Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[Vince1022]

Ok.

But, “all doubt has been removed”. It is not open to debate. You, as a faithful Catholic, must hold the belief that the CC cannot confer ordination on women.

Do you agree with that? That you as a Catholic, based on the above documentation, cannot believe otherwise?

Yes, of course the current Church teaching is such. But it’s not taught infallibly.

 

[Vince1022]

“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, **in order that all doubt may be removed **regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) **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

Infallible!

Not infallible. Read canon law.

 

[Vince1022]

“Infallible teachings” are not limited to the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

To insist that the question of the ordination of women remains open because John Paul II did not issue an ‘ex cathedra’ document but merely stated that the Church had no authority to ordain women, and this was a 'definitive teaching that is to be held by all the faithful, but that John Paul II’s ‘statement’ somehow 'is less’ than an ‘infallible declaration’ and, as such ‘could’ change, is to ignore the Ordinary Magesterium and ecumenical councils, through both of which we possess as Catholics a bevy of infallible teachings.

It’s not a matter of insisting the question remains open, but rather that the teaching of John Paul was or was not taught infallibly. I’ve seen no conclusive evidence that the Church considers it an infallibly taught teaching. That is completely separate from whether it’s binding or not on the faithful.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, I can understand why you would say the last sentence is problematic.

Sacrificing your life for someone else doesn’t make your life more important. The last
time I had this discussion with someone they thought I was saying, that as the sacrifice of a man’s life is more acceptable, the female’s life is more important. In fact, the poster who replied to me, who incidently was male, went further and said men are more expendible because as childbearers, women are more valuable to society.

To explain further, there is greater reaction when a female police officer, of fire fighter is killed in the line of duty. Society is often repulsed to a greater extent by certain crimes committed against women.

I wasn’t suggesting that we should think it’s more acceptable for a man to give his life than a woman. Neither was I suggesting this makes a man’s life more important than a woman’s. I was probing into why] in Western culture, and many other cultures, we consider the sacrifice of man’s life somehow more acceptable than the sacrifice of a woman’s life.

Thanks. I’m not worrying so much about culture as I am about Catholic teaching. So, you’re not saying Catholic teaching says a man’s sacrifice (of life or whatever) if more acceptable than a woman’s, right?

 

[diggerdomer]

If you are are saying that the teaching which states that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood has not been infallibly taught, then you are incorrect. Then cardinal Ratzinger, acting as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, noted that this is an infallible teaching:

Emphasis is mine.

The problem with that argument, as many Bishops and Canon lawyers note, is that the CDF (including the Prefect) is not graced with the charism of teaching infallibly.

 

[PRmerger]

Not infallible. Read canon law.

As I said earlier, ok…

So it’s not “infallible”

But it’s to be held, definitively, by you that women cannot be ordained, yes?

All doubt has been removed, yes?

It is not open to judgment, yes?

What say you, a Catholic, to this, Vince?

 

[minkymurph]

Thanks. I’m not worrying so much about culture as I am about Catholic teaching. So, you’re not saying Catholic teaching says a man’s sacrifice (of life or whatever) if more acceptable than a woman’s, right?

No, I’m not saying Catholic teaching says a man’s sacrifice is more acceptable than a woman’s. I suppose what I’m really exploring is the Incarnation as much of Catholic theology stems from our understanding of the Incarnation. Marian theology and sacramentality is centered around our understanding of the Incarnation.

According to Catholic teaching, the Mass is an actual sacrifice. The person who offers the Mass has to be male. The Church doesn’t come up with these things just for the sake of it. I’m just exploring the reasons why the person who offers the sacrifice has to be male. Yes, it’s because Christ was male but there’s there’s a reason why Christ became Incarnate as male and not female. The ‘because the man’s a head of a woman’ arguement doesn’t hold up. The scriptures also state sin entered into the world ‘through one man,’ but why did sin enter the world through the man, making it necessary for a man to be sacrificed? Adam and Eve both sinned. Why does Paul not say ‘through one human pair?’

It’s an interesting dimesion of theology.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, of course the current Church teaching is such. But it’s not taught infallibly.

I believe that it is part of the Ordinary Magesterium and as such, part of the deposit of the faith. It has not been proclaimed ex cathedra but that does not mean it is not infallible teaching.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’ll repeat, "infallible teachings’ are NOT restricted to the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

Trying to play semantics and wiggling around with the word ‘infallibly’ does what? Does it help to make the teaching clearer? Does it incline the reader to obey or to object?

If a person is claiming, “But it’s not INFALLIBLE teaching” what exactly then is the person trying to say? That it ‘could be changed’? IOW. . .that we can ignore the current teaching, that we don’t have to hold this as a definitive teaching to be agreed upon by the faithful?

