidenced by his epistles

 

[Scoobyshme]

I’m in the middle of reading A Short History of the Catholic Church, by Hans Kung. He’s a Catholic priest who makes a strong case that the Church has many policies (current and historical) that are anti-woman. He’s very critical of John Paul II, and as such, John Paul had Kung’s teaching credentials revoked. I bring him up to illustrate that the issue isn’t simply a “Catholic church against the world” issue, and that there are very learned Catholic theologians who make strong cases that current church policy should be reformed.

I’m reminded of Bishops Sheen’s statement once (he said it in Latin, but I don’t know how to spell it): The attack must always begin within the sanctuary.

Meaning that Satan always starts his attacks on the Church and Christ from within the Church. The attacks from without, I think, are easier to fend off or ignore. It’s the ones inside that are the most troubling.

During Vatican II, there was a cardinal sitting with some Protestant ministers who were there strictly for observation. They told him, “Your church is going down. It’s going to be destroyed.” The cardinal smiled at them and asked, “Well, are you boys going to bring Her down yourselves?” They remained silent. He smiled again, and said, “Look. We clergy have been trying to bring the Church down for 2000 years, and we haven’t been able to do it yet. What do you think you’re going to be able to do? This Church will be here when Jesus returns!” LOL

 

[mpartyka]

…Jesus had among his apostles married men. It was Peter who decided that they should be celibate.

Huh? There’s nothing in the Bible, by Peter or anyone else, that says priests can’t be married, or that they have to be celibate if they are married. Those strictures came later, and if the Church so decided, it could accept married priests again. In fact, I think the Church already does accept married priests from other denominations, such as Anglican, without requiring celibacy from them. The current prohibition is only against the Church’s ordaining married men, not against accepting the service of married men who have been ordained in other denominations. (I presume this recognition of the sacrament of holy orders in heretical or schismatic – not sure which is the proper term – faiths falls in line with the Church’s acceptance of the sacrament of baptism occurring in those faiths.)

As for the issue of women priests, aside from Paul’s explicit prohibitions I think the best argument comes from the fact that men are the head of the household – no one can read the New Testament and deny that (I hope) – and the Church is the household of God – i.e., it is a household made up of households. So, to appoint a woman as a priest would be a disruption of the order of the household – it would make a woman the head of a man (or many men, in fact), whereas in a household it’s clear that the man is the head of the woman (or women, going back to OT times). And if the woman priest is married, the confusion is multiplied, for now the woman priest is the head of her own husband as regards the household of God, whereas her husband is her head as regards their own household – who truly leads the Church (or her household) then, the woman bearing the priesthood, or her husband who is her head? The confusion is obvious. Therefore, because there is a divinely-appointed natural order in the household of man, there must needs be a divinely-appointed natural order in the household of God, too – with the man at the head.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

it was Paul who advocated celibacy, as evidenced by his epistles

Paul advocate celibacy in general (i.e., as the preferred way of life for everyone, if they could bear it and were meant by God to bear it), but when advising Timothy and Titus on how to recruit new bishops, he did not forbid them from choosing married men. Indeed, he encouraged Timothy and Titus to select men whose headship over their own households were exemplary of the headship they would have over the household of God – hardly a workable guideline if he were simultaneously encouraging Timothy and Titus to pick celibate men.

–Mike

 

[curlycool89]

Huh? There’s nothing in the Bible, by Peter or anyone else, that says priests can’t be married, or that they have to be celibate if they are married. Those strictures came later, and if the Church so decided, it could accept married priests again. In fact, I think the Church already does accept married priests from other denominations, such as Anglican, without requiring celibacy from them. The current prohibition is only against the Church’s ordaining married men, not against accepting the service of married men who have been ordained in other denominations. (I presume this recognition of the sacrament of holy orders in heretical or schismatic – not sure which is the proper term – faiths falls in line with the Church’s acceptance of the sacrament of baptism occurring in those faiths.)

Actually, in most cases (I would guess all of them) where a minister from another denomination converts they are ordained for the first time (outside of Catholicism, only the Orthodox and a few smaller groups have valid Orders. No mainstream protestant community does). It is within the Church’s power to ordain married men (as She did for many years, and as the Orthodox continue to validly do), it is currently just Her preference for celibate men (from what I’ve heard, when asked about reconsidering John Paul II banged his hand on the table and said “no”. Apparently Benedict may be more open to the idea).

Not all ministers from other denominations get ordained either (it’s not guaranteed). They have to write at least to Rome to apply for a dispensation from the normal promise of celibacy.

 

[bibleguy180]

As for the issue of women priests, aside from Paul’s explicit prohibitions I think the best argument comes from the fact that men are the head of the household – no one can read the New Testament and deny that (I hope) – and the Church is the household of God – i.e., it is a household made up of households. So, to appoint a woman as a priest would be a disruption of the order of the household – it would make a woman the head of a man (or many men, in fact), whereas in a household it’s clear that the man is the head of the woman (or women, going back to OT times).

This is really quite sad and honestly one of the most sexist things I’ve ever heard. :doh2:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think it bears repeating–as obviously too many haven’t heard it, or are trying to ignore it, that it is NOT a question about ‘allowing women to be priests’.

The fact of the matter is, The Church has no AUTHORITY to ordain women.

Can’t be done. There is simply no way possible for the Church to ordain women; it does not have authority.

