Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[Tantum_ergo]

Not exactly.

I enjoy playing Devil’s Advocate sometimes in threads, especially when people arguing for the same position that I am say something outrageous or simply untrue.

You mean you’d rather play a “role” instead of simply saying, "that’s outrageous’, or ‘that’s not true’, and then asking, “why did you say something outrageous? Were you being sarcastic? Do you really think what you’re saying is right?”

Or "That isn’t true and here is the proof it isn’t. Did you think it was true, or did you deliberately lie in order to try to mislead people?’

 

[jmcrae]

Interesting.

Virtually all the arguments against women’s ordination I have heard fall into 2 categories.

1)God instituted an all male priesthood, and who are we to question Him? (appeal to authority argument).
2)Women are too weak, spiritually impure, etc. to be priests (the women are inferior argument).

But I don’t think that I have ever heard this one before. It doesn’t fit easily into categories one or two.

Yes you have - I was giving the exact same argument earlier in this thread.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

First of all, I don’t know any women who want to be priests, but the ones I heard about usually belong to some liberal convent and are dissidents in the Church. Many also are pro-aborts and pro “same-sex marriage” (an oxymoron, if there ever was one!)

Of course the media hits on anything Catholic and tries to slam the Church. Last July, the Church was the subject of a critical editorial in the New York Times along with pieces in response on both priestly sexual abuse and the ordination of women. But why is there never any columns treating Orthodox Jewish and Muslim strictures like those against eating pork or segregating the sexes in many settings. What about banning sex during daylight hours during Ramadan? Then there’s the hajib. Isn’t that a symbol of subjugation? The media is quiet and respectful when it comes to other religions, but when it comes to Catholicism’s proscriptioon of women clergy, the media starts the bashing party.

You have a glimmer of a point, but its not quite that simple.

Except for in Israel Jews are a minority everywhere, and don’t make the news nearly as often as Christians or Muslims. As for the followers of Islam, we here in the West kind of expect Muslims to be violent and misogynistic (so it doesn’t seem that newsworthy unless they do something really bad).

Perhaps most importantly, people in the West (especially Europe) hesitate to write stories criticizing Muslims because we are afraid that they might react violently (the way so many Muslims did to the picture of Muhammad controversy).

 

[karbear]

Its relevant because its another system where the two opposite sides are supposed to be equal, but one side has all the power and privilege. However, Separate But Equal (at least in that context) is a lie.

When one side has all the power they quite naturally use it for their own benefit. If women have no authority in society or the home (and authority over little children doesn’t count if it can easily be negated by the other adult involved) then men will take advantage of them.

This truth is even compatible with Catholic doctrine (as illustrated below).

We are all selfish sinful creatures, so if men are given absolute power (over the women in their lives) of course they will abuse it.

Were men more abusive than women were, in, say the earlier part of last century? Men chose to love and marry, and sometimes their wives would betray their voluntary vulnerability and hurt them. Any type of love requires vulnerability. I have a hard time believing that abuse wasn’t happening on both sides of the divide.

We are selfinsh sinful creatures, and should understand this when writing laws to protect freedom and human dignity. But how is it even possible to equalize power between the sexes without destroying the possibility of vulnerability and love.

I don’t expect a man to sacrifice for me, only to be told that he isn’t needed or appreciated for any of the unique qualities that he brings to the table. To emasculate is to desexualize in a way. How can this be good for relationship? We have to risk vulnerability. There is no such thing as absolute power on the personal level. Most people, however sinful, crave relationship, want the happiness that relationship brings, and are willing to become better people in order to get it. At a group level, I think the majority of men would actually have to hate women in order to be working for their destruction. One cannot simultaneously love his wife and hate women. I guess this is one reason that marriage is called the fundamental building block of society.
The breakdown of the institution of marriage in our society, and it’s replacement with relationships of convenience for gratification, signifies that there is less real love between the sexes out there. What will this mean for the treatment of women?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

Paul establishes most of Christianity’s gender divisions, not “God.” I consider Paul to be a very sexually repressed and troubled figure. His teachings (attributed to him) are some of the most beautiful and some of the most repressive in scripture.

Very few Protestants or Catholic could be found who agree with you. Paul told it like it is. He was never a coward. He preached full submission to Christ.

