Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[minkymurph]

Why do people think for a moment that the Bible was written with difficulty by men?

The bible writers themselves also tell us that on occasion, they did not fully understand what they were writing. Isaiah did not fully understand his mission. Daniel did not fully understand what was revealed to him through inspiration.

There are of course people who believe the bible was dictated word for word by God because of their understanding of the term ‘inspiration.’ In which case, the writers would have had no difficulty writing the bible.

However, there are others who do not understand the term ‘inspiration’ to mean dictated word for word. In which case, it is feasible the authors of the bible would needed to give greater consideration to the literary construction of their work than if it was simply dictated.

 

[marymary1975]

With regard to the original question I agree with this:

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.

I think a woman can “pretend” to play a male role: dress like a man, act like a man and do exactly what a man does so it looks as real as possible. But because she is not a man it stays there, as a pretention, it is not real, it is just acting therefore it is not perfect. God is perfect and he wants things perfect. I think Jesus wanted someone acting as him 100% and because he wanted things to be perfect and real he wanted someone who could represent him on every extent even biologically. As a result of that the church doesn’t have authority to change it. At least that is how I see it.

Now, I don’t get what is the big issue over why women can’t be ordered priest because just being a priest doesn’t grant any special status to anybody under the eyes of God. Any person that has a religious vocation should be motivated because of a desire to serve the lord. Religious vocations are not jobs where you do what you want and the way you want. They are about what God wants from me and many times what God wants might be contrary to what I want. Wanting to be in X position (a priest) just because I want to be there, to me is not a real desire to serve the lord. Just because Jesus assigned two very specific tasks (mass and confessions) to men so they could act in his person, that doesn’t mean that a woman with a real vocation to serve the lord can’t do it.

You don’t have to be a priest to follow a religious vocation. Both men and women can serve the lord and there are many women in the church who had done it way better than many priests. Mother Theresa is a great example. She had more influence that any living priest that I know and I am sure that even the Pope used to listen to her. Lucia, one of the three kids from Fatima, the Pope met with her several times and he asked her for her (name removed by moderator)ut many times. I’m sure she had more influence on the Pope than any of his Cardinals. And what about Saint Francis of Assisi, he was never a priest and he never wanted to be a priest. Does anybody remembers the name of the bishop (a priest) that he was taken to? I bet no. We don’t have any idea who was that bishop or the priests around his town, but everybody knows who Saint Francis was and he did way more than many priests without even being one.

 

[minkymurph]

Now, I don’t get what is the big issue over why women can’t be ordered priest because just being a priest doesn’t grant any special status to anybody under the eyes of God.

I agree with you. The ‘big issue’ is due to the fact that the maleness of Christ and ordination of men as priests has been misinterpreted and misused.

It has been misinterpreted to mean women are subordinate to men; not just in the Church and marriage, but society as a whole.

It has been misused to dominate women, and make them feel they are not only some kind of inferior being, but God created them such.

I would say that is what caused the issue.

However, it happened, it’s in the past, and women should get over it. The vast majority of men do not think like this, and would dismiss past notions of women as the ridiculous notions they are. A small minority of men do think women are some kind of inferior being, but we don’t need to concern ourselves with their views.

Society as a whole is not the authoritarian, male dominated society it was in the past. The dark days of the past where Priests, fathers, and men in general, where authoritarian figures who administered discipline, are over. Consequently, there has been great healing between men and women, greater cooperation, and greater understanding and acceptance of each other.

These changes in thinking have also led to greater understanding of the roles of men and women, clerics and the laity in the Church. Therefore, the fact that the Catholic Church does not ordain women is not so much of an issue. Maybe there are a few radical feminists out there who believe they should be, but I don’t know any.

Personally speaking, I’m a great believer in delegating responsibility. I’m quite happy not to have the responsibility of being a priest. One man and two young kids to look after is quite enough for me. :extrahappy:

 

[JimG]

I agree with you. The ‘big issue’ is due to the fact that the maleness of Christ and ordination of men as priests has been misinterpreted and misused.

It has been misinterpreted to mean women are subordinate to men; not just in the Church and marriage, but society as a whole.

It has been misused to dominate women, and make them feel they are not only some kind of inferior being, but God created them such.

Speaking for myself, it seems to me that this misuse and misunderstanding has only been prevalent since the rise of extreme feminist ideology. In previous years, it seems not to have been much of an issue, and women generally did not interpret the fact of a male priesthood to be indicative of a subordination of women.

