Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[AngryAtheist8]

I think we all know why women can’t be priests.

Women don/t have authority like a man does and the bible makes that loud and clear through the whole book.
.

Exactly.

Catholicism (and probably Christianity as a whole) is inherently patriarchal, and trying to reform it so that it really treats women equally is like trying to make a rabid wolf friendly by putting a smiley face sticker on its head. These aspiring women priests would do better to just leave and find a more welcoming church.

On a purely selfish note I’m glad that I am a man, because a lot of men assume that they can talk down to someone just because their a woman, and I already have enough problems. Moreover I am not good-natured or polite enough to deal graciously with that kind of disrespect.

 

[JimG]

the fact that you view feminism as anti-christian is very telling. feminism is just anti-sexism, and to oppose it amounts to sexism.

that is what i believe is at the heart of the issue of women in the priesthood. i have found the arguments presented in this thread to be completely unpersuasive.

no one has given a coherent argument in favor of the catholic view that all women are unfit to be priests, so i continue to see it as a nothing other than sexism.

No one has given a coherent argument in favor of the catholic view that all men are unfit to be mothers, so I continue to see it as nothing other than sexism.

 

[Rocinante]

No one has given a coherent argument in favor of the catholic view that all men are unfit to be mothers, so I continue to see it as nothing other than sexism.

but it’s simple to give such an argument. men don’t have ovaries.

 

[JimG]

but it’s simple to give such an argument. men don’t have ovaries.

Or wombs. Yes, it is simple; it’s an argument that men and women are ontologically different, and that the difference is more than purely biological. But I’m afraid that it’s an argument that is apparently no longer persuasive, since the sexes are treated now mostly as the same and only accidentally different.

 

[Betterave]

Exactly.

There was nothing ‘exact’ about that comment.

Catholicism (and probably Christianity as a whole) is inherently patriarchal, and trying to reform it so that it really treats women equally is like trying to make a rabid wolf friendly by putting a smiley face sticker on its head. These aspiring women priests would do better to just leave and find a more welcoming church.

I think a better metaphor would be to say it’s like trying to make Shaquille O’Neal feminine by making him wear a bra and panties.

On a purely selfish note I’m glad that I am a man, because a lot of men assume that they can talk down to someone just because their a woman, and I already have enough problems. Moreover I am not good-natured or polite enough to deal graciously with that kind of disrespect.

On a purely editorial note, I’m glad I’m a man because I like being a man and I’m glad women are women because I like women.

 

[Roy5]

Religion certainly has played a role in continuing sexism. Patrirachy probably can be traced to physical characteristics, frankly. Men normally are stronger physically than women, they appear to have more of a tendency toward war, and they do not have the degree of caregiving instinct that probaby is connected to the strong maternal instinct. Frankly, I don’t blame men for this, since it seems to be part of nature. Look at all the main characters in scripture. With a few exceptions, they are men. The Old Testament is notorious with its male chauvinism - Solomon with his 600 wives and 1000 concubines (or however many they were). While Jesus was relatively progressive for that era, it’s true that all the disciples were men. St. Paul, of course, told women that they were subordinate to men, that they should obey their husbands, that they should keep silent in churches, that they should never teach men, etc. Much Christian chauvinism today is justified by quoting Paul.

What does seem apparent, however, is that today we are passing beyond patriarchy -well, hopefully. Check the candidates for high office in this country and elsewhere - Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, for two. That would have been unheard-of only awhile back. It hasn’t been even 100 years since women in the USA were permitted to vote!

** The Catholic Church seems determined to ignore this**. Some poster claims that women have always been on the ‘inner circle’ within the Church. I don’t believe it. Evidence? Women have been all but absent from the higher positions within Catholicism. The major breakthroughs have come within modern mainline Protestantism over the past half-century. Yes, it has caused some hubbub, as in the Anglican communion, but resistance to such change always faces feierce resistance. Among Presbyterians, Methodists, the United Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ and various other groups women have achieved major status. Among the roughly 50 Bishops within the United Methodist Church I believe 15-20 of them now are women. I don’t have the precise figures, and it changes regularly as Bishops retire and new ones are elected. Over 10,000 women have been ordained in the UMC. The percentage may be even higher in the United Church of Christ. Etc.

