Why Can't Women Become Priests?

[Contarini]

Pax tecum!

First century Jews also were allowed to divorce, something Jesus put a stop to. First century Jews got mad at Jesus for working (healing) on the Sabbath.

You don’t appear to have read what I actually said. I explicitly said that Jesus contradicted the norms of his society when His mission required it. But generally speaking He didn’t.

Here’s an obvious example–one that atheists bring up from time to time. Jesus could have healed millions and millions of people (through the centuries) by teaching germ theory and laying the foundations of modern medicine. But He didn’t. He healed people in the ways that a first-century Jewish healer would do. That’s far more troubling (if you think in those terms) than the fact that he didn’t make some sort of feminist point by making sure some of the Twelve were women.

Why is the fact that Jesus didn’t teach modern medical theory not problem, if the fact that he didn’t teach a modern understanding of gender is? You don’t deny the validity of germ theory because Jesus didn’t mention it.

This is a horrible argument, Edwin.

No, an argument based on what Jesus allegedly “would have done” is a horrible argument.

God the Almighty does not “act according to the norms” of society. THAT is heresy, not saying that Jesus didn’t. God does not just give in to societal norms.

That’s a bizarre claim. God created human beings, which means that God indirectly created human society. It’s not a bad thing.

Furthermore, you keep saying “God” as if Jesus were only divine and not human–as if His humanity were swallowed up in His divinity. You’re implicitly denying the incarnation. Of course God Almighty–the divine essence–is not limited by human culture. But real human beings are, and Jesus was a real human being (only without sin).

And we should take the word of someone whose Church was founded by a king who wanted to divorce his wife rather than the successor of the leader of the Apostles, why?

Now I know you are desperate! No one would make such a blatant appeal to guilt by association if they had any decent arguments. For shame.

And just to try to keep the record clear, my church was not founded by Henry VIII. (Also, why would Henry want to divorce the successor of the leader of the Apostles? That would mean either that there was a female Pope or that Henry was in a gay marriage. . . . Sorry, but if you make a silly argument, I’ll make a silly joke about your confusing syntax.) First of all, I’m not a member of the Church of England. In the second place, the Church of England was not founded by Henry VIII, but by St. Augustine of Canterbury. Your accusation is no different from the silly fundamentalist claim that Catholicism was founded by Constantine.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Can a woman bear the particular image of God as Father? I would say no.

Then you contradict JPII’s Mulieris Dignitatem 3.8.

This observation on the limits of the analogy - the limits of man’s likeness to God in biblical language - must also be kept in mind when, in different passages of Sacred Scripture (especially in the Old Testament), we find *comparisons that attribute to God “masculine” or “feminine” qualities. *We find in these passages an indirect confirmation of the truth that both man and woman were created in the image and likeness of God. If there is a likeness between Creator and creatures, it is understandable that the Bible would refer to God using expressions that attribute to him both “masculine” and “feminine” qualities.
We may quote here some characteristic passages from the prophet *Isaiah: “But Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me’. ‘Can a woman forget *her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will *not *forget you’”. (49:14-15). And elsewhere: “As one whom his *mother *comforts, so will I comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem” (66: 13). In the Psalms too God is compared to a caring mother: “Like a child quieted at its mother’s breast; like a child that is quieted is my soul. O Israel, hope in the Lord”. *(Ps *131:2-3). In various passages the love of God who cares for his people is shown to be like that of a mother: thus, *like a mother God *“has carried” humanity, and in particular, his Chosen People, within his own womb; he has given birth to it in travail, has nourished and comforted it . In many passages God’s love is presented as the “masculine” love of the bridegroom and father, but also sometimes as the “feminine” love of a mother.
This characteristic of biblical language - its anthropomorphic way of speaking about God - *points *indirectly *to the mystery of the eternal “generating” *which belongs to the inner life of God. Nevertheless, in itself this “generating” has neither “masculine” nor “feminine” qualities. It is by nature totally divine. It is spiritual in the most perfect way, since “God is spirit” (*Jn *4:24) and possesses no property typical of the body, neither “feminine” nor “masculine”. Thus even “*fatherhood” in God is completely divine *and free of the “masculine” bodily characteristics proper to human fatherhood. In this sense the Old Testament spoke of God as a Father and turned to him as a Father. Jesus Christ - who called God “Abba Father” *(Mk *14: 36), and who as the only-begotten and consubstantial Son placed this truth at the very centre of his Gospel, thus establishing the norm of Christian prayer - referred to fatherhood in this ultra-corporeal, superhuman and completely divine sense. He spoke as the Son, joined to the Father by the eternal mystery of divine generation, and he did so while being at the same time the truly human Son of his Virgin Mother.
Although it is not possible to attribute human qualities to the eternal generation of the Word of God, and although the divine fatherhood does not possess “masculine” characteristics in a physical sense, we must nevertheless seek in God the absolute *model *of all “*generation” *among human beings. This would seem to be the sense of the Letter to the Ephesians: “I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” (3:14-15). All “generating” among creatures finds its primary model in that generating which in God is completely divine, that is, spiritual. All “generating” in the created world is to be likened to this absolute and uncreated model. Thus every element of human generation which is proper to man, and every element which is proper to woman, namely human “*fatherhood” *and “*motherhood”, *bears within itself a likeness to, or analogy with the divine “generating” and with that “fatherhood” which in God is “totally different”, that is, completely spiritual and divine in essence; whereas in the human order, generation is proper to the “unity of the two”: both are “parents”, the man and the woman alike.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin -

