Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[diggerdomer]

I guess the question that I would raise, is whether God has gender at all?

Easy answer. No.

 

[FOFEBA]

Easy answer. No.

That is my point, precisely.

There is a cultural bias in all of this, which I would suspect that religious texts are interpreted to uphold. This is not only true of the Catholic Church, but other churches as well. For example, while the Catholic Church was in the forefront of civil rights on behalf of inter-racial marriage in the US, some other churches were using scripture to oppose such expansion to civil rights.

One thing that we know about change is that the RATE of change is increasing. There has been more change in the past one hundred years than in the previous 1,000 years, and the rate continues to accelerate.

It is very difficult for any institution, including the Church, to remain vital and relevant under the circumstances. This was not true when the Church was founded. I would offer that this observation is relevant to the prejudices which are brought to issues of sexuality and gender.

 

[PRmerger]

If I understand you, then you are asserting that the very nature of the being who is ordained is changed. Please explain what you mean by this. I have never met a priest who was any different than any other man. I have known priests who were great spiritual men, and I also now of one who purloined a friend’s estate in the name of his church. My point is that I have not observed anything which uniquely identifies a priest as being better or worse than other men. So, just what is this “ontological change” which you refer to?

It’s a similar paradigm as what happens at baptism. And at marriage. What existed 30 seconds before the confection of the sacrament exists no more.

As Fr. Vincent Serpa says (paraphrasing): if we could look into the soul at what happens to the newly baptized, nuclear fission would appear as child’s play.

I see with interest that you are confirmed as an Episcopalian. If you understand the teachings of your church, your church teaches the same thing as the Catholic church does regarding baptism.

I suspect that there are some Episcopalians, baptized and ontologically changed, who also purloined estates?

So, FOFEBA, do you have any other thoughts on this discussion about sacramental ontological change?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That is my point, precisely.

There is a cultural bias in all of this, which I would suspect that religious texts are interpreted to uphold. This is not only true of the Catholic Church, but other churches as well. For example, while the Catholic Church was in the forefront of civil rights on behalf of inter-racial marriage in the US, some other churches were using scripture to oppose such expansion to civil rights.

One thing that we know about change is that the RATE of change is increasing. There has been more change in the past one hundred years than in the previous 1,000 years, and the rate continues to accelerate.

It is very difficult for any institution, including the Church, to remain vital and relevant under the circumstances. This was not true when the Church was founded. I would offer that this observation is relevant to the prejudices which are brought to issues of sexuality and gender.

Jesus, of course, had no qualms about setting the notion of “Messiah’ on its head, had no problems going against ‘authority’, but gee, He was so powerless that He permitted mere ‘men’ to taint His message permanently because of their 'cultural bias?”

You mean that ‘cultural bias’ that is (of course) of relatively ‘recent’ date, based on what we in the West think of it in AD 2010, as something that should have been not only understood as we know it today (and that will exist as such not just now but thousands of years from now)?

IOW, you’re saying that men ‘oppressed women’ then, some still do today but the ‘enlightened ones’ don’t, and are trying to ‘make up for it’, but of course the most ‘conservative’ and/or ‘male dominated’ groups are the ones not only responsible for the whole debacle throughout history, they’re bound and determined to fight the ‘enlightened ones’ today.

Oh, and while the Father and the Spirit don’t have gender if by gender we understand that to mean the concept of humanity and terrestial ideas of corporal body differences which we term ‘male’ and ‘female’.

**However, the Son is, most definitely, male. Male human being AND very God. **

So God (the Son) has a gender, and it’s male.

The Church would not exist today if She simply ‘went with’ societal trends. Mind you, I’m not saying that society cannot change for the better. (and of course, at times for the worse). I’m saying that expecting the Church to adapt on a matter in which SHE HAS NO AUTHORITY (that is, the Church has no authority to ordain women, and expecting the Church to ‘ordain women’ because otherwise She won’t be ‘relevant’ to SOCIETY) would show a complete and utter lack of understanding of who the Church IS.

 

[FOFEBA]

So, FOFEBA, do you have any other thoughts on this discussion about sacramental ontological change?