** It’s not all that simple. Not only is there resistance, but there is some danger. **What is that danger? Religion already is seen by some as mainly for women and children. This is especially true in some areas where Latino culture reigns. If women become too dominant among the clergy, will this turn off more men? I see this as a risk. And in some Protestant denominations women may actually come to outnumber men in seminaries. I know that ardent feminists will consider this a silly concern, but that is my only concern. Apart from that, of course there should be female priests! I just hope that it doesn’t become lopsided and turn off more men. Perhaps steps will have to be taken to avoid this.

** Some evangelicals also resist female leadership.** Yet, women like Joyce Meyer, Paula White, Marilyn Hickey and several others are prominent on evangelical telecasts. And there are various husband and wife teams - Osteens, Robisons, Copelands, Crouches, etc.

** There have been some 'Catholic break-throughs" like Mother Angelica.** Sadly and ironically, she has made it but has been a leader against change, seeming to want the Church to return to the ‘good old days’ before Vatican II. The same is true of that woman who moderates the “Women of Grace” telecast. I have trouble spelling her last name. We seldom seem to hear from those nuns and lay women who want to open the doors of the Church wider so that women can share more fully in leadership. We can never expect to hear their point of view on EWTN.
** God bless the whole world - no exceptions. Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier**.

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

Or wombs. Yes, it is simple; it’s an argument that men and women are ontologically different, and that the difference is more than purely biological. But I’m afraid that it’s an argument that is apparently no longer persuasive, since the sexes are treated now mostly as the same and only accidentally different.

The difference that makes men incapable of bearing children *is *purely biological. If there was a man who somehow had functioning ovaries, a womb, and any other necessary biological parts, then he absolutely could carry children.

The comparison of women wanting to be ordained to men wanting to give birth is such a false analogy that I can’t believe that anyone buys it. There is no physical part that women lack that is needed to be a priest. Is male genitalia necessary to the job role of a priest?

The only reasoning I’ve heard that women can’t be priests is that “God said so.” And the only way we know this is from biblical references that can be easily interpreted. I have yet to hear what men have that women lack that is necessary for the job.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The difference that makes men incapable of bearing children *is *purely biological. If there was a man who somehow had functioning ovaries, a womb, and any other necessary biological parts, then he absolutely could carry children.

The comparison of women wanting to be ordained to men wanting to give birth is such a false analogy that I can’t believe that anyone buys it. There is no physical part that women lack that is needed to be a priest. Is male genitalia necessary to the job role of a priest?

The only reasoning I’ve heard that women can’t be priests is that “God said so.” And the only way we know this is from biblical references that can be easily interpreted. I have yet to hear what men have that women lack that is necessary for the job.

Women ‘lack’ nothing. The Church lacks the authority to ordain women.

And nowhere is it written (in the Catechism, specifically) that women are not ‘fit’ to be priests. It is not a question of ‘fitness’ in the way that most ‘dissenters’ are using the term.

Priests are to be men. God ‘says so’, and the Church has the authority to ‘proclaim’ God’s teachings. That is one reason why God instituted the Church–to ‘proclaim the gospel-- the WHOLE gospel.’

But the church has NO authority to ordain women. Why? Because God did not give it that authority.

So, take up the complaints with the Big Guy if you still have them. Myself, I’d rather believe in Him.

 

[davidv]

The difference that makes men incapable of bearing children *is *purely biological.

How do you know this? God said He made us male and female. Why did He establish this difference?

If there was a man who somehow had functioning ovaries, a womb, and any other necessary biological parts, then he absolutely could carry children.

How could he aquire these parts without being a woman?

The comparison of women wanting to be ordained to men wanting to give birth is such a false analogy that I can’t believe that anyone buys it.

Strawman. The analogy is meant to show there is an essential, not just superficial difference. It is this difference that are the basis for the Church’s claim.

There is no physical part that women lack that is needed to be a priest. Is male genitalia necessary to the job role of a priest?