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but your logic appears to flow from the belief that if we are unable to understand WHY God has chosen to exclude women from ordination then we are free to follow what we consider the BEST ARGUMENTS for whether or not they should be. Such a line of reason is perfectly natural, but not, OF NECESSITY correct. Can you explain why it needs to be explained that women can not be ordained priests for it to be true? Is there a particular relationship between understanding it and the reality of it? Where, exactly, do you find Scripture supporting such an idea? If you can not support the concept of human reason determining Truth then your entire argument, while intelligent, is irrelevant.

Philthy,

I’ve said exactly the opposite. I respect Catholics who simply take the word of the Magisterium on this point. However, I belong to a Christian community that does ordain women. So in ecumenical dialog, it’s fair for me to ask why the Catholic Church does what it does. And when the reasons that are offered don’t hold up, this needs to be pointed out.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I know exactly what you are saying. No one is saying that men and women are not ontologically equal.

I know that. But you don’t want to engage in an examination of the consequences of this belief.

I have said over and over that if you simply appeal to authority, I can respect that. But when you start making arguments such as “women can’t be ordained because Jesus is male,” then I will ask why that is peculiarly significant.

I know exactly what you are saying–and I believe that it is a dangerous path that you follow.

You made a completely irrelevant argument a while ago, which purported to be (but was not) a response to my arguments. When I pointed out that your response had nothing to do with what I was saying, you said that you didn’t care. Now either you misunderstood me, or you were being dishonest in pretending that what you said (having to do with power) was relevant to what I was saying (relating to human nature). I have been charitably assuming that you misunderstood. I hope you are not telling me that you engaged in deliberate obfuscation in order to ward off my “dangerous” line of reasoning.

You speaketh with forked tongue. If you are going to argue against the reasons for a male-only priesthood, then you **are **arguing against the male-only priesthood.

This makes no sense. First you tell me that you believe on the authority of tradition and don’t need reasons. That means that the reasons could be flawed and you would still believe. So logically, arguing against the reasons is not arguing against the belief. That’s only the case if the belief depends on the reasons. You are contradicting yourself. Either your belief is dependent on the reasons I’m attacking or it isn’t.

Are you saying that if I argue against bad reasons offered for the existence of God, I’m arguing against the existence of God? Any honest person often finds himself arguing against bad reasons for ideas that may themselves be true. If you’ve never done this, you don’t take intellectual honesty very seriously.

Ah, I see–only scholastic rationalization will suffice for you. Perhaps you should pray about this.

That’s quite humorous! No one is awaiting a better reason. The reasons are provided–and they have stood the test of time.

But no one has shown that these reasons were offered by any patristic or medieval theologian. The arguments are new and have not stood the test of time at all. (The argument from Jesus’ practice in choosing the Twelve is old, I admit. But the arguments from human nature are brand new. It should be easy for you to show me otherwise, if I am wrong.)