I don’t quite understand your notion of ontological transformation through sacrament. I was not attacking Catholics, nor defending Episcopalians. I was merely pointing out that I have never met a priest (and I should perhaps have said minister, too) who was not merely human, with all the strengths and also weaknesses associated with humanity.

Just to put my cards on the table. My father died of alcoholism at the age of 41 because he could not reconcile his homosexuality with the teachings of the church (according to my mom). Of the seven pederasts who approached me as a child, two of them were priests. The penultimate one was the chief umpire for the Los Angeles Little League, a popular news anchor, and a volunteer for Big Brothers of America. The last one was the director of a teen center where I boxed. All of them professed to be Catholic. When I was an alter boy, when one priest was officiating, the others would caution me to not linger or change my clothes in his presence. So, there was clearly collusion… So, the Church’s rather irresponsible approach to sexuality has directly affected me, and I find it revulsive. On the other hand, I genuinely appreciate the beauty of the teachings of the Church in this respect. I am a widower, and I have chosen a celibate life for 12 years now.

Presently, I am doing my clinical work to be licensed as a therapist with a PhD in psychology, after having served a career in the USMC.

This may be inappropriate really, for this thread. But I just wanted to be open about where I am coming from.

It is through my connection with God that I find serenity an purpose in my life. My experiences with institutions have left me skeptical, at least. In that sense, I am a true Protestant.

On the subject of religious discourse, such as whether women should be ordained, I am suspicious. I don’t believe that God has any gender of preference for gender. Any attempt to assert such a thing would have far more credibility for me if it were asserted by a woman, than by a man, particularly in light of the male dominance of the Church.

 

[Pat_De]

Ummm…ok…but I don’t see what you mean.

You said “recisely stated; because only men that are pastors are suppose to preach behind the pulpit”

I disagree.

It’s completely common and licit and valid in the Catholic Church for non-pastors to preach at the pulpit. Priests (and Bishops) who are not pastors can preach. Deacons can preach. Lay people can, in certain specifically allowed circumstances, preach at liturgical celebrations.

So…your point? Thanks.

You just prove you have made God into your own understanding since the qualification are quite clear, For example the primary difference between the Elders or Pastor and the Deacon is the gift of teaching. It is not a matter of what cannot be done as men see it; but it is a matter of what God has stated. God has also gave a warning concerning teachers because of a stricter judgment. I base this in the presupposition we are talking in terms of corporate worship; not Sunday school classes; although many of those are mere pools of ignorance of each giving an opinion of what they believe God is saying, but that is another issue altogether.

Paul teaches/warns Timothy through the Author of Scripture the following: "3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but {wanting} to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. – Do we live i this day or what? Although it is the history of preaching-teaching as I have read from those in the past; it seems to always be the same things recycled in new ways. Thank God that He and His word never change and always remain firm.

Christian parents, for example, in our society have virtually sold their children for the earthly goods of the world rather than following the God’s placement of women within the household and I’m not talking about the scrubbing of toilets, but making a home a home that nourishes the child, the husband physically and spiritually and honors the Lord. Just as the husband has the duty to be the spiritual leader and to love his wife as the Lord loves the church, which we see widespread failure in this among those calling themselves Christians. Why? Because people think they know a better way than God and make Him fit into their image rather than following His ways by faith, always knowing it is for the best of His children because they are unregenerate. I praise and thank God that before we were Christians’ that we always wanted one of us to be with the children at all times, children which we did not have yet. I know parents who call themselves Christians mothers that want to work to be away from their children.

So the moral of the story is that people pick and chose which commands fit their tastes as though they have a better plan than God; thus proving by their fruits of unrighteousness their heart toward God. Obviously there are circumstances that make it impossible to do it exactly as God intended such as injuries to the man that forces the woman into the workplace or mothers/fathers who lose their spouse for a variety of reasons, like early death…but these are the exceptions, not the rule.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t quite understand your notion of ontological transformation through sacrament.

Fair enough. But it’s not just a Catholic notion, as I stated, but I believe your church’s notion as well.

I was merely pointing out that I have never met a priest (and I should perhaps have said minister, too) who was not merely human, with all the strengths and also weaknesses associated with humanity.

Indeed. You are in agreement with the Catholic Church here.

Just to put my cards on the table. My father died of alcoholism at the age of 41 because he could not reconcile his homosexuality with the teachings of the church (according to my mom).

I am sorry for this heartbreak. However, I will say that we will never be happy living in accord with our will, if it is opposed to the will and law of God.

I don’t believe that God has any gender of preference for gender. Any attempt to assert such a thing would have far more credibility for me if it were asserted by a woman, than by a man, particularly in light of the male dominance of the Church.

Of course He has no preference for gender! God created them, male and female.

No teaching of the Catholic Church has ever asserted that God has a preference for the male gender! :whacky:

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

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 men have babies?

 

[FOFEBA]

The Church would not exist today if She simply ‘went with’ societal trends. Mind you, I’m not saying that society cannot change for the better. (and of course, at times for the worse). I’m saying that expecting the Church to adapt on a matter in which SHE HAS NO AUTHORITY (that is, the Church has no authority to ordain women, and expecting the Church to ‘ordain women’ because otherwise She won’t be ‘relevant’ to SOCIETY) would show a complete and utter lack of understanding of who the Church IS.

Very true. However, the Bible is subject to the interpretation of mankind, here and now. And, when it was written, there was a very clear cultural bias by the writers, whether you consider them to have been divinely inspired or not, you can surely not claim a lack of contemporaneous cultural influence.

Further, there are a number of biblical scholars who might say that we don’t even understand some of the phrases and words in the bible. I would refer you to a fascinating series which the BBC did on language and religion. In that series, Rabbinic scholars pointed out that enough of the language has been lost, that we can only do our best to figure out what some of the texts mean.

Still further, repeated translations with differing understandings of the original languages have indeed resulted in some very different interpretations of the Bible over the centuries.

I think it is a fair statement that our current culture, and the cultural viewpoints which have preceded us have a strong influence on how we understand the Word.

We don’t need to rehash how the views of science have changed, and how it has affected many religions over time. Certainly, the evangelical traditions are struggling under the weight of evolutionary evidence right now. The Catholic Church has had its struggles in the past, particularly with discoveries about the nature of the physical universe and astronomy. This is well documented.

Particularly the Old Testament has many admonitions, laws and statements which are simply looked at as allegorical today, or as pertaining to an earlier society.

I am suggesting that the same is true with respect to our understanding of gender and sexuality.

As for the continued survival of the Church, change is a greater issue than it has been in the past. The current rate of decline as a proportion to world population has held steady from some decades now at 1-3%, depending on which source you refer to. We cannot predict the future in this respect, but if the current trends continue at the same pace, then the Church could be gone in less than one century.

It might not really matter by then, but why ignore the trends? And certainly, I hope that nobody here would hold the position that the Church should ignore new scientific findings.

 

[PRmerger]

Very true. However, the Bible is subject to the interpretation of mankind, here and now. And, when it was written, there was a very clear cultural bias by the writers, whether you consider them to have been divinely inspired or not, you can surely not claim a lack of contemporaneous cultural influence.

Further, there are a number of biblical scholars who might say that we don’t even understand some of the phrases and words in the bible. I would refer you to a fascinating series which the BBC did on language and religion. In that series, Rabbinic scholars pointed out that enough of the language has been lost, that we can only do our best to figure out what some of the texts mean.

Still further, repeated translations with differing understandings of the original languages have indeed resulted in some very different interpretations of the Bible over the centuries.

I think it is a fair statement that our current culture, and the cultural viewpoints which have preceded us have a strong influence on how we understand the Word.

We don’t need to rehash how the views of science have changed, and how it has affected many religions over time. Certainly, the evangelical traditions are struggling under the weight of evolutionary evidence right now. The Catholic Church has had its struggles in the past, particularly with discoveries about the nature of the physical universe and astronomy. This is well documented.

Particularly the Old Testament has many admonitions, laws and statements which are simply looked at as allegorical today, or as pertaining to an earlier society.

