Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[CWBetts]

Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?

For the same reason that men can’t be consecrated virgins. It does not fit with the symbolism of the Sacrament.

 

[minkymurph]

For the same reason that men can’t be consecrated virgins. It does not fit with the symbolism of the Sacrament.

Now, this is an interesting comment. I suppose a man being a virgin and a woman being a virgin is a different thing. Never thought of it like that. Can you elaborate?

 

[CWBetts]

Now, this is an interesting comment. I suppose a man being a virgin and a woman being a virgin is a different thing. Never thought of it like that. Can you elaborate?

Consecrated virginity is a picture, or symbol, of the Church. A consecrated virgin consecrates her virginity to be a living image of the eschatological Bride. Brides are female, and therefore a single man no matter how pure, no matter how holy, cannot be a consecrated virgin because being male, he does not exemplify what is being symbolized. This is related to Holy Orders because the priest acts in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. Though God is without gender, or rather he transcends gender, in his incarnition, as Son, he lived in his incarnation as a male. To fully symbolize Christ, the priesthood must be male, otherwise the symbolism is imperfect.

 

[jmcrae]

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

Jesus is one Person of the Trinity - who happens to be a male Person. God the Father is without gender, and God the Holy Spirit is without gender, but Jesus, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, is male.

The priest images Jesus - this is why he has to be male.

 

[minkymurph]

Consecrated virginity is a picture, or symbol, of the Church. A consecrated virgin consecrates her virginity to be a living image of the eschatological Bride. Brides are female, and therefore a single man no matter how pure, no matter how holy, cannot be a consecrated virgin because being male, he does not exemplify what is being symbolized. This is related to Holy Orders because the priest acts in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. Though God is without gender, or rather he transcends gender, in his incarnition, as Son, he lived in his incarnation as a male. To fully symbolize Christ, the priesthood must be male, otherwise the symbolism is imperfect.

This is soooooooo interesting.

This is not a trick question. It’s an area of theology I’ve never even contemplated. The reason I ask is because of the way people thought in the past. People who needed to get married were somehow less holy because they could not control their sexual urges. I’m sure this is not what you mean, but you’ve opened up a new whole dimension of theological thinking to me.

I remember when I was being catechised, the person who journeyed my faith with me said priests could not marry because they stand in the person of Christ, and Christ did not marry. I don’t mean to derail the thread. I think this may be significant in relation to why Jesus did not marry, as as God, he could have married he could have chosen to, and why priests are not only male, but don’t marry. I love deep theological discussion. Please go on.

 

[CWBetts]

This is soooooooo interesting.

This is not a trick question. It’s an area of theology I’ve never even contemplated. The reason I ask is because of the way people thought in the past. People who needed to get married were somehow less holy because they could not control their sexual urges. I’m sure this is not what you mean, but you’ve opened up a new whole dimension of theological thinking to me.

I remember when I was being catechised, the person who journeyed my faith with me said priests could not marry because they stand in the person of Christ, and Christ did not marry. I don’t mean to derail the thread. I think this may be significant in relation to why Jesus did not marry, as as God, he could have married he could have chosen to, and why priests are not only male, but don’t marry. I love deep theological discussion. Please go on.

Priestly celibacy is a different matter. For this I will relate part of a talk given by Dr. Scott Hahn. Celibacy had a couple of end results. The first was the evangelization of Europe. Think about this. If you are a Vandal, or Goth, or Pict, or whatever, and strangers come your village what will be your assumption as far as what these strangers came for. Basically, these strangers will be after three things:

• your women
• your wealth
• your freedom

Yet these strangers by vow to their God, have renounced sex, money, and power. Would you not listen to their message?
Another point Dr. Hahn brings up is that had the clergy married, they would have intermarried with the nobility, and all the wealth and knowledge would be concentrated in the upper classes, and the poor would have permanently been mired in ignorance. Celibacy allowed priests to be chosen from all the classes, and allowed a way out of the refuse for the poor.
As for the origins of celibacy (which is a reformable discipline), it comes from Paul’s statements that it is better to be single, and Jesus’ discussions about “Eunuchs for the Kingdom”

 

[JimG]

Jesus is one Person of the Trinity - who happens to be a male Person. God the Father is without gender, and God the Holy Spirit is without gender, but Jesus, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, is male.

The priest images Jesus - this is why he has to be male.

The second person of the trinity became incarnate as a man, taking on a human nature. The divine nature has no gender, and there is but one divine nature. But Jesus is only one Person, possessing both the one divine nature and a human nature as a man. In his divinity, he possesses the same exact divine nature as the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[verum_peto_1]

Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?

