Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[Vince1022]

Right, as well as every other teaching of the Church. There are only two manifestly infallibly teachings of the Church; should we say that the Church has only two doctrines that are required for belief?

From your last link:

I disagree that there are only two manifestly infallibly (sic) teachings of the Church.

Yes, I agree that the majority view is that there are only two teaching taught infallibly by the Pope “ex cathedra” – which is one of the three ways the Catholic Church can teach infallibly. Perhaps this is what you are referring to?

Can you elaborate or clarify?

Thank you.

 

[Vince1022]

Just to add a few thoughts:

Catholics are bound to give religious assent to the teachings of the Church, whether they are infallible or not.

Thanks. Good points.

The specifics about what Catholics are bound to give (whether “religious assent” or some other term) are well defined and described in Canon Law. See para 747 ff. for what, precisely, Catholics are “bound to give” to various teachings.


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2G.HTM

Hope this helps.

 

[minkymurph]

I disagree that there are only two manifestly infallibly (sic) teachings of the Church.

Yes, I agree that the majority view is that there are only two teaching taught infallibly by the Pope “ex cathedra” – which is one of the three ways the Catholic Church can teach infallibly. Perhaps this is what you are referring to?

Can you elaborate or clarify?

Thank you.

I don’t really understand this either.

As far as I know, the teaching of the Incarnation; Jesus was fully God and fully man, was declared infallible. The divinity of the Holy Spirit was declared infallible. Marian doctrines; Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption were declared infallible. The infallibililty of the Pope was declared infallible. I think Real Presence was declared infallible at Trent.

Outside of the above teachings, I personally don’t know of any other teachings that have been declared infallible. That is why I asked the question in another post, does something have to be declared infallible, because the number teachings that have been declared infallible are few by comparision.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

As has been noted, there is more than one way for something to be an infallible teaching (IOW, it does not have to be, and only be, an ex-cathedra statement from a Pope).

What I can’t understand is why there seems to be an idea that only infallible teachings need be ‘accepted’.

Or that ‘definitive’ teachings (such as apparently Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is ‘considered’) are thought to be ‘incomplete’, ‘not necessary’, and pretty much ‘well, they say X NOW but it could change to ‘not-X’ at any point, especially if we yell about it enough. . .and therefore I need not ‘accept’ this as a definitive teaching at all! I can totally ignore it, I can in fact vehemently argue about how ‘wrong’ it is and how great it will be ‘when’ the Church finally dumps it. . .’

That’s what I don’t get. It’s as though somehow this one "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ is some kind of equivalent to the supposed Church pronouncing Gallileo’s theory ‘wrong’. . .the idea that Pope John Paul II was simply the last gasp of some ‘mediaeval’ miasma and that, just as we have now ‘recognized the error’ of the Church ‘condemnation’ of Galileo’s theory, we will (and soon!) recognize the ‘error’ of the teaching of ‘male only priests.’

To me it seems that people have confused everything from what the Church has said (in both cases above and in virtually all areas of Catholic teaching !), what the Church IS, what Catholicism is, and what exactly our responsibilities are as Catholic Christians. . .and so we have people who are confused in area A, solid in area B, and dead wrong in area C arguing with people who are solid in area A, dead wrong in B, and confused in C, arguing with people who are dead wrong in area A, confused in area B and solid in area C. . .arguing with people confused in A, B and C, dead WRONG in A, B, and C. . .and precious few who are solid in A, B, and C!

 

[minkymurph]

What I can’t understand is why there seems to be an idea that only infallible teachings need be ‘accepted’.

I don’t understand it either. To me, accepting only what is infallible smacks too much of fundamentalism. The reason I say this is because fundamentalists look for ‘proof’ of faith through the ‘right’ interpretation of scripture. As Catholics, I don’t think we should fall into the ‘what I believe is infallible and therefore ‘right’’ trap. It takes greater faith to believe what is not infallible. Do we need to be compelled to believe before we will believe?

In a previous post, I stated that to my knowledge, not many teachings of Church, relatively speaking, have been declared infallible. However, to refute them would change the nature of our faith to the extent we could no longer call our faith ‘Catholic.’

It’s always been a tradition in the Catholic Church to ordain men. What I see as a problem, is the negativity surrounding this practice. ‘Women can’t,’ ‘Church can’t,’ ‘no authority,’ creates a very negative ‘not allowed’ image. :tsktsk:

I think we need to get rid of the negativity surrounding the practice of ordaining only men and I have stated why in previous posts. If ordaining women is shrouded in ; ‘not allowed,’ ‘can’t,’ and ‘never, never, never,’ language which is offered as the only explanation, it’s hardly surprising it causes rancour.