I would feel a lot more ‘comfortable’ if after every pedantic ‘correction’ of 'It’s not taught infallibly" I would see something like, "but, as John Paul II noted, it is a teaching to be held definitively by the faithful so until or IF we have an infallible teaching to the CONTRARY, I will come out and say, the authoritative teaching of the Church is that it has no authority to ordain women and this teaching is to be held DEFINITIVELY by the faithful. "

Gee, how come I just about NEVER would see THAT sentence after "I think it’s not an INFALLIBLE teaching?’ Huh? How come?

Because, chickiboos, what JP 2 said in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis IS the teaching. So please stop trying to say that it isn’t and that it is ‘up for change’.

 

[jmcrae]

Not infallible. Read canon law.

Sorry?

I am under the impression that the phrase “I declare” or “I define” when used by the Pope while speaking on matters of Church teaching is the identifying mark of an infallible statement.

The Pope does, in fact, use the phrase “I declare” just before stating that it is not possible for the Church to confer priestly ordination on women - which signifies that this is, in fact, an infallible statement.

 

[EquusNomVeritas]

The problem with that argument, as many Bishops and Canon lawyers note, is that the CDF (including the Prefect) is not graced with the charism of teaching infallibly.

The CDF wasn’t teaching infallibly, merely noting that the statement concerning ordaining women to the priesthood is infallible. I cited it in response to your earlier statement that

diggerdomer:

Whether or not it was taught infallibly is a matter of speculation; which according to Canon Law would seem to suggest that it has not been taught, definitively, infallibly.

What more do you want, to remove whatever speculation is left so that it is clearly taught in an infallible manner? As Tantum Ergo has noted,

Tantum_Ergo:

it is part of the Ordinary Magesterium and as such, part of the deposit of the faith. It has not been proclaimed ex cathedra but that does not mean it is not infallible teaching.

Thus, it is not infallibly proclaimed ex cathedra by our late great pope as a “new” dogma (meaning a newly defined dogma); rather, he simply states that this has always been a part of the deposit of faith through the Ordinary Magisterium. The CDF reinforces this statement, clarifying that this is indeed an unchangeable, infallible teaching.

I’m not sure that continuing to press this discussion in this manner is fruitful, though, and I don’t want to hijack this thread (even if that is the direction which we are heading). I think a better question to ask, then, is this:
What would it take to make whether or not the teaching’s infallibility is anything other than “a matter of speculation; which…would seem to suggest that it has not been taught, definitively, infallibly?” That is to ask, what more would you say is needed for the speculation regarding this teaching’s infallibility to be removed?

 

[jmcrae]

According to Catholic teaching, the Mass is an actual sacrifice. The person who offers the Mass has to be male.

Right.

The Church doesn’t come up with these things just for the sake of it. I’m just exploring the reasons why the person who offers the sacrifice has to be male. Yes, it’s because Christ was male but there’s there’s a reason why Christ became Incarnate as male and not female.

Right.

The ‘because the man’s a head of a woman’ arguement doesn’t hold up.

Right.

The scriptures also state sin entered into the world ‘through one man,’ but why did sin enter the world through the man, making it necessary for a man to be sacrificed? Adam and Eve both sinned. Why does Paul not say ‘through one human pair?’

It’s an interesting dimesion of theology.

I feel like I’m explaining this for the thousandth time, but here goes, once again:

Eve’s sin was not mortal sin - she was coerced under pressure. The Devil wheedled and persuaded her for quite a long time before she was finally talked into biting the forbidden fruit.

Adam knew that Eve had done wrong; yet, rather than reversing the effect of the sin by, a) not partaking in it, and b) making an atoning sacrifice for it on Eve’s behalf, instead, he, without any coercion whatsoever, freely and under his own power, committed the sin with her.

Adam’s sin, therefore, was mortal - it was Adam’s sin that severed the bond of relationship with God.

It is to make up for Adam’s lack that it is the man who must act as priest, making the sacrifices that atone for the sins of the whole world. That’s why Jesus came as a male person - a “second Adam” - to make the sacrifice that Adam had left unmade.

Mary is the “second Eve”, undoing by her “yes” to God what Eve did by means of her “yes” to the Devil. Mary’s small act led to Jesus’ great act of salvation, just as Eve’s small act opened the way for Adam’s great act of destruction.

 

[minkymurph]

Right.

I feel like I’m explaining this for the thousandth time, but here goes, once again:

Eve’s sin was not mortal sin - she was coerced under pressure. The Devil wheedled and persuaded her for quite a long time before she was finally talked into biting the forbidden fruit.

Adam knew that Eve had done wrong; yet, rather than reversing the effect of the sin by, a) not partaking in it, and b) making an atoning sacrifice for it on Eve’s behalf, instead, he, without any coercion whatsoever, freely and under his own power, committed the sin with her.

Adam’s sin, therefore, was mortal - it was Adam’s sin that severed the bond of relationship with God.