 

[jmcrae]

Speaking for myself, it seems to me that this misuse and misunderstanding has only been prevalent since the rise of extreme feminist ideology. In previous years, it seems not to have been much of an issue, and women generally did not interpret the fact of a male priesthood to be indicative of a subordination of women.

Possibly. “Regular” feminism was around for too short a time to know whether the equality of women, in and of itself, is a contributing factor in this misunderstanding. Prior to that, the priesthood was just one on a long list of things that women weren’t allowed to do. Today, it’s about the only thing left, that women can’t do.

 

[minkymurph]

Speaking for myself, it seems to me that this misuse and misunderstanding has only been prevalent since the rise of extreme feminist ideology. In previous years, it seems not to have been much of an issue, and women generally did not interpret the fact of a male priesthood to be indicative of a subordination of women.

This is an interesting post. It could be argued it was not much of an issue because men dominated, and women accepted their place. Feminist ideology arose for a reason. It did not arise because women are naughty and don’t know their place. Feminism was not all bad because in the past, women had little in the way of human rights. However, I don’t think you are eluding to this in your post. I think you may be hitting on something else. The reason women did not interpret the fact of a male priesthood to be indicative of subordination of women was because it has was not a belief associated with human rights but sacramentality? They had a deep understanding of the Incarnation and Sacramentality and therefore, did not have an issue with the male priesthood for those reasons?

Being a covert, I have no knowledge of Catholicism before Vatican II. Therefore, I have no knowledge or understanding of the development of faith, other than what I read in books. Perhaps Catholics who have seen great change could shed light on the status of men and women in the church in the past and today.

Would this help the original poster who started the thread reason on why the Catholic Church does not ordain women? I have seen no evidence in this thread it is because the Catholic Church thinks women cannot be ordained because they are subordinate to men. I have seen no evidence reasoning, thinking, rational men and women think this. I would say it has to do with the Catholic understanding of sacramentality. Get to grips with this, women not being priests is no longer an issue.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is an interesting post. It could be argued it was not much of an issue because men dominated, and women accepted their place. Feminist ideology arose for a reason. It did not arise because women are naughty and don’t know their place. Feminism was not all bad because in the past, women had little in the way of human rights. However, I don’t think you are eluding to this in your post. I think you may be hitting on something else. The reason women did not interpret the fact of a male priesthood to be indicative of subordination of women was because it has was not a belief associated with human rights but sacramentality? They had a deep understanding of the Incarnation and Sacramentality and therefore, did not have an issue with the male priesthood for those reasons?

Being a covert, I have no knowledge of Catholicism before Vatican II. Therefore, I have no knowledge or understanding of the development of faith, other than what I read in books. Perhaps Catholics who have seen great change could shed light on the status of men and women in the church in the past and today.

Would this help the original poster who started the thread reason on why the Catholic Church does not ordain women? I have seen no evidence in this thread it is because the Catholic Church thinks women cannot be ordained because they are subordinate to men. I have seen no evidence reasoning, thinking, rational men and women think this. I would say it has to do with the Catholic understanding of sacramentality. Get to grips with this, women not being priests is no longer an issue.

Actually, throughout history and culture, individual women (as well as women as a whole) have varied in their ‘rights’. At certain points and in certain cultures women (rich or poor, married or single) could own property, had a certain equality, could work at jobs ‘equally’ with men, etc. And at other points, they couldn’t. A lot of the times it was economics that drove things – If a society was peaceful, for example, one would think there would be ‘more equality’–but actually, it was less likely, because a peaceful society had more males in need of being able to sustain themselves and their families–thus, less ‘opportunity’ for women. Also, with more available males (not being away fighting, or killed in war) there were more opportunities for women to marry, and to be less likely to be working ‘outside the home.’ On the other hand, while the woman might have less opportunity for ‘jobs’, she was likely to have a better standard of living, and a better ‘quality of life’ as a homemaker. Contented men and a stable life might be stultifying but women usually had (with ‘happier’ husbands) more ‘worth’ as both companions, ‘mothers’, and generally being seen as ‘good examples’. They had less chance of having ‘physical power’ but they also had MORE chance of not being marginalized, raped, prostituted, etc.

If a society was in upheaval there were more opportunities in a way-- if men were out at war, SOMEBODY had to run the farm, sell the goods, do the labor–and of course, it was women–and that meant more ‘physical power’ opportunities. On the other hand, with fewer men there was less likelihood of marriage, more women having to support themselves through fields like prostitution, more women available for ‘jobs’ but less of a wage given (in order to keep money available to send out to the men, etc.)–so there was a greater change of a lack of stability which meant you either got MORE opportunity if you were ‘successful’ OR more chance of being desperately poor, having to engage in menial labor for slave wages, and overall being seen as ‘less desirable’ not just in body but in ‘worth’ all the way round.