Correct, the physical parts aren’t problem. Maleness, or lack thereof, is.

The only reasoning I’ve heard that women can’t be priests is that “God said so.”

Clearly indicating that you haven’t understood what has been provided as an explanation.

And the only way we know this is from biblical references that can be easily interpreted. I have yet to hear what men have that women lack that is necessary for the job.

See above. (hint: maleness)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Short and sweet.

There is no Church teaching whereby the poor victimized women have been systematically ‘deprived’ of their inherent ‘right’ to the priesthood. Women are not ‘lesser’ than men. Priesthood is not about having power.

And finally, the Church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women. It DOES have authority to ordain men. That authority, however, does not mean that every man who comes to his local seminary and bleats, “I have a calling” is ENTITLED to be ordained or that he WILL be ordained. And even those who (at the time of ordination at least) are truly called by the Spirit may not CONTINUE to hear the Spirit. These men are still capable of falling into sin, at any time. So even a man who works hard, is truly called, and validly ordained, isn’t automatically ‘entitled’ to priesthood, isn’t necessary going to obey God the rest of his life, etc. In fact, while priesthood is ‘forever’, if he does do something sufficiently dreadful, he may (but is not guaranteed) be ‘laicized’ whereby he may no longer VALIDLY act as a priest though he is ontologically still a priest ‘inside.’

 

[Betterave]

** God bless the whole world - no exceptions. Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier**.

Why not first attempt to make reasonable dialogue about religion a bridge? You may be well meaning, but you’re very irrational. You can’t seriously think that you’ve made an honest and respectful attempt to engage the Catholic position here?! How can religion be a bridge if the advocates of this function of religion are irrational, dishonest, and disrespectful towards positions they disagree with, as clearly is the case for you (even if this is not intentional)?

 

[Rocinante]

There is no Church teaching whereby the poor victimized women have been systematically ‘deprived’ of their inherent ‘right’ to the priesthood. Women are not ‘lesser’ than men. Priesthood is not about having power.

And finally, the Church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women. It DOES have authority to ordain men. That authority, however, does not mean that every man who comes to his local seminary and bleats, “I have a calling” is ENTITLED to be ordained or that he WILL be ordained.

i think everyone understands that no one is entitled to be a priest.

“the church has no authority to ordain women” is something the church says about itself by interpreting its own tradition. it claims to be bound by what god has granted it authority to do. it claims that god has not granted it the authority to ordain women.

but people will still want to know why it sees things that way. what makes it think that women are unfit to be priests? in other words, why does the church think that god thinks that women are unfit for the priesthood? the answer seems to be, we don’t know why god thinks that, but it is nevertheless the case that god thinks that so we must abide by it. but what makes the church think that god thinks that? the arguments presented here have been really lousy (in my view).

 

[JimG]

If a woman is only a man with a womb, and a man is only a woman with testicles, then I suppose one could view them as essentially the same except for a few minor biological details, easily replaceable, one with the other. But I don’t see them that way, and I never will. Is a mom the same as a dad? Do they mean the exact same thing to a kid? Are aunts and uncles, grandmas and grandpas interchangeable?

Does a kid sometimes need his mom and other times need his dad? Yes, and that’s why the best way to raise children is with both a mom and a dad.

But it’s just not fair, is it? Why can’t a woman be more like a man? Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Why can’t the just both do and be the same things?

God, of course, created us this way, and then imposed a further inequality by becoming incarnate as a man. And choosing a woman as his mother. Why couldn’t it have been the other way around?

Now, it’s up to us to correct this situation by making our own change so that a woman can act in persona Christi. The Church doesn’t think that’s possible, but it’s only been around 2,000 years, and is obviously way behind the times.

Other churches have done it and they’re doing fine.

Or are they?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right the priest is not the Lamb, but he is still the priest and standing in for Christ in His role as the Second Adam, making the sacrifice necessary to redeem Eve and all of her children, the whole human race.