Edwin

 

[JohnMac]

If you really really really truly truly believe all people are equal in the eyes of God, then try a couple of simple exercises.

1. Next time you drive past a hospital, go on in and perform some brain surgery.
2. Next time you fly on an airliner, announce that YOU will fly the plane instead of the airline pilot, because you are equal.

Similar exercises can be conducted with art (bring your paintings to the Louvre) or with writing (bring your work to one of the big publishing houses) or with language (visit the UN and tell them you can translate).

I think it’s obvious that not all people are created with equal talents & that people become more or less skilled at trades that they learn & practice. I think the point is that all people are created by God with equal dignity.

 

[MariaG]

I think it’s obvious that not all people are created with equal talents & that people become more or less skilled at trades that they learn & practice. I think the point is that all people are created by God with equal dignity.

Yes, all people are created by God with equal dignity.

How does women not being able to be priests contradict or harm that dignity?

 

[JohnMac]

I think many people seem to be overcomplicating the issue. The Church cannot change the teachings of Christ. The reasons why Christ chose a male priesthood is open to debate. Why the Church does not allow females to be priests is not.

On a side note, why can’t men become nuns? I’ve never heard anyone ask this question. The Church must not view men equally if they won’t even allow them to be nuns. Sounds silly, doesn’t it?

 

[JohnMac]

Yes, all people are created by God with equal dignity.

How does women not being able to be priests contradict or harm that dignity?

I don’t think it does. We were created with equal dignity, but have different roles and talents to offer the Body of Christ. It is written into the language of our bodies. We are equal, but not the same.

 

[Mickey]

I know that. But you don’t want to engage in an examination of the consequences of this belief.

Consequences?

I have said over and over that if you simply appeal to authority, I can respect that. But when you start making arguments such as “women can’t be ordained because Jesus is male,” then I will ask why that is peculiarly significant.

I appeal to Scripture and Tradition. I’ve said this over and over again.

You made a completely irrelevant argument a while ago, which purported to be (but was not) a response to my arguments. When I pointed out that your response had nothing to do with what I was saying, you said that you didn’t care. Now either you misunderstood me, or you were being dishonest in pretending that what you said (having to do with power) was relevant to what I was saying (relating to human nature). I have been charitably assuming that you misunderstood. I hope you are not telling me that you engaged in deliberate obfuscation in order to ward off my “dangerous” line of reasoning.

Yes. Perhaps I misunderstood you. You had mentioned something in your post about superiority and I must have interpreted you wrongly. My apologies. Yet I still do not follow your line of reasoning. You seem to be talking in circles. But again, perhaps it is me. Perhaps your argument is too philosophical for me (that was not one of my better subjects in college).
Now excuse me while I look up the word, “obfuscation”.
My vocabulary is not as expanded as yours.

This makes no sense. First you tell me that you believe on the authority of tradition and don’t need reasons. That means that the reasons could be flawed and you would still believe.

That is the point! I do not believe Sacred Tradition to be flawed! I suppose there is a language barrier between you and I–or should I say–a Tradition barrier.

So logically, arguing against the reasons is not arguing against the belief. That’s only the case if the belief depends on the reasons. You are contradicting yourself. Either your belief is dependent on the reasons I’m attacking or it isn’t.

I’m very sorry Edwin, but I do not understand what you are saying here. It is very circular. :whacky:

Are you saying that if I argue against bad reasons offered for the existence of God, I’m arguing against the existence of God? Any honest person often finds himself arguing against bad reasons for ideas that may themselves be true.

Again, this is so circular, I cannot make heads or tails out of what you are trying to say. But as an Eastern Catholic, I do not turn my guts inside out trying to define mysteries with philosophical dissertations. We accept them as mysteries–but truth nonetheless.

If you’ve never done this, you don’t take intellectual honesty very seriously.

It is okay to insult me by saying that I do not take intellectual honesty (whatever that is) very seriously-- if that makes you feel better.

But no one has shown that these reasons were offered by any patristic or medieval theologian. The arguments are new and have not stood the test of time at all. (The argument from Jesus’ practice in choosing the Twelve is old, I admit. But the arguments from human nature are brand new. It should be easy for you to show me otherwise, if I am wrong.)