 

[FOFEBA]

Hmmm… My perception of the Church is that it practices cultural relativism, only at a slower pace than some other institutions. For example, the Church is not reticent at all to annul failed marriages now, which was not the case in the 1500’s.

We also know that while the Church may be correct on many moral and spiritual matters, that it has often been incorrect when it has inserted itself into some of the questions of the nature of the universe and creation in physical terms.

Even in purely spiritual areas, we know that the Church has been horrifically immoral in the past. For example, torturing people during the inquisition, or going to war over religious beliefs. While I would not characterize the modern Church as being so bereft, it is also true that one cannot ignore the history and heritage of an institution.

My point, is that the Church is a large institution with vast wealth, and with all of the political and material concerns which one would expect of such an institution. The notion that it can consistently rise above its material and political concerns is naive.

The Church is simply wrong, at times. Period.

So, then the question becomes, is a Catholic bound to accept erroneous teachings, when it is clear that they are erroneous, simply because they come from the Church?

My frame of reference is not dissimilar in some respects. In the military, one follows orders. However, one is obliged not to follow those orders under certain circumstances.

What I am wondering is, under what circumstances should a Catholic discard the teachings of the Church? Never? When those teachings violate one’s sense of conscience or decency?

I question the notion that an institution built by man, and which has evolved under the control of man for so long - an institution which has exercised vast political influence with all of the corruption which that inheres, and an institution which holds vast wealth, could be trusted to be inerrant.

At one time I worked for a US ambassador. In that capacity, I had the opportunity to observe people in high political places, including the President of the US. I came to the conclusion that the rarefied atmosphere of such powerful people introduces a special kind of corruption of perspective and of the senses. How could this not also be true of the top heirarchies of the Catholic church?

 

[jmcrae]

Hmmm… My perception of the Church is that it practices cultural relativism, only at a slower pace than some other institutions. For example, the Church is not reticent at all to annul failed marriages now, which was not the case in the 1500’s.

I hate to quibble, but even in cases where declarations of nullity are granted, they aren’t normally “automatic” - it can often take more than a year for the investigation to be completed. And there are the ten percent that are not declared null.

We also know that while the Church may be correct on many moral and spiritual matters, that it has often been incorrect when it has inserted itself into some of the questions of the nature of the universe and creation in physical terms.

Fortunately, the Church has never claimed to be a teacher of science.

Even in purely spiritual areas, we know that the Church has been horrifically immoral in the past. For example, torturing people during the inquisition, or going to war over religious beliefs. While I would not characterize the modern Church as being so bereft, it is also true that one cannot ignore the history and heritage of an institution.

Which Inquisition? There were many, and not all of them were Church-sponsored. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, was not approved by the Church, and was conducted by government employees; not priests.

It’s also very simplistic to say that people were going to war over religious beliefs. Wars are very complex events, and typically involve disputes over land and money, as well as over religion, political ideology, and more. There was a period in history when followers of Islam were trying to take over Europe by force. I consider it a good thing, that our ancestors defended themselves, even at the risk of being accused of “fighting over religion.” None of us would be here today to accuse them of anything, if they hadn’t.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm… My perception of the Church is that it practices cultural relativism, only at a slower pace than some other institutions. For example, the Church is not reticent at all to annul failed marriages now, which was not the case in the 1500’s.

I also am not going to quibble too much, but I will correct your statement: the Church cannot “annul failed marriages”. If it was a marriage, it is unable to be annulled. The only thing that can separate a husband and wife in marriage is death. The Church can, however, offer a declaration of nullity on a union that was, clearly, not a marriage. Sometimes in history it was more liberal in its declarations. Sometimes less so.

 

[diggerdomer]

A
What I can’t understand is why there seems to be an idea that only infallible teachings need be ‘accepted’.!

EXCELLENT point. Thank you.

 

[Vince1022]

I don’t really understand this either.

As far as I know, the teaching of the Incarnation; Jesus was fully God and fully man, was declared infallible. The divinity of the Holy Spirit was declared infallible. Marian doctrines; Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption were declared infallible. The infallibililty of the Pope was declared infallible. I think Real Presence was declared infallible at Trent.