Does it ever occur to you that the Protestant organization that wants a female clergy is the same Protestant denomination that wants to re-write Paul, justify homosexuality, and insist on the ordination of openly gay bishops, male and female?

I am speaking, of course, of the Church of England, which is now in fragments of its former self, and which is seeing whole congregations in the United States converting to the Catholic Church and last week five Anglican bishops announcing their conversion to Catholicism.

As a feminist you might applaud the Church of England; as a agnostic you might applaud again as you see** further deterioration of Christian unity** … that which is most to be desired by atheists and agnostics.

But, ironically, more Anglicans than ever are seeking unity with the Church of Rome.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

karbear

*The breakdown of the institution of marriage in our society, and it’s replacement with relationships of convenience for gratification, signifies that there is less real love between the sexes out there. What will this mean for the treatment of women? *

Very likely what we have already seen … the use of women as sex toys, to be tossed aside when they are finally used up and broken by the rough treatment of childish men.

 

[4Horsemen]

You have a glimmer of a point, but its not quite that simple.

Except for in Israel Jews are a minority everywhere, and don’t make the news nearly as often as Christians or Muslims. As for the followers of Islam, we here in the West kind of expect Muslims to be violent and misogynistic (so it doesn’t seem that newsworthy unless they do something really bad).

Perhaps most importantly, people in the West (especially Europe) hesitate to write stories criticizing Muslims because we are afraid that they might react violently (the way so many Muslims did to the picture of Muhammad controversy).

The media bashes the Catholic Church for any possible infraction because it’s only the Catholic Church that can claim full apostolic succession from Peter on down, and Peter is the “rock” on which Christ, as Son of God, built His Church. This makes the media mavens weep and wail and gnash their teeth. They don’t want to bow down to the Church and her teachings as God’s truth. So every evil is magnified to the point where media outlets can gloat and keep hate alive.

I see your point about fear of criticizing Muslims because they “might react violently.” It shows that Westerners are wimps. ( I’m thinking that Muslims would probably feel insulted but would have no counter-argument.)

Getting back to the topic . . . most women don’t care about being priests, but the liberal media side with any Leftist cause and propagate it.

 

[edwest2]

I agree that there have been women who have had plenty of influence in the Church and who gave important contributions to Catholic theology.

However, as far as I can see, they tend to be the exception rather than the rule, as there are no standard career “paths” for women willing and able to do such things: a truly exceptional individual will still find a way, of course, but the fact remains that - for example - the vast majority of modern-day theologians are male. And, I think, this is a loss for the Church.

It is not up to me to give suggestions about how this could be remedied; but, in my opinion, this needs to be remedied in some way.

Why? If it’s about power and a human sense of “equality” it misses the whole point. God, not man, established the Catholic Church. The Church has no interest in radical feminism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Interesting.

Virtually all the arguments against women’s ordination I have heard fall into 2 categories.

1)God instituted an all male priesthood, and who are we to question Him? (appeal to authority argument).
2)Women are too weak, spiritually impure, etc. to be priests (the women are inferior argument).

But I don’t think that I have ever heard this one before. It doesn’t fit easily into categories one or two.

Please stop the nonsense. Especially part 2. All you’re doing is projecting a radical feminist worldview on the Church. Pope John Paul II clearly stated that the Church has no authority to ordain women. Got that? No authority. And this was the Pope talking. Do you think he meant the fictional guys in the three piece suits in the Vatican back room? Honestly. Please get it straight.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PetersKeys]

Something wrong with “equality”? I might remind you that Jesus was radical in his own day about “equality”. He was killed for it. He was out to strip righteous religious authority of their presumed superiority. He established a new group of common fishermen who were to give up their families and possessions and eat only as guests at the tables of others. The low and the meek and the sick and the shunned were to be valued as highly as the rich. Religious authority was to be purged of its hypocrisy and sin.

So the state killed the radical.