Now examine ‘modern’ history. You had a huge ‘upheaval’ pretty much from the 16th century on–wars, nationalism, the Industrial Revolution–a very ‘unstable’ society. Then you had the “Victorian” years (the late 1800s) which were all ‘peace and plenty’ for many people and an exaggerated effect of the ‘contented little woman and the breadwinner male’ presented as an ideal. THEN you had the 20th century and you had war, then a depression, then a war – UNSTABLE society again with both opportunity for ‘good power’ and for ‘bad’. . then a few brief years of ‘stable society’ with the 1950s ‘happy home’ and then you had instability again. . .only this instability wasn’t just in one country or society, it was global. AND it was publicized incessantly. AND it was generated, and it was ‘fed’ and it was made into a battle between ALL men and ALL women. . .and look at the results. . .

A few women with great opportunities for power.
A lot of women who are marginalized and brutalized.

And women in between who are actually in some cases making themselves miserable by having a skewed view of men which causes them to dismiss marriage ‘out of hand.’ And men with a skewed view of women in which rather than considering the ‘ideal’ woman as helper (the ‘stable society’ view), he still looks at her with the ‘instability’ view of either a woman who is out to ‘outman the men’ for power, or there to be a ‘thing’ to use. . .

 

[JimG]

I agree with Tantum ergo’s post. I’m just thinking that in the halcyon days of my youth, both men and women seemed to have had less skewed views of each other.

There also seems to be a sort of undercurrent trend going on lately, where more young women are saying, “not only do I not want to be a priest, I do want to be a mother and not turn my kids over to strangers! Give me a man who has proven himself capable of supporting a wife and family!”

OK, now I may be in trouble.

 

[minkymurph]

Actually, throughout history and culture, individual women (as well as women as a whole) have varied in their ‘rights’. At certain points and in certain cultures women (rich or poor, married or single) could own property, had a certain equality, could work at jobs ‘equally’ with men, etc. And at other points, they couldn’t. A lot of the times it was economics that drove things – If a society was peaceful, for example, one would think there would be ‘more equality’–but actually, it was less likely, because a peaceful society had more males in need of being able to sustain themselves and their families–thus, less ‘opportunity’ for women. Also, with more available males (not being away fighting, or killed in war) there were more opportunities for women to marry, and to be less likely to be working ‘outside the home.’ On the other hand, while the woman might have less opportunity for ‘jobs’, she was likely to have a better standard of living, and a better ‘quality of life’ as a homemaker. Contented men and a stable life might be stultifying but women usually had (with ‘happier’ husbands) more ‘worth’ as both companions, ‘mothers’, and generally being seen as ‘good examples’. They had less chance of having ‘physical power’ but they also had MORE chance of not being marginalized, raped, prostituted, etc.

If a society was in upheaval there were more opportunities in a way-- if men were out at war, SOMEBODY had to run the farm, sell the goods, do the labor–and of course, it was women–and that meant more ‘physical power’ opportunities. On the other hand, with fewer men there was less likelihood of marriage, more women having to support themselves through fields like prostitution, more women available for ‘jobs’ but less of a wage given (in order to keep money available to send out to the men, etc.)–so there was a greater change of a lack of stability which meant you either got MORE opportunity if you were ‘successful’ OR more chance of being desperately poor, having to engage in menial labor for slave wages, and overall being seen as ‘less desirable’ not just in body but in ‘worth’ all the way round.

Now examine ‘modern’ history. You had a huge ‘upheaval’ pretty much from the 16th century on–wars, nationalism, the Industrial Revolution–a very ‘unstable’ society. Then you had the “Victorian” years (the late 1800s) which were all ‘peace and plenty’ for many people and an exaggerated effect of the ‘contented little woman and the breadwinner male’ presented as an ideal. THEN you had the 20th century and you had war, then a depression, then a war – UNSTABLE society again with both opportunity for ‘good power’ and for ‘bad’. . then a few brief years of ‘stable society’ with the 1950s ‘happy home’ and then you had instability again. . .only this instability wasn’t just in one country or society, it was global. AND it was publicized incessantly. AND it was generated, and it was ‘fed’ and it was made into a battle between ALL men and ALL women. . .and look at the results. . .

A few women with great opportunities for power.
A lot of women who are marginalized and brutalized.