Since you do not accept the Scriptural or Traditional evidence in addition to the fact that I really have no idea what you are trying to justify, I will let others respond to you. I usually find your posts to be clear and well thought out, but I think you are way out on a limb here. And I can’t even see the tree!

I apologize for wasting your time.

Peace and blessings,
Mickey

 

[Mickey]

I think many people seem to be overcomplicating the issue. The Church cannot change the teachings of Christ. The reasons why Christ chose a male priesthood is open to debate. Why the Church does not allow females to be priests is not.

As simple as this sounds, you are correct John. Christ chose 12 men to be his Apostles. These men ordained other men who ordained other men…

Jesus, the Apostles, and and the succession of bishops and priests were not being prejudiced. There is a long line of very holy female saints and doctors of the Church from The Blessed Virgin Mary to Mother Teresa. It has been this way for 2000 years–beginning with Jesus until this very day in the Catholic and Orthodox Church. Why? It is a mystery. Should we ignore all of this and begin ordaining women? Absolutely not!
I don’t really see what all the debate is about.

 

[Mickey]

**God created woman equal with man, not inferior. My Christian, you must love your wife as your companion, and not consider her as your slave, for she is a creature of God, just as you are. God was crucified for her as much as you. You call God ‘Father,’ she calls Him ‘Father’ too. Both of you have the same Faith, the same Baptism, the same Book of the Gospels, the same Holy Communion, the same Paradise to enjoy. God does not regard her as inferior to you. **
Teachings of Saint Kosmas Aitolos

 

[MariaG]

I don’t think it does. We were created with equal dignity, but have different roles and talents to offer the Body of Christ. It is written into the language of our bodies. We are equal, but not the same.

Oh good. I misunderstood the intent of your post

God Bless,
Maria

 

[DARichards]

The Catholic church does not let women become Priests… Why is that?

Wasn’t Mary Magdalene a great preacher and teacher? Why has that all of a sudden been stopped?

The reason why women cant be priests is pretty simple. 1) MOST IMPORTANTLY…The Church is the body of Christ with Christ as the head of the earthly Church. The priest sits “in persona Christi”(in the person of Christ) and Christ was not a female.

1. Christ himself never ordained women as apostles/disciples…
2. In the NT Epistles, Paul is very clear that women are not to be teachers over men (see #1).
3. The example of responsibility was set in the OT where man was created 1st, women came after. Men are responsible for the spiritual care of women and children.

5)Women are more than welcom to teach RCIA classes, classes for children, and other subject matters in the Church. As a matter of fact, last year a local protestant church had an “ecumenical summit” with several different pastors. The representative of the Catholic Church was a Sister who did a very good job.

1. This doesn’t mean that women are “less than” men, but there is a family structure and a Church structure that God established.

 

[Philthy]

Then you contradict JPII’s Mulieris Dignitatem 3.8.

Edwin

Hi Edwin -

Thanks for providing the passage and link to that document - it is most relevant.
While I think it would be a stretch to say that my question - Can a woman bear the particular image of God as Father? - “contradicts” what JPll’s referenced writings - it is definitely food for thought and I dont pretend to have it all digested - I havent even read the rest of it. What I did gain from the section you posted is that in reality God is neither masculine or feminine but “spiritual and divine in essence”. That means that there are ways in which both men and women may equally reflect the image of the Creator while at the same time there are ways that the uniquely male attributes of man and the uniqely female attributes of woman can uniquely reflect that image of the Creator. And just as their is unity of parenthood for both men and women - they participate equally and fully as parents - their remains separate functions of father and mother which remain. And this latter analogy seems most appropriate to the discussion at hand - men and women are fully and equally Christian and members of the Church while sharing some functions equally their are others which are unique to each.

 

[minkymurph]

Firstly may I say that I am not in favour of women priests. I think it is a role that is suited to the male nature and not the female nature. Our nature is expressed and gives glory to God in other ways which I believe is equal in status in God’s eyes to the priesthood eg. motherhood which has been greatly decryed as a role in our society. However, I always look at both sides of the arguement. Did respected theologian Rosemary Radford-Ruther not challenge the whole idea of gender orientated thinking? I don’t actually agree with everything she says but, while God is not dictated to by culture, is it possible Christ chose men because the selection of women would never have been tolerated in this culture and we cannot say that God had no intention of change? I would say though, if you want to become a priest 'cos the guys can, your becoming a priest for the wrong reasons. Is it not God who calls someone to the priesthood? If so, is God not allowed to call women if he chooses?