“Equality.” Indeed. It should be a “weapon” of choice for Christians.

no he wasn’t. Jesus was killed by God as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Talk about bad exegesis. lol

As I said again and again. Authority has NOTHING to do with equality. Your wanting to grab onto authority shows in your heart what is called pride…

and when I used the word equality, as a weapon by liberals. I mean their semantically perverted definition of what they think equality is. They have semantically brutalized the definition of the meaning of equality…

and please, you egalitarians would be lambasting Jesus for having all his 12 apostles as male only…Or the apostles for appointing only males as their successors. I could just see you now back then with your stupid signs.

Don;t make Jesus out to be something he was not. That’s what the sodomites do. Especially since many of these egalitarians support divorce and Jesus said marrying a divorced woman is ADULTERY.

 

[PetersKeys]

It’s not an inferior status. Weaker in some ways, stronger in others…It’s actually a privledged status. One that inspires gratitude.

But I think we agree more than you think. Marriage is of course a partnership. There is a real danger of cultural backlash among those rejecting the femminist line of taking it too far in the other direction. It’s a delicate balance. I try to think of Mary and Joseph as a model. It’s doubtful that he saw he as inferior or underestimated her value. The must have had a vibrant and loving relationship. At the same time he took on that role of headship and protected her.

and must I remind you, the feminist view of marriage and women has increased the divorce rate and family turmoil exponentially. Illegitimacy too. Doesn’t look like their “equality” views are working to well in real life with their 50% divorce rate. lol

Of course when you go to a country that has more traditional values in the roles of men and women. Like Armenia. You will notice a much more grounded functionality within marriages and an below 10% divorce rate…

Remember everyone, Satan also hated authority and wanted to be on the “pulpit” so to speak…and scarily, egalitarians follow a very similar plan…

 

[larkin31]

no he wasn’t. Jesus was killed by God as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Talk about bad exegesis. lol

In a single sentence you just threw out all historical understanding of Jesus and his behavior in Judea. Congratulations!

As I said again and again. Authority has NOTHING to do with equality.

The problem is that this claim is false.

Your wanting to grab onto authority shows in your heart what is called pride…

I don’t want any authority all here.

and please, you egalitarians would be lambasting Jesus for having all his 12 apostles as male only…Or the apostles for appointing only males as their successors. I could just see you now back then with your stupid signs.

This is a weird projection on your part. I did not, and do not, fault Jesus in any way for his choices of followers.

Don;t make Jesus out to be something he was not. That’s what the sodomites do. Especially since many of these egalitarians support divorce and Jesus said marrying a divorced woman is ADULTERY.

Are you trying simply to throw a smear around here?

 

[larkin31]

and must I remind you, the feminist view of marriage and women has increased the divorce rate and family turmoil exponentially. Illegitimacy too. Doesn’t look like their “equality” views are working to well in real life with their 50% divorce rate. lol

Anything else you want to blame on feminism?

Of course when you go to a country that has more traditional values in the roles of men and women. Like Armenia. You will notice a much more grounded functionality within marriages and an below 10% divorce rate…

I hear that Iran has a pretty low divorce rate, too.

 

[PetersKeys]

In a single sentence you just threw out all historical understanding of Jesus and his behavior in Judea. Congratulations!

faceroll… Jesus died for the sins of the world. ALL sin killed him. However it was by God that Jesus died because God provided the sacrifice! I seriously cannot believe you don’t know that

The problem is that this claim is false.

because you say its so??

I don’t want any authority all here.

You are like a little child whining because he wants to have the authority of parents or something. If you view authority in such a shallow, materialistic mindset then you already have started off on the wrong foot…

This is a weird projection on your part. I did not, and do not, fault Jesus in any way for his choices of followers.

Oh please. Jesus instituted 12 male apostles, Jesus, being God, already knew what their actions were gonna be and what they were gonna do…

Are you trying simply to throw a smear around here?

nope, just an example of a figure of pride and jealousy wanting someone else’s authority. Satan wanted to be on the “pulpit” in the big sense. Satan truly didn’t understand the issues of authority however, just like egalitarians do not. They view authority in a very materialistic and jealous sense…And that all stems back to pride and humility…

 

[PetersKeys]

Hey everyone, since someone having authority makes the other person as non-equal. Lets all go protest the president of the US and our bosses in our jobs!! Lets throw out all CEOs of companies and the police system.

go on larkin, since the president has highest authority of all why don’t you go to DC and start protesting him. I’ll even send you a sign.

wonderful system you have here larkin, lol…

 

[Dymphna82]

Haven’t read all of this but I agree with the first page. I think even in Paganism, the groups with a strong male presence are more successful than those with a strong female lead. Women leaders can lead intellectually but spirituality makes them extra sensitive, which can cause them to lead emotionally too. And Wicca has a lot of feminists who joined because they don’t want to be a part of the “patriarchal religion” of Christianity. And with that came a strong presence of the GBLT movement.