It is to make up for Adam’s lack that it is the man who must act as priest, making the sacrifices that atone for the sins of the whole world. That’s why Jesus came as a male person - a “second Adam” - to make the sacrifice that Adam had left unmade.

Mary is the “second Eve”, undoing by her “yes” to God what Eve did by means of her “yes” to the Devil. Mary’s small act led to Jesus’ great act of salvation, just as Eve’s small act opened the way for Adam’s great act of destruction.

At last! I know

I knew my quest wasn’t in vain.

It may be the thousandth time you’ve explained it, but it’s the first time it’s been explained to me. So, your thousandth explaining was not in vain. Neither will your thousandth and first, thousandth and second, third, fourth … be in vain when someone else raises the question.

Want to shed any light on Paul’s words regarding women being saved through childbirth? Is it something to do with Mary’s ‘yes?’

 

[jmcrae]

Want to shed any light on Paul’s words regarding women being saved through childbirth? Is it something to do with Mary’s ‘yes?’

That one, I don’t know. I’m sure someone will come along with something sensible, though.

 

[minkymurph]

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?

As you started this thread, and asked the question, does anything seem any clearer now? Do you feel your question has been answered?

 

[PRmerger]

Want to shed any light on Paul’s words regarding women being saved through childbirth? Is it something to do with Mary’s ‘yes?’

-it saved me from utter selfishness and self-absorption
-it saved me from being a party girl
-it probably has saved quite a few young women from addictions
-it probably has saved quite a few men from self-absorption, addictions and going down the wrong path.

Or, if we look at it another way:
-childbearing has produced our salvation through children who grow up to do good things…
Thus, Mama Sabin and Mama Salk produced our salvation through immunizations…
And Mama Bojaxhiu saved thousands of lives by giving birth to Mother Teresa…
And Mama Ratzinger produced our salvation through raising a son who would be Pope…

 

[minkymurph]

-it saved me from utter selfishness and self-absorption
-it saved me from being a party girl
-it probably has saved quite a few young women from addictions
-it probably has saved quite a few men from self-absorption, addictions and going down the wrong path.

Or, if we look at it another way:
-childbearing has produced our salvation through children who grow up to do good things…
Thus, Mama Sabin and Mama Salk produced our salvation through immunizations…
And Mama Bojaxhiu saved thousands of lives by giving birth to Mother Teresa…
And Mama Ratzinger produced our salvation through raising a son who would be Pope…

Now this is an interesting dimension. I heard recently on the radio that society is anti-family and women are pro-family, which puts them in contension with society. The ideology proposed was that women, more so than men, put family before anything else. Whereas, society puts obligation to the employer first. Not my words, it was the ideology proposed. However, there is something about the feminine nature that puts the needs of children before anything else. Did Mary put her son before anything else?

Ireland is a very matriarchal society. There are families where everything revolves around the mother. It is not always the case but there is this traditional thinking that it is the woman who makes the family and in our culture, the woman is often the anchor of the family. What the woman says in relation to the running of the home and children often comes first. My husband is a real traditionalist in terms of gender roles. He calls me ‘the boss.’ He is no shrinking violet or hen-pecked husband by any stretch of the imagination, but when it comes to domestic decisions and the kids, what I say goes because he trusts my decision so much and we are like a lot of other families.

I believe being a mother does something unique to a woman. Women put faith in Jesus where men did not. Mary put faith in Jesus to an extent men did not, as did other women. I am not criticising men at all when I say that. I am thinking out loud and exploring the uniqueness of a woman’s relationship with her children and Christ. Does this relate to their role in the Church? This may be an explanation for the differing roles of women and men in the Church. What does anyone else think?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Why Can’t Women Be Priests?
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201sbs.asp

Women and the Priesthood
catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

**WOMEN PRIESTS: NO CHANCE **
By JOANNA BOGLE
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710fea2.asp

**WHY NO WOMEN’S ORDINATION **
By MICHAEL J. TORTOLANI
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp

 

[Vince1022]

As I said earlier, ok…

So it’s not “infallible”

But it’s to be held, definitively, by you that women cannot be ordained, yes?

All doubt has been removed, yes?

It is not open to judgment, yes?

What say you, a Catholic, to this, Vince?

I say what Pope John Paul II said. Which was not taught infallibly.

 

[Vince1022]

I believe that it is part of the Ordinary Magesterium and as such, part of the deposit of the faith. It has not been proclaimed ex cathedra but that does not mean it is not infallible teaching.

Being part of the Ordinary Magisterium in and of itself is not sufficient to declare that a certain teaching has been taught infallibly. See e.g. Canon Law 749.

Of course ex cathedra is not the only means of teaching infallibly.

And, while it MAY be part of the Ordinary Magisterium…I think the question is open. Has anyone asked each and every Bishop if they agree with it? If not, how do we know it’s part of the Ordinary Magisterium?