Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[mackk]

It doesn’t matter if no one in the world talks about how good a person is, whether it be nun or father or lay member. There is, I suspect, a bit of envy at the bottom of your complaint.

There is nothing “unfair” about women not being able to be priests, just like there is nothing “unfair” about men not being able to bear children. It is simply the way God wanted it.

Tradition, as well as Scripture attest to the fact that women are not to be priests, because that is not how God wanted his Church to funciton. If Scripture and Tradition are denied on this, how can one truly be called a Catholic? If you deny what the Church teaches, you are denying her authority and have set yourself up as your own interpreter of God’s will for his Church.

First it isn’t my complaint i’m repeating what i hear mostly.
with the exception of the last bit where i say that it’s unfair that women are afforded no power inside the church… it is now and always will be a “glass ceiling” situation. if a nun works devoutly her entire life she will still ONLY be a nun … not a Nun in red who helps pick the next pope. Not a Nun who in times of great suffering has the rights to help a soul pass on. JUST A NUN … if i man works hard and is devout there is no ceiling for him. he may well become the pope. you do recall the pope he’s the guy with he cool hat and the final say in all things Catholic…

second please be so kind as to point me to the scripture … (try to remember i’m learning from you .)

and for those of you who keep saying that the power isn’t important
how does one with no resources (vow of poverty) and no power (females have none in the church) help those in need exactly? pat them on the shoulder … spend their lives begging for money to hand to them … it’s a foolish notion that service and power should not be related to each other … if power were not important then the bishop of Rome would no be called the POPE

also i read some of you saying ignorant things about how the Anglicans are going down hill because of some rebel female priests …
seriously male priests screw up too stop deluding yourselves into believing that screwing up is a trait only belonging to women.

with that said it isn’t female priests i would be rooting for it is stronger nuns … we already have female religious why not pull for more rights for them.

 

[davidv]

First it isn’t my complaint i’m repeating what i hear mostly.
with the exception of the last bit where i say that it’s unfair that women are afforded no power inside the church… it is now and always will be a “glass ceiling” situation. if a nun works devoutly her entire life she will still ONLY be a nun … not a Nun in red who helps pick the next pope. Not a Nun who in times of great suffering has the rights to help a soul pass on. JUST A NUN … if i man works hard and is devout there is no ceiling for him. he may well become the pope. you do recall the pope he’s the guy with he cool hat and the final say in all things Catholic…

second please be so kind as to point me to the scripture … (try to remember i’m learning from you .)

and for those of you who keep saying that the power isn’t important
how does one with no resources (vow of poverty) and no power (females have none in the church) help those in need exactly? pat them on the shoulder … spend their lives begging for money to hand to them … it’s a foolish notion that service and power should not be related to each other … if power were not important then the bishop of Rome would no be called the POPE

also i read some of you saying ignorant things about how the Anglicans are going down hill because of some rebel female priests …
seriously male priests screw up too stop deluding yourselves into believing that screwing up is a trait only belonging to women.

with that said it isn’t female priests i would be rooting for it is stronger nuns … we already have female religious why not pull for more rights for them.

Why do you think the priesthood is about power?

1536 Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum ergo;7259011:

Roy, I’m a woman. And you know what? I"m an older woman (54). I have lived through the ‘good old days’, I’ve lived through the feminist revolution, etc. I have been the ‘superwoman’ who ‘brought home the bacon, fried it up in a pan’ yadda yadda. I’ve also been the ‘dumped for the younger model’ forced into single motherhood and poverty woman.

Am I ‘grateful’ that, for example, unlike the early 19th century, my children were not automatically taken from me and given to the male? That I was able to have an independent bank account? That I was able to find paying work? Yes, I’m grateful (QUOTE.)

-You should know that these rights and opportunities are not the work of conservatives. Up until the 20th century (and throughout much of that century too) giving women a right to such things was regarded as a liberal or even radical idea.

Am I grateful that society’s expectations for women have led (for a vast majority) into a climate where men have objectified women far more than in other eras?

Where women and men are more adversarial than in other eras?(OUOTE.)

-How do you know that women are more objectified in the modern Western world?

Because they are more openly treated as sex objects (in some ways)?
How is that fundamentally different from how women were treated in the past?

If Sharia Law has shown the world anything, it has illustrated that men don’t necessarily try to keep women out of the public sphere and banish all displays even hinting at female sexuality because they respect women. In fact, men who participate in Sharia Law often act as though they hate women.

As a student of history, that’s how. If you haven’t studied history thoroughly then you’re likely to be more inclined to jump to using extremes as examples or to make strawman arguments because you’re simply repeating the same party line from ‘contemporary judgment.’ If you have studied history (and not just Western history) with an eye to an overarching assessment that is not based on a comparison of everything with 'how we do it in 2010 in the U.S.), you have more chance to see ‘clearly.’