It is only recently that women have been considered in our culture to be equal to men. The Church is slow to adapt to modern thinking, usually lagging by decades, or sometime centuries.

Indeed, in proportion to the duration of the institution of the Church, coverture has only recently been discarded. The gender issue continues to challenge the Church, as there is no longer any legal gender distinction in civil marriage, but the Church is stuck in a previous century. Be patient. The Church will adapt or disappear as it becomes increasingly irrelevant. The huge challenge is that the rate of change is increasing.

In response, the Church is retreating into tradition, as is shown by the selection of the current Pope. This does not bode well for the future viability of the Catholic Church.

 

[CWBetts]

It is only recently that women have been considered in our culture to be equal to men. The Church is slow to adapt to modern thinking, usually lagging by decades, or sometime centuries.

Indeed, in proportion to the duration of the institution of the Church, coverture has only recently been discarded. The gender issue continues to challenge the Church, as there is no longer any legal gender distinction in civil marriage, but the Church is stuck in a previous century. Be patient. The Church will adapt or disappear as it becomes increasingly irrelevant. The huge challenge is that the rate of change is increasing.

In response, the Church is retreating into tradition, as is shown by the selection of the current Pope. This does not bode well for the future viability of the Catholic Church.

This has nothing to do with “equality,” as it is no ones “right” to be a priest. If you read my two precious posts, there I give a fairly reasonable explanation

 

[JimG]

It is only recently that women have been considered in our culture to be equal to men. The Church is slow to adapt to modern thinking, usually lagging by decades, or sometime centuries.

Indeed, in proportion to the duration of the institution of the Church, coverture has only recently been discarded. The gender issue continues to challenge the Church, as there is no longer any legal gender distinction in civil marriage, but the Church is stuck in a previous century. Be patient. The Church will adapt or disappear as it becomes increasingly irrelevant. The huge challenge is that the rate of change is increasing.

In response, the Church is retreating into tradition, as is shown by the selection of the current Pope. This does not bode well for the future viability of the Catholic Church.

Since the Church is the only institution on the planet with a 2,000 year continuous history, I’m not particularly worried about it “adapting or disappearing.” It’s all those other institutions which have disappeared.

 

[jmcrae]

Since the Church is the only institution on the planet with a 2,000 year continuous history, I’m not particularly worried about it “adapting or disappearing.” It’s all those other institutions which have disappeared.

Quite so. It has never adapted in the past, and it was the structures who were trying to make it adapt that ended up disappearing; the Church remained, and got stronger.

 

[verum_peto_1]

Quite so. It has never adapted in the past, and it was the structures who were trying to make it adapt that ended up disappearing; the Church remained, and got stronger.

The Church has weakened, and continues to weaken. It can’t find enough priests or nuns, according to its own statements.

The current challenge, in my opinion, is similar to every other large organization. Governments are to moribund to act speedily enough to remain relevant. The Church has been even slower to adapt.

In previous centuries, this was not as much of an issue as it is today. The knowledge base in the past 100 years has grown more than in the previous 1,000 years. The next 20 years will yield more change than the previous 100 years, and so on.

The result will be the auction of Vatican art works and real estate to finance the retirement funds and the keep the private jet in the air, unless the Church decides to maintain its relevancy.

If you doubt this, consider that Portugal and Spain, two catholic countries, have endorsed gay marriage. Yet the Church struggles to understand the notions of God’s creation in terms of masturbation, a normal and morally neutral behavior. This is like showing up for a NASCAR race in a 1948 Rambler.

The rate of change in society, and the rate of advancement of knowlege was once such that the Church could afford to be a balwark conservatism. However, today it is becoming an irrelevant institution. It will fade away, and corrupt Vatican employees will will disappear with the art works.

If you doubt the corruption of the hierarchy of the Church, then consider the role that the bishops and the pope played in enabling the child molesters to continue molesting children. It was not an isolated case of one bishop making a mistake. The pope participated, and numerous bishops in the US, and now it is clear in other countries, in protecting child molesters and allowing children to be molested… all for political convenience.

These are the same people who claim to have the moral authority on issues of sexuality an marriage. Meanwhile, with current findings in sexuality. the Church declares itself to be irrelevant in matters of current discourse.

The time has come to accept God along with the diversity of his creation, and to reject those who are merely seeking power and political gain.

 

[jmcrae]

The Church has weakened, and continues to weaken. It can’t find enough priests or nuns, according to its own statements.