I’m absolutely sure that female priests would devolve the church into becoming more and more heretical throughout the years.

If the Catholic Church falls apart in the future just for the sake of pleasing people, then I’m converting to Orthodox.

 

[Dymphna82]

And yeah, I don’t understand why they’d want to be priests except to want to feel powerful. And that need in itself is a bit selfish. There’s absolutely no reason why the average woman can’t witness to others. And there’s no reason why these women can’t become nuns/sisters. As nuns, they’d be working just as hard for God.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Were men more abusive than women were, in, say the earlier part of last century? Men chose to love and marry, and sometimes their wives would betray their voluntary vulnerability and hurt them. Any type of love requires vulnerability. I have a hard time believing that abuse wasn’t happening on both sides of the divide.

We are selfinsh sinful creatures, and should understand this when writing laws to protect freedom and human dignity. But how is it even possible to equalize power between the sexes without destroying the possibility of vulnerability and love.

I don’t expect a man to sacrifice for me, only to be told that he isn’t needed or appreciated for any of the unique qualities that he brings to the table. To emasculate is to desexualize in a way. How can this be good for relationship? We have to risk vulnerability. There is no such thing as absolute power on the personal level. Most people, however sinful, crave relationship, want the happiness that relationship brings, and are willing to become better people in order to get it. At a group level, I think the majority of men would actually have to hate women in order to be working for their destruction. One cannot simultaneously love his wife and hate women. I guess this is one reason that marriage is called the fundamental building block of society.
The breakdown of the institution of marriage in our society, and it’s replacement with relationships of convenience for gratification, signifies that there is less real love between the sexes out there. What will this mean for the treatment of women?

You are refusing to address any of my main points so I will ask you directly.

Do you think that men and women should enjoy the same legal privileges and protections?
Do you think that women and men should have the same rights to housing, employment, and finance?
And do you think that a man should be able to order his wife around like an absolute monarch commands this subjects?

Because based on what you have said for the last couple of pages you appear to be arguing in favor of legal discrimination against women. As well as a man’s (and possibly all men’s) absolute authority over his wife and daughters. An authority only limited by the man’s conscience (and possibly the Church).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

karbear

*The breakdown of the institution of marriage in our society, and it’s replacement with relationships of convenience for gratification, signifies that there is less real love between the sexes out there. What will this mean for the treatment of women? *

Very likely what we have already seen … the use of women as sex toys, to be tossed aside when they are finally used up and broken by the rough treatment of childish men.

And this is the result of feminism and other modern trends how?

Why do you think so many men throughout history have had multiple wives, concubines, and female slaves?

For that matter, why do you think that the Black population in the United States tends to be so much lighter skinned than people actually living in Sub-Saharan Africa (except for recent immigrants to the U.S.)?
Here’s a hint, its not due to the prevalence of interracial marriage in America’s past.

Feminism by and large has not created injustices against women. It has merely highlighted them.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

no he wasn’t. Jesus was killed by God as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Talk about bad exegesis. lolAs I said again and again. Authority has NOTHING to do with equality. Your wanting to grab onto authority shows in your heart what is called pride…

and when I used the word equality, as a weapon by liberals. I mean their semantically perverted definition of what they think equality is. They have semantically brutalized the definition of the meaning of equality…

and please, you egalitarians would be lambasting Jesus for having all his 12 apostles as male only…Or the apostles for appointing only males as their successors. I could just see you now back then with your stupid signs.

Don;t make Jesus out to be something he was not. That’s what the sodomites do. Especially since many of these egalitarians support divorce and Jesus said marrying a divorced woman is ADULTERY.

Jesus killed by God? I thought we collectively did that.

Jesus handed over according to the definite plan of God"

599 Jesus’ violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God’s plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."393 This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.394

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness