O
OvrlapnMagstria
Guest
I understand that “maleness” is the reason why women can’t be priests. It seems to me the the argument boils down to: “Women can’t be priests because they are not men.” But you gotta admit, this explanation is lacking.Correct, the physical parts aren’t problem. Maleness, or lack thereof, is.
…
Clearly indicating that you haven’t understood what has been provided as an explanation.
…
See above. (hint: maleness)
Why maleness? What function in the role of priesthood requires maleness? Why is maleness a requirement for that function?
I still believe that the child-bearing analogy is a poor one. It doesn’t show that there is an “essential” difference between men and women, since the difference it highlights is biological. Also, you can very easily explain to a man why he can’t bear children and you can point to tangible reasons for it. Why is “femaleness” a requirement for child-bearing? Because females have the right parts to do it.
Tantum ergo:
This explanation at least makes sense. The church would not want to go against God. The question becomes, then, how do we know that God gave the authority to only ordain men and not women. This comes from interpretation and, of course, interpretations vary. For this reason we have women who think its ok for them to become priests.But the church has NO authority to ordain women. Why? Because God did not give it that authority.