 

[jmcrae]

… while God is not dictated to by culture, is it possible Christ chose men because the selection of women would never have been tolerated in this culture and we cannot say that God had no intention of change?

No, because Christian women of the first century did receive rights that no woman had ever had before - the right to assemble in public with men, instead of being shut behind a wall (Jewish) or required to attend entirely different temples (Roman) - inheritance rights - the right to be missionaries - the right to not be married and remain virgins, if they so choose - the right to establish female Christian communities (convents) - the right to refuse an arranged marriage, if she didn’t like the husband who had been chosen for her. All these things seem mundane to us, but they were very radical at the time. It would not have been that big of a step to say that women could also become priests (after all, if they can establish their own communities, then why not also have female priests to serve those communities?), but they did not do this, and the reason has to be that they knew that Jesus did not permit women to become priests.

At this distance in time we do not know the reason, but from what we know of Jesus, we can know with certainty that the reason is a loving and good one.

I would say though, if you want to become a priest 'cos the guys can, your becoming a priest for the wrong reasons. Is it not God who calls someone to the priesthood? If so, is God not allowed to call women if he chooses?

But God has not so chosen.

 

[Victorious]

Did respected theologian Rosemary Radford-Ruther not challenge the whole idea of gender orientated thinking?

This would be the same Rosemary Radford Reuther who is (or was) on the board of directors for Catholics for Free Choice (i.e., pro-abortion), and who once said that her devotion to Mary “was somewhat less than [her] devotion to far more powerful females [she] knew: Isis, Athena, and Artemis.” (Source.) Do not join the company of pathetic, misguided souls who respect Rosemary Radford Reuther.

 

[minkymurph]

Thanks for the info Victorius. Last year I completed a module of theology run through the Catholic Church here in Ireland and Rosemay Radford Reuther was one of the theologians I had to study. I’m surprised the Catholic Church would direct me to read someone who is pro-abortion! I came to the conclusion I didn’t agree with her anyway as the re-naming of God is not only nit picking as opposed to theology, it’s just silly. At the risk of sounding disrespectful, Our hermaphrodite who art in heaven isn’t really the same thing is it? And like it or not, Jesus was a man!

 

[Victorious]

Thanks for the info Victorius. Last year I completed a module of theology run through the Catholic Church here in Ireland and Rosemay Radford Reuther was one of the theologians I had to study. I’m surprised the Catholic Church would direct me to read someone who is pro-abortion!

And pagan into the bargain. Incredible – unless the lesson was on how not to be an orthodox Catholic. Sounds like maybe they had you read some of her tamer stuff and left the more blatantly forthrightly heretical materials off the syllabus, lest she be exposed for what she is.

This is why it is so critical for us to study our faith and know it well; otherwise, we can be easily taken in by imposters.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes. The REAL reason why women cannot be priests is because of what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is and what the priest is and does in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

You have to understand what the Holy Mass is in order to understand why a woman can never ever be a priest.

You see the priest is “Alter Christus”, and acts “In Persona Christi” when he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Note- when the priest changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ he does not say, “This is Jesus Body which is given up for you” he says, “THIS IS MY BODY”. The priest is in place of Jesus in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Jesus Christ is a MALE PERSON.

A female cannot be “Alter Christus” because Christus is Male - with a male body.

“Popess Joan Chittister” has not been elected yet! She does not believe in the Mass- God have mercy on her and her followers.

Ken

However, Jesus was a Jew - so why not limit the priesthood to circumcised Jewish males born in Galilee ?​

How far does one press the argument from the example of Christ ? This is one element in the argument against ordiaining women I’ve never found convincing.

After all, why make a big thing of having a male body - but not of having a Jewish male body ?

And can’t it be argued that because the Consecration is of Christ’s Body, it is unimportant whether the person saying the word of Consecration is male, female, transsexual, or whatever ?

If the sign-value of the human consecrator as male is the issue, it might be argued that sinfulness is a greater objection to ordination than not being male - for all males are sinners, along with all women. (That the soul is male or female, makes no sense to me.) ##