We have enough. It’s getting them to where they are needed that is the issue, at present.

If you doubt this, consider that Portugal and Spain, two catholic countries,

Both of these have traditionally Catholic populations, but neither of them has had a Catholic government in many decades - the power is with the atheists, and has been for a long time.

The rest of your post also shows a very shallow understanding both of what the Church teaches, and the current world situation.

 

[Deconi]

The Church has weakened, and continues to weaken. It can’t find enough priests or nuns, according to its own statements.

The current challenge, in my opinion, is similar to every other large organization. Governments are to moribund to act speedily enough to remain relevant. The Church has been even slower to adapt.

In previous centuries, this was not as much of an issue as it is today. The knowledge base in the past 100 years has grown more than in the previous 1,000 years. The next 20 years will yield more change than the previous 100 years, and so on.

The result will be the auction of Vatican art works and real estate to finance the retirement funds and the keep the private jet in the air, unless the Church decides to maintain its relevancy.

If you doubt this, consider that Portugal and Spain, two catholic countries, have endorsed gay marriage. Yet the Church struggles to understand the notions of God’s creation in terms of masturbation, a normal and morally neutral behavior. This is like showing up for a NASCAR race in a 1948 Rambler.

The rate of change in society, and the rate of advancement of knowlege was once such that the Church could afford to be a balwark conservatism. However, today it is becoming an irrelevant institution. It will fade away, and corrupt Vatican employees will will disappear with the art works.

If you doubt the corruption of the hierarchy of the Church, then consider the role that the bishops and the pope played in enabling the child molesters to continue molesting children. It was not an isolated case of one bishop making a mistake. The pope participated, and numerous bishops in the US, and now it is clear in other countries, in protecting child molesters and allowing children to be molested… all for political convenience.

These are the same people who claim to have the moral authority on issues of sexuality an marriage. Meanwhile, with current findings in sexuality. the Church declares itself to be irrelevant in matters of current discourse.

The time has come to accept God along with the diversity of his creation, and to reject those who are merely seeking power and political gain.

Shallow is where the view has a cursory knowledge of a subject.

IGNORANT is where the view has preconcieved NOTION of a subject and usually incorrect.

This entire post suffers the latter although it reeks of a shallow knowledge of being a Catholic!

 

[Vince1022]

He was a strong early advocate for it.

Where? What evidence? I wasn’t aware of this and would like to know. Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

The Catholic Church does not base its teaching on the ordination of women on the fact that Jesus was male.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Whether or not this teaching has been taught infallibly is open to speculation. Canonists and theologians and bishops disagree.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Whether or not this teaching has been taught infallibly is open to speculation. Canonists and theologians and bishops disagree.

Sorry, but Pope John Paul II in 1994 affirmed that this was part of the infallible deposit of the faith.

**Canonists, theologians, and bishops can be–and often are–in error. Their roles do not protect them, especially if they have become confused and put themselves ‘against’ the Church. The Church–and especially the Pope, even if not speaking ‘ex cathedra’, if he speaks on matters of faith and morals in affirming a particular practice as being authoritative, is teaching ‘infallibly’. **
**
I mean, what part of “The Church has no authority to ordain women” (Pope John Paul II) is 'open to speculation"?

That somehow the Church will be GRANTED AUTHORITY? If so, why not include “at this time” in the papal wording? **

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

Because it simply is not possible…for a Sacrament to be valid, it requires proper form and proper matter—Women are not proper matter for confecting the Sacrament of Holy Orders, therefore, it is an impossibility, even if the Church wanted to do so, to ordain a woman to the priesthood…which means that all of those women running around playing fake priestess in their heretical churches are just imposters…they are not capable of being ordained as priests.

Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

You know nothing about THe Catholic Church…if you did, you would know that the viability of The Catholic Church is GUARANTEED by Christ Himself!!! I have no worries when The Divine Creator has promised us such…

It is only recently that women have been considered in our culture to be equal to men. The Church is slow to adapt to modern thinking, usually lagging by decades, or sometime centuries.

Indeed, in proportion to the duration of the institution of the Church, coverture has only recently been discarded. The gender issue continues to challenge the Church, as there is no longer any legal gender distinction in civil marriage, but the Church is stuck in a previous century. Be patient. The Church will adapt or disappear as it becomes increasingly irrelevant. The huge challenge is that the rate of change is increasing.

In response, the Church is retreating into tradition, as is shown by the selection of the current Pope. This does not bode well for the future viability of the Catholic Church.