Right. The priest acts in persona of Christ the High Pirest, not Christ the Lamb of God. There is only one sacrifice, therefore it doesn’t need to be done again. What the priest does is offer the same sacrifice to God.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The priest acts in persona christi - in the person of Christ. He is not the Lamb but through the sacrament of Holy Orders, he can perform the mass, forgive sins and so on.

americancatholic.org/features/sacraments/HolyOrders.asp

Peace,
Ed

Yes, as mentioned in the previous post, the priest acts in persona of Christ as the High Priest, but not Christ the Lamb of God. A previous poster suggested that the preist has to be male because the sacrifice has to be male, so I pointed out the priest is not sacrified, but merely the offerer. Christ is both the offerer as the High Priest, and the sacrifice as the Lamb of God.

 

[Roy5]

Wow! Here I am, trying to present a point of view as best I can, but instead of a logical response my opinion is dismissed as “irrational, dishonest and disrespectful”. We used to call that ‘argumentum ad hominem’ (I hope I spelled that correctly - my Latin is ancient). Sometimes, when the message becomes too persuasive, go after the messenger!

But, God bless you anyway.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Now, it’s up to us to correct this situation by making our own change so that a woman can act in persona Christi. The Church doesn’t think that’s possible, but it’s only been around 2,000 years, and is obviously way behind the times.

Other churches have done it and they’re doing fine.

Or are they?

You’re right of course.

When considering the whole broad sweep of human history 2 thousand years really isn’t that much

 

[Betterave]

i think everyone understands that no one is entitled to be a priest.

“the church has no authority to ordain women” is something the church says about itself by interpreting its own tradition. it claims to be bound by what god has granted it authority to do. it claims that god has not granted it the authority to ordain women.

but people will still want to know why it sees things that way. what makes it think that women are unfit to be priests? in other words, why does the church think that god thinks that women are unfit for the priesthood? the answer seems to be, we don’t know why god thinks that, but it is nevertheless the case that god thinks that so we must abide by it. but what makes the church think that god thinks that? the arguments presented here have been really lousy (in my view).

I’m sure you’re right: there have been plenty of lousy arguments. But let’s be fair: yours (and in general those coming from your side) have been just as lousy… and often much lousier. (E.g., check out post 274, just above this one!)

 

[Betterave]

Wow! Here I am, trying to present a point of view as best I can, but instead of a logical response my opinion is dismissed as “irrational, dishonest and disrespectful”. We used to call that ‘argumentum ad hominem’ (I hope I spelled that correctly - my Latin is ancient). Sometimes, when the message becomes too persuasive, go after the messenger!

But, God bless you anyway.

My post was perfectly logical. It was ad hominem, but not fallaciously so. Your reply here is ad hominem, but in your case it is fallacious, because you are using your ad hominem remarks precisely to avoid dealing with the issue I raised. (Not all argumenta ad hominibus are fallacious, I hope you realize.)

God bless you too, Roy, in particular may God open your mind and allow it to be enlightened. And may you respond to the rational content of my posts in the future, instead of resorting to fallacious ad hominem dismissals and completely ignoring what I say.

[Do you really think that when someone claims that your views are clearly *dishonest, disrespecftul, and irrational, that this is an indication that your views are in fact persuasive? Again, in addition to dripping with irony, that move on your part seems dishonest, disrespecftul, and irrational. Can you at least *try *to understand that?]

 

[vsedriver]

I envision God as loving, merciful and understanding. Surely he won’t penalize those of us who honestly doubt certain parts of Catholic doctrine. Must we believe that Mary lived a sinless life? Or, that God drowned all those people during the time of Noah? Or, that Jehovah ordered Saul to murder every remaining Amalekite? Or, that the bread and wine when blessed by a priest becomes the actual body and blood of Christ? Or, that women should be silent in the churches (see St. Paul)? Or, that women should not become priests? Etc.

I think you are arguing for understanding not for acceptance. You feel you must understand all that the Church teaches before you can accept Her teachings. In essence, you don’t trust the Church even though Jesus himself said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

I’ve found time and time again that the Church has well thought reasoning based on scripture for all Her dogmas, doctrines, and disciplines. It just that many will not accept the Church’s POV because the ‘feel’ differently.