Outside of the above teachings, I personally don’t know of any other teachings that have been declared infallible. That is why I asked the question in another post, does something have to be declared infallible, because the number teachings that have been declared infallible are few by comparision.

While all the teachings you note are of course considered true by Catholics, the question remains of whether (and if so, how) they were taught infallibly.

 

[minkymurph]

While all the teachings you note are of course considered true by Catholics, the question remains of whether (and if so, how) they were taught infallibly.

To my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected, the Pope and the Council of bishops can pronounce infallible teachings by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is where belief comes in. Do we believe the Spirit empowers the Pope and the bishops to declare teachings to be infallible, or not? A teaching is considered infallible when there is a consensus of opinion among the bishops, and the Pope gives the teaching his seal of approval. It takes a long time, sometimes centuries, for a teaching to be declared infallible. There is evidence the Assumption of Mary was believed from about the fifth century, yet it was only declared infallible in the 1950’s; 1954 I think.

This brings me to another point. Pope Pius XII declared the doctrine of the Assumption infallible. Some have questioned his decision. If something is infallible, you still need to believe. Pope Pius XII was also criticised because he did not speak out publicly against Hitler’s Third Reich. I have read his autobiography and can understand his reasons, and he did not collaborate with Hitler in the way he has been accused of. However, was he right to handle matters in Germany in the way he did? After considering the question in depth, I would have to say I don’t know.

To sum up, Pope’s have a unique role in the declaration of faith and morals. That does not mean everything they say and do is right. As I understand it, they can only declare a teaching infallible under inspiration, and when there is consensus of opinion among the bishops.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

While all the teachings you note are of course considered true by Catholics, the question remains of whether (and if so, how) they were taught infallibly.

And here’s the thing: What is the difference between something taught infallibly and something taught ‘definitively’ when it comes to Catholic teaching and acceptance of those teachings by Catholics?

Both must be believed. We don’t ‘only’ accept ‘infallibly taught’ (and again, the definition of ‘infallibly taught’ extends to more than Papal ex-cathedra statements anyway) and think that ‘definitively taught’ are simply, "well, if you want to you can criticize, ignore, or outright defy them because they are ONLY and so not ‘obligatory.’

 

[FOFEBA]

I hate to quibble, but even in cases where declarations of nullity are granted, they aren’t normally “automatic” - it can often take more than a year for the investigation to be completed. And there are the ten percent that are not declared null.

Fortunately, the Church has never claimed to be a teacher of science.

Which Inquisition? There were many, and not all of them were Church-sponsored. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, was not approved by the Church, and was conducted by government employees; not priests.

It’s also very simplistic to say that people were going to war over religious beliefs. Wars are very complex events, and typically involve disputes over land and money, as well as over religion, political ideology, and more. There was a period in history when followers of Islam were trying to take over Europe by force. I consider it a good thing, that our ancestors defended themselves, even at the risk of being accused of “fighting over religion.” None of us would be here today to accuse them of anything, if they hadn’t.

My intent is not to bash the Church. A statement was made about obedience to Church doctrine, which sounded to my like that obedience should be unquestioning.

My point is that mistakes have been made, many of the serious. I doubt that anyone today in the Church or anywhere else would think that it is OK to burn someone alive because they have differing religious views.

As for annulment of marriages, my understanding is that it is much easier to have a marriage annulled today than it was a century or more ago.

So, my question really, is what standard does one apply to accepting the teachings or actions of the Church? It seems like a potentially slippery slope for a faithful Catholic, while on the other hand blind obedience seems foolish.

 

[jmcrae]

My intent is not to bash the Church. A statement was made about obedience to Church doctrine, which sounded to my like that obedience should be unquestioning.

On the contrary, the Catholic Church is one of very few religions on earth that requires up to three years of study before admitting new converts into full membership, or that requires its youth to attend Catechism classes for at least nine years during their period of schooling.

Orthodox Judaism is the only other religion I know of that requires kids to study their religion in a serious way - they send their kids to Hebrew School.

My point is that mistakes have been made, many of the serious. I doubt that anyone today in the Church or anywhere else would think that it is OK to burn someone alive because they have differing religious views.

The Catholic Church, in and of itself, has also never advocated such a thing. The Puritans are the only ones who ever officially condoned that sort of thing, to the best of my knowledge.

As for annulment of marriages, my understanding is that it is much easier to have a marriage annulled today than it was a century or more ago.

The percentages are probably about the same - there is a much higher demand, today, unfortunately.