I am suggesting that the same is true with respect to our understanding of gender and sexuality.

As for the continued survival of the Church, change is a greater issue than it has been in the past. The current rate of decline as a proportion to world population has held steady from some decades now at 1-3%, depending on which source you refer to. We cannot predict the future in this respect, but if the current trends continue at the same pace, then the Church could be gone in less than one century.

It might not really matter by then, but why ignore the trends? And certainly, I hope that nobody here would hold the position that the Church should ignore new scientific findings.

FOFEBA, have you read Pope JPII’s mangificent encyclical, Mulieris Dignitatem?

 

[FOFEBA]

So, FOFEBA, do you have any other thoughts on this discussion about sacramental ontological change?

I was merely asking for clarification of what was meant by that statement, since there is nothing which can be particularly perceived. The word ontological would suggest to me that a profound, and therefore discernible change has occurred. One would definitely notice it, if nuclear fission were occurring, to use your analogy.

As for the purloining priest, it was a case of a friend who was terminally ill. He had devoted his life to good works. Several thousand people showed up for his funeral. He had carefully thought of the disposition of his sizable estate. As he entered his final week of life, he became quite paranoid, and frightened. He was experiencing serious dementia.

At this time, his confessor started spending a lot of time with him. During that period, my friend made the decision to change his will to leave his entire estate to this particular priest’s church. As the successor trustee for his estate, I was summoned to a meeting with the priest and the bishop to inform me of the change, two days prior to my friend’s demise.

Of course, any judge in any court, would have simply overturned the new bequest and reinstated his original intentions, if any of the original heirs were to step forward. However, it was not my place to do so. In retrospect, I should have informed the original atty who did his estate planning what was going on, and she probably would have stopped it. The decision was made by an unsound mind, and perhaps under undue influence. I was rather surprised that the priest (whom I knew) allowed the bequest to be made, and the even the bishop did nothing to stop it. But then, it was a lot of money. I wonder if greed was a part of their decision.

 

[PRmerger]

I was merely asking for clarification of what was meant by that statement, since there is nothing which can be particularly perceived.

That is a peculiar statement by a believer.

In your Episcopal church is there any perception that the host and wine are changed during the consecration by your pastor?

Is there any perception of change in the newly baptized in your church?

Is there anything divine in appearance in Christ? That is, does your church teach that an apostle or disciple could have perceived that he is the Word made Flesh by looking at his outward appearance?

 

[PRmerger]

As for the purloining priest, it was a case of a friend who was terminally ill. He had devoted his life to good works. Several thousand people showed up for his funeral. He had carefully thought of the disposition of his sizable estate. As he entered his final week of life, he became quite paranoid, and frightened. He was experiencing serious dementia.

I am puzzled as to why you think this is relevant regarding sacramental ontological change. It seems to show an impoverished understanding of the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

 

[FOFEBA]

I am puzzled as to why you think this is relevant regarding sacramental ontological change. It seems to show an impoverished understanding of the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

So, am I expected to respond by pointing out your supercilious attitude, and impoverished sense of empathy? Is this supposed to be some sort of flame war? Should I now shrug to show feigned indifference which is contrary to my incendiary rhetoric?

 

[FOFEBA]

That is a peculiar statement by a believer.

In your Episcopal church is there any perception that the host and wine are changed during the consecration by your pastor?

I don’t claim to own the Episcopal Church, and my question was not directed at you.

But since you persist in bringing up the Episcopal Church, you emphasize my point that there is a cultural or interpretive bias in the interpretation of the Bible.

If it were true, that there is no authority to ordain women, then it is safe to assume that the equally learned among the Episcopalians and other denominations would not be doing so.

Or would you lay claim to the only true understanding of the Bible? That claim can only be suspect to any reasonable person.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t claim to own the Episcopal Church, and my question was not directed at you.

But since you persist in bringing up the Episcopal Church, you emphasize my point that there is a cultural or interpretive bias in the interpretation of the Bible.

If it were true, that there is no authority to ordain women, then it is safe to assume that the equally learned among the Episcopalians and other denominations would not be doing so.