 

[Tantum_ergo]

First it isn’t my complaint i’m repeating what i hear mostly.
with the exception of the last bit where i say that it’s unfair that women are afforded no power inside the church… it is now and always will be a “glass ceiling” situation. if a nun works devoutly her entire life she will still ONLY be a nun … not a Nun in red who helps pick the next pope. Not a Nun who in times of great suffering has the rights to help a soul pass on. JUST A NUN … if i man works hard and is devout there is no ceiling for him. he may well become the pope. you do recall the pope he’s the guy with he cool hat and the final say in all things Catholic…

second please be so kind as to point me to the scripture … (try to remember i’m learning from you .)

and for those of you who keep saying that the power isn’t important
how does one with no resources (vow of poverty) and no power (females have none in the church) help those in need exactly? pat them on the shoulder … spend their lives begging for money to hand to them … it’s a foolish notion that service and power should not be related to each other … if power were not important then the bishop of Rome would no be called the POPE

also i read some of you saying ignorant things about how the Anglicans are going down hill because of some rebel female priests …
seriously male priests screw up too stop deluding yourselves into believing that screwing up is a trait only belonging to women.

with that said it isn’t female priests i would be rooting for it is stronger nuns … we already have female religious why not pull for more rights for them.

So you’re arguing that the tradition in Christianity is to be part of the 'group with power?" Doesn’t that kind of butt up against what Christianity teaches?

The whole point of priests is not for them to go around having power and ‘choosing the leader’ etc. If that were so, the entire edifice of Christianity would have collapsed long ago, because anything that is limited to the efforts of men (or the efforts of women or men, or even–gasp–just women alone) is going to fail, because people themselves are fallible.

Priests are to be servants. Let’s see the line of women who would say that they authentically hear the ‘call’ once they actually saw that, contrary to the lies they’ve been fed, that the Pope isn’t some person of great ‘power’ but rather a man who not only has a burden on him in this world (you think it is EASY to lead a billion people, just for their ‘earthly’ lives?) but also in the NEXT world as his ‘job’ has a direct impact on whether or not they will make the choice to go to heaven instead of hell??

If women knew that unlike now, when they are really only directly responsible for getting their own souls (and to a lesser degree those of their children) into heaven, as priests they would be responsible for hundreds of thousands. . .they would spend the rest of their lives doing penance not just for their own mad pride but as a kind of restitution for all they had done, and that others had done in that prideful name, which has had a share in the many many lives destroyed on earth and possibly facing eternal damnation.

And they would realize once again that God has far more wisdom than any given woman --or man–and that trying to place their own ‘powers’ above His is pure foolishness no matter how much ‘the Devil’ whispers admiration of how they ‘are thinking for themselves’ or ‘refusing to be dominated.’

 

[The_Exodus]

if a nun works devoutly her entire life she will still ONLY be a nun … not a Nun in red who helps pick the next pope. Not a Nun who in times of great suffering has the rights to help a soul pass on. JUST A NUN…

Why is it “just a nun” to you? It ought to be, “she’s a nun!” I think you’re imposing a sort of sexism or nun-ism that isn’t there. Of course, a nun cannot be a pope or cardinal or bishop, etc. But there are a lot of things that can’t happen like this, like the fact that men can’t bear children. It’s just the way God wanted it. Just because there is not complete equity in things doesn’t mean there is condescension. There has to be some differences among us, otherwise there wouldn’t be men and women.

mackk:

second please be so kind as to point me to the scripture … (try to remember i’m learning from you .)

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 1 Corinthians 14:34.

And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 1 Timothy 2:12

mackk:

and for those of you who keep saying that the power isn’t important
how does one with no resources (vow of poverty) and no power (females have none in the church) help those in need exactly?

Nuns are in their position voluntarily, so perhaps you should ask them why they do what they do, why they think it’s worth it, etc.

 

[Rocinante]

It’s not his skin color, shape, or size which is important. God can heal sin and brokenness, but incorrect matter and form would invalidate the Eucharist.

of course god can heal, god can do anything including changing the characteristics of anybody if he wanted to. what does that have to do with anything? you still haven’t answered the question. *why *would being female invalidate the eucharist? if it doesn’t matter if he priest be tall or short, bearded or clean-shaven, dark or light skinned, strong or weak, fat or thin, blue-eyed or brown-eyed, healthy or sickly, ugly or attractive, unblemished or ridden with acne, 20/20 vision or near-sighted, disfigured and an amputee or whole, old and decrepit or young and spry, then why is it thought to matter that he be male rather than female?

A woman is not a MALE! She is FEMALE!

uh, yeah. i totally get that. the question is why is that important???

She can never fulfill the commandment from God that the sacrificial lamb be MALE!

oh, he we go at last. but this seems extremely far fetched. you mean to tell me that the theological justification of why women can’t be priests is that it says in the OT that god wanted male lambs sacrificed to him?* that’s* the reasoning???

by the way, where in the bible are you getting this “commandment from God that the sacrificial lamb be MALE