So, my question really, is what standard does one apply to accepting the teachings or actions of the Church? It seems like a potentially slippery slope for a faithful Catholic, while on the other hand blind obedience seems foolish.

Blind obedience would be absolutely foolish - which is why RCIA takes so long, and why RE classes are so strongly recommended for kids in grades 1 to 9.

 

[FOFEBA]

Yes, I know about catechism of kids. I was subjected to it, and it was not designed to encourage questioning or any sort of real rational discussion of the Church’s teachings. Perhaps others have a different experience.

… and here I thought that Joan of Arc was burned for heresy. I think the examples are numerous and well documented of torture and execution for heresy by representatives of the Church. It is impossible that it was occurring without the acquiescence of the hierarchy.

There is really no need to deny, or whitewash the history of the church. I found it rather refreshing when I was in Rome that there was in fact no attempt to distort these things. Everyone whom I spoke to at the Vatican, if the subject came up for some reason, freely admitted the historic errors of the Church.

Perhaps, I should phrase my question in a different way: If one is a Catholic, and feels strongly that the Church holds a position which is immoral, how does one reconcile that?

I can see how the issue of the ordination of women might be such an issue for some people.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, I know about catechism of kids. I was subjected to it, and it was not designed to encourage questioning or any sort of real rational discussion of the Church’s teachings. Perhaps others have a different experience.

… and here I thought that Joan of Arc was burned for heresy.

No, she was burned for being an enemy of England, by members of the English government. If there were members of the clergy present, they were acting as agents of the British Crown; not as agents of the Church. St. Joan of Arc was never found guilty of heresy by any Church tribunal, or else she could not have been declared a Saint.

 

[StevenFrancis]

VI. WHO CAN RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT?

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 ***The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.***68

 

[minkymurph]

And here’s the thing: What is the difference between something taught infallibly and something taught ‘definitively’ when it comes to Catholic teaching and acceptance of those teachings by Catholics?

Both must be believed. We don’t ‘only’ accept ‘infallibly taught’ (and again, the definition of ‘infallibly taught’ extends to more than Papal ex-cathedra statements anyway) and think that ‘definitively taught’ are simply, "well, if you want to you can criticize, ignore, or outright defy them because they are ONLY and so not ‘obligatory.’

As I understand it, if a teaching is declared infallible, it has been definately defined and not open to any other form of interpretation. Teachings that are not taught infallibly may be re-interpreted not by changing the teaching, but by redefining, or re-interpreting the teaching. In addition, language is crucial in an infallible declaration. That’s why it takes a long time to have a teaching declared infallible and statements are often drafted over and over again to refine the statement in an unambiguous way, and a way that can be understood.

For example, the Church has always taught the Bible is the Word of God; that has not changed. However, the relationship between Tradition and Scripture and methods of interpretation have changed. The purpose was not to change the teaching the Bible is the Word of God, but to acquire greater understanding of divine truth. To explain further, Aquinas’ definitions of how the host becomes the body and blood of Christ, are no longer used. Aquinas defined Real Presence in the language of time and according to the culture of the time. The Catholic belief in Real Presence has not changed. Definitions of Real Presence do change.

 

[dnar]

If you agree that such is not taught infallibly, then no further clarification is needed.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said it was taught infallibly.​

Regarding the second objection, the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women) was declared to be a matter of faith. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in its Responsum of November, 1995 (approved by Pope John Paul II) that the teaching proclaimed “has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium… belonging to the deposit of the faith.”

Jim Blackburn
Catholic Answers Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=83

 

[minkymurph]

What I see as a problem in relation to debates concerning the ordination of women, is the negative image presented. Words such as; ‘can’t,’ ‘not allowed,’ and phrases such as, 'you can’t be a priest ‘cos your not a man,’ reinforce notions of patriarchy and negative, stereotypical images of the Church. We need to get rid of these notions in relation to ordination. The ordained are first and foremost, servants. Ordination should not about power and influence. If the role of women in the Church is portrayed in positive light, absent of notions of subordination, and the value of their influence for the good of the Church recognised, perhaps the fact women do not receive ordination would not be as much of an issue. However, I will openly admit to being an eternal optimist.

As someone else has pointed out, ordination is a sacrament. For a sacrament to be valid, certain conditions need to be met. A woman cannot receive a valid ordination any more than two men, two women, or three people (give it time!) can validly be joined in Holy Matrimony.