And women in between who are actually in some cases making themselves miserable by having a skewed view of men which causes them to dismiss marriage ‘out of hand.’ And men with a skewed view of women in which rather than considering the ‘ideal’ woman as helper (the ‘stable society’ view), he still looks at her with the ‘instability’ view of either a woman who is out to ‘outman the men’ for power, or there to be a ‘thing’ to use. . .

Yes, you could go on forever about a woman’s role in different cultures at different points of history. I was thinking on what drove the feminist movement in western society.

I believe in Tibet women can have more than one husband but men can only have one wife. There are some who would argue women are getting a raw deal again!
On the other hand, it could have certain advantages.

 

[minkymurph]

I agree with Tantum ergo’s post. I’m just thinking that in the halcyon days of my youth, both men and women seemed to have had less skewed views of each other.

There also seems to be a sort of undercurrent trend going on lately, where more young women are saying, “not only do I not want to be a priest, I do want to be a mother and not turn my kids over to strangers! Give me a man who has proven himself capable of supporting a wife and family!”

OK, now I may be in trouble.

I wouldn’t say you are in trouble. Women do want a men who can offer them financial security,
which is plain common sense, and children being cared for by strangers is by no stretch of the imagination ideal.

According to a recent radio report, few young women today describe themselves as feminsts. They are quite happy being women and chilbearers, and don’t feel they have to compete with men. This could be because attitudes to women and childbearing have changed and young women are more comfortable with themselves and have greater confidence and self esteem as a result.

Perhaps in the past men and women had less skewed views of each other because they needed each other more. Today, individualism prevails and not only do some women want to have a child without a man. they can! Gay couples want to have children, where will it all end?

A recent newspaper report states that children conceived by sperm donor are having more emotional problems, and are more prone to depression and drug addiction.

Yep, there’s something to be said for traditional roles.

 

[Modelsim]

simply because Jesus himself never chose any women to be priests
while women played important roles in Jesus’ ministry on earth, none of them had the same roles as the Apostles, who are the ordained

People usually respond to this claim by stating that Jesus probably factored that nobody would listen to women and therefore didn’t choose any to prevent scandal.

My response is that Jesus rejected many societal norms and was considered radical for His day. Having a woman as a follower would be considered a mild rejection of norms compared to His other acts.

 

[Prophesy]

My response is that Jesus rejected many societal norms and was considered radical for His day. Having a woman as a follower would be considered a mild rejection of norms compared to His other acts.

Chasing the animals and money changers out of the Temple would be an interesting sight for sure. =p

-Prophecy

 

[jmcrae]

People usually respond to this claim by stating that Jesus probably factored that nobody would listen to women and therefore didn’t choose any to prevent scandal.

Yeah, because Jesus was sooo sensitive to public opinion, and never did anything to upset the authorities.

My response is that Jesus rejected many societal norms and was considered radical for His day. Having a woman as a follower would be considered a mild rejection of norms compared to His other acts.

 

[minkymurph]

People usually respond to this claim by stating that Jesus probably factored that nobody would listen to women and therefore didn’t choose any to prevent scandal.

My response is that Jesus rejected many societal norms and was considered radical for His day. Having a woman as a follower would be considered a mild rejection of norms compared to His other acts.

I think we can safely say that a virgin birth was pretty much a rejection of the norm!

 

[diggerdomer]

No, but Jesus is male, and will be for all of eternity - and the priest is not an image of God - all baptized persons are images of God - but the priest is an image of Christ, who was an image of Adam, who was the first male human being.

Jesus is also God, and God is neither male nor female.

 

[diggerdomer]

Because **the Church has no authority to ordain women. Not ‘then’, not ‘now’, not ‘ever’. **

Did the Church ever decide to change the definition of God from Trinity to Quartet?

Did the Church ever decide to change the species of the Eucharist to beer and pretzels, or something other than bread and wine?

Did the Church ever decide that we can baptize with milk or Kool Aid instead of water?

No. . .because valid matter and truth do not change.

---

Inability to ordain women (of whom I am one) has nothing at all to do with biology, EVERYTHING to do with the fact that this is part of the infallible deposit of the faith, explicitly stated most recently by Pope John Paul II in 1994. Nothing at all to do with the fact that God is not male or female in spirit (though certainly the Second Person became incarnate as a human male and specifically noted that the First Person is FATHER (not mother) and the Third Person ‘overshadowed’ the Blessed Virgin . . .and usually a child is conceived through male (masculine) AND female (feminine); if the Blessed Mother is female/feminine (and she is) then the ‘generator’ in God would appear to be male (masculine). . .making God, while a Spirit per se ‘beyond’ the human concept of male/female rather definitely ‘male’ in Christ Jesus --the person who specifically a priest stands in "alter Christus’ to. . .