The Church likewise has no authority to confect pizza and sangria as the Eucharist, though obviously pizza dough and bread have great similarity (wheat and water go into both, but pizza dough ‘adds’ other things, especially toppings!), and sangria contains wine but likewise has fruit juice added.

There is nothing wrong with eating pizza and drinking sangria. They are perfectly lovely ‘foods’ and ‘drinks’. . .but they simply are not valid matter for the Eucharist.

And since they are not, the Church has no authority to confect the Eucharist with something that is not valid matter.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, in most cases (I would guess all of them) where a minister from another denomination converts they are ordained for the first time (outside of Catholicism, only the Orthodox and a few smaller groups have valid Orders. No mainstream protestant community does). It is within the Church’s power to ordain married men (as She did for many years, and as the Orthodox continue to validly do), it is currently just Her preference for celibate men (from what I’ve heard, when asked about reconsidering John Paul II banged his hand on the table and said “no”. Apparently Benedict may be more open to the idea).

Not all ministers from other denominations get ordained either (it’s not guaranteed). They have to write at least to Rome to apply for a dispensation from the normal promise of celibacy.

It is permitted to be done for pastoral reasons - that is, to make it easier for those people and their followers to become and remain Catholic. Apart from pastoral reasons, it actually makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[jmcrae]

This is really quite sad and honestly one of the most sexist things I’ve ever heard. :doh2:

I’m betting St. Deborah would have thought so, too.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’ve read scholarship by Catholic theologians that most, if not all, of the apostles were married. So the idea that Peter wasn’t really married doesn’t pass muster.

Um, a widower has certainly been REALLY MARRIED so I fail to understand why you phrased it in that way? As we have mentioned rather frequently in this thread, nobody has disagreed that some of the apostles were probably married, or that married men had served at some times/places (and in some rites still do). That is not the point, and we aren’t trying to argue that St. Peter wasn’t ‘really married’. A widower has been married. We are trying to point out that the argument of ‘see, they were all married then, should be married now’ is a false one. That’s all. Some were, some were not, but there is no rock solid evidence either way that St. Peter was absolutely ‘married’ with a living wife or absolutely ‘widowed’ and therefore with no living wife. Only his mother-in-law is mentioned. It is specious reasoning to insist that he absolutely HAD TO HAVE a living wife because of the mention of the mother-in-law. And if people make that kind of ‘jump’ then they’ll make other incorrect ‘jumps’ as well if they aren’t put straight. Neither you nor I can say with absolutely certainty that St. Peter was married with a living wife or that he was a widower. . .you must admit that there is a possibility of either.

And with the possibility comes the sinking of the argument of ‘they were then, they must now’ and comes the fact of 'they could have been either then (married or single), they can be now, but the majority of them for pastoral reason choose to be single. THEY choose.

 

[Sullibe]

I’ve noticed that many keep stating, albeit accurately, that the reason the Catholic Church does not have women priests is because the Church does not have the Authority to ordain women priests. And while this is completely accurate, for many this does not make sense because they need an explanation of what it means to be a priest and the how the priesthood was originally instated.

Priests are not random men who happen to be ordained by the Church. Priests are people who are called by Christ himself to serve in his priesthood. It is the Catholic Church’s teaching, based on 2000 years of Tradition which in turn is based on the example set by Christ with his apostles, that Christ only calls men to the priesthood. Christ, despite numerous opportunities to allow many different women into his apostolic circle and bestow upon them the “rights” granted to his apostles, Christ chose only men to be his apostles. The apostles are the predecessors of the bishops and priests. Therefore, only men are called by Christ to be ordained as priests.

I hope that explanation helps.

 

[bibleguy180]

I’m betting St. Deborah would have thought so, too.

Who’s Saint Deborah?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Who’s Saint Deborah?

One of the Judges in the book of the same name.

 

[jmcrae]

Who’s Saint Deborah?

One of the Saints of the Old Testament. She became a Judge of Israel because of her prophetic abilities, and personally led Israel to victory in the battle against the Canaanites, after which she acted as advisor to Gideon. By following her advice to the letter, Gideon prevailed against the Midianites.

She was a prophet, she was the highest authority in Israel, and she was a general and a warrior. But she was never a priest - she left that one job alone for the men to do.

 

[mpartyka]

…there is no rock solid evidence either way that St. Peter was absolutely ‘married’ with a living wife or absolutely ‘widowed’ and therefore with no living wife.

1 Cor 9:5 – Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

“Cephas” was another name for Peter. Paul was basically saying, “Don’t I have the right to have a wife, just like Peter and the other apostles, or Jesus’ family, do?”

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

This is really quite sad and honestly one of the most sexist things I’ve ever heard. :doh2:

Why? How is what I said any more sexist than this?

Eph 5:22-24 – 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.

1 Pet 3:1-6 – Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their 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 Cor 14:34-35 – For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The principle is clear: The wife is to learn from her husband, who is head of the household. The husband, in turn, is to make sure he learns from the priest, who is head of the household of God, which is comprised of all the households in the congregation.

For a woman to have priestly authority over a man would introduce confusion in this order in the ways I have already explained.

I realize this makes some women chafe because they think that a wife’s reverence for her husband, and his leadership in the household, ought to be earned by him rather than simply be his given right as husband, but this view is clearly in opposition to Scripture. To me, then, the lesson for any woman contemplating marriage is, “Make sure you marry a man whom you find worthy of being your head, because once you’re married, that’s what he’ll be.”

–Mike