Or would you lay claim to the only true understanding of the Bible? That claim can only be suspect to any reasonable person.

Actually, you’re incorrect. You are assuming that it is ‘impossible’ to go against authority. You’re saying, "Oh but if the Church really had no authority to ordain women, then it would be so blindingly obvious that all the other ‘learned denominations’ which had already rejected other authoritative Catholic teachings would somehow be ‘incapable’ of rejecting this one PARTICULAR teaching.
I mean, hon, after all, y’all rejected plenty of other Catholic truths. It isn’t surprising that you’re rejecting this one too. Once you start down that slippery slope, it’s actually more surprising that you’ve maintained as many truths as you have. And among some Anglican/Episcopal groups, my dear friend, the belief that there is no authority to ordain women remains to this day --you know that, right?–so it’s not even as though the Anglican/Episcopal consensus is saying, "Oh mercy me, of COURSE ordination of women is not a problem in our ‘supreme’ understanding of Christian teachings."

 

[FOFEBA]

But moving beyond the disingenuous posts and the attempt at condescension, my question persists, what is meant here by an ontological change which is possible in a male, but it impossible in a female?

I am not a philosopher, so I probably do not understand the nuances of the use of the word here. To me, the word means that the very essence of the being is changed. In physical terms, this could be a structural or chemical change. If you are simply saying that the spiritual aspect of the person has changed, then I may understand what is meant, but ontological is not the adjective which I would use to express that concept.

 

[FOFEBA]

Actually, you’re incorrect. You are assuming that it is ‘impossible’ to go against authority. You’re saying, "Oh but if the Church really had no authority to ordain women, then it would be so blindingly obvious that all the other ‘learned denominations’ which had already rejected other authoritative Catholic teachings would somehow be ‘incapable’ of rejecting this one PARTICULAR teaching.
I mean, hon, after all, y’all rejected plenty of other Catholic truths. It isn’t surprising that you’re rejecting this one too. Once you start down that slippery slope, it’s actually more surprising that you’ve maintained as many truths as you have. And among some Anglican/Episcopal groups, my dear friend, the belief that there is no authority to ordain women remains to this day --you know that, right?–so it’s not even as though the Anglican/Episcopal consensus is saying, "Oh mercy me, of COURSE ordination of women is not a problem in our ‘supreme’ understanding of Christian teachings."

Of course one can go against authority. We have certainly seen plenty of examples of Popes through history who have violated the word of God.

When I was at the Vatican, I was always amazed by the hubris of the Medici’s and the columns in the Basilica. One would be hard pressed to defend the imagery as being of pious intent.

For the Church to state sui generis that it is the sole authority with respect to the bible has been shown to be a false claim many times in history. So, where does that authority lie now? How should we suddenly decide that in spite of past corruption, that the leader of the Church are correct today?

I have no doubt that those who lead the Church believe that they are correct. Just as every President tries to do a good job. But in the end, we are all human and fallible.

 

[Pat_De]

Of course one can go against authority. We have certainly seen plenty of examples of Popes through history who have violated the word of God.

When I was at the Vatican, I was always amazed by the hubris of the Medici’s and the columns in the Basilica. One would be hard pressed to defend the imagery as being of pious intent.

For the Church to state sui generis that it is the sole authority with respect to the bible has been shown to be a false claim many times in history. So, where does that authority lie now? How should we suddenly decide that in spite of past corruption, that the leader of the Church are correct today?

I have no doubt that those who lead the Church believe that they are correct. Just as every President tries to do a good job. But in the end, we are all human and fallible.

This has been an interesting conversation to watch.
I have a singe comment from the apostle Paul "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. - 1Cor 2:2

Then my own comment: The authority is and has always been the same, which He is referred to as the Alpha and Omega, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; their exists no greater Authority; especially in relation to man-centered issues versus Christ-centered.

 

[PRmerger]

So, am I expected to respond by pointing out your supercilious attitude, and impoverished sense of empathy? Is this supposed to be some sort of flame war? Should I now shrug to show feigned indifference which is contrary to my incendiary rhetoric?

Oh! No insult intended. I apologize, brother FOFEBA!