It’s not part of the infallible deposit of faith while of course John Paul II’s teaching is binding.

 

[diggerdomer]

And Church teaching is based, according to the pope, on the fact that the Church has no authority to ordain women.

Women are not men. Men are not women. They are not interchangeable. Something that we may have forgotten, but nature has not.

Men will never be mothers. Women will never be fathers.

It’s rather like saying, men can’t be mothers now, but someday, maybe…

No kidding men are not women and vice versa.

Again, that is not a reason for not ordaining women.

The teaching of the Church, that She has no authority to ordain women, is based simply on precedent, not biology.

 

[JimG]

No kidding men are not women and vice versa.

Again, that is not a reason for not ordaining women.

The teaching of the Church, that She has no authority to ordain women, is based simply on precedent, not biology.

I disagree somewhat. Yes, the ruling is based on precedent, in that Jesus did not ordain women. But why not? Because women are not men. Gender is not simply biological. Each of us will be male or female not only here on earth but in heaven. Even in purgatory, separated from our bodies, we remain male and female.

A priest must act, in the person of Christ. Christ is male. Now, a woman may pretend to be male, just as a man may pretend to be female. That does not change the fact that he or she is ontologically either male or female. They are not interchangeable.

To act in the person of Christ requires that a priest be male.

If Christ had been female, it would have been ontologically impossible for a man to act in the person of Christ.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No kidding men are not women and vice versa.

Again, that is not a reason for not ordaining women.

The teaching of the Church, that She has no authority to ordain women, is based simply on precedent, not biology.

I disagree. It is not simply precedent; yet you are correct in that it is not (strictly speaking) biology, if by ‘biology’ is meant that women and men are equal in dignity and soul, yet are not interchangeable in ‘role’.

The teaching of the Church in this matter is indeed part of the infallible deposit of faith, reiterated by Pope John Paul II.

And it is a good reason. The Church has no authority to ordain women.

Not ‘just’ because of biology and its effect on men and women in the role they have for Almighty God as men and women.

Not ‘just’ because it is a precedent from the beginning.

Not ‘just’ because it is ‘a’ teaching.

Because it is God’s teaching.

**Unlike the discipline for priests, whereby at one point in historical time married or single men could aspire to the priestly status, while today the norm and discipline in the Latin rite is for single men, with married men only under specific circumstances, the teaching regarding the Church’s lack of authority to ordain women is not something that can ‘change’ and become, in the future, a teaching whereby women can be ordained. **

Men are men–married or single. Thus, the ‘narrowing’ of a group (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to choose one ‘category’ above another is not a CHANGE in the specific teaching whereby A man could be called to the priesthood.

But women are not men. It would not be ‘opening the group’ for women to become eligible to be priests, as though they had been ‘excluded’ before and were just getting ‘redressed’ now. It would be putting forward an entirely new category. The Church has no authority to do such a thing.

**The Eucharist is bread and wine. The Church has no authority (as we know well from even the last few years) to take a substance which lacks the gluten of wheat, and to present it as ‘gluten-free bread’ and to offer it as bread. No more does it have the authority to take grape juice (surely made in its essence of the same nature as wine) and offer it as wine. It doesn’t matter that both gluten-free ‘bread’ and grape juice contain the same ‘essentials’ so to speak as bread and wine–they are not bread and wine. They are not INFERIOR to bread and wine either. THEY ARE SIMILAR YET SO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT. They are not valid matter for the Eucharist despite their similarities and their intrinsic worth–not because they are INFERIOR but because the Church in its God-given authority is to use BREAD and WINE, by the word of GOD, and it is NOT to use gluten-free bread and grape juice, by the word of God. **

Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

 

[minkymurph]

Anyone want to have a go at why we use bread and wine?

I can recall the priest who lectures on the sacraments saying it was a symbol of our work, the work of our hands is offered to God in sacrifice and a sacrifice of ourselves.

Water is used in baptism. It symbolises what it effects, cleansing. That is why you can’t use Coke or milk. A sacrament is not valid unless proper matter and form are used. That is why the Church cannot marry gays, (so my priest says) because the form is a man and a woman, not two men and not two women. If two men or two women can marry, why can’t three men or three women marry each other if they all consent? Why should the law not be changed to allow this it the form doesn’t matter?

This being the case, everything that is a sacrifice, or more significantly, a sacrament, is a symbol of what they effect. The Eucharist is a sacrament, the priest is a symbol of the sacrifice of Christ, through one man sin entered the world …

Anyone want to take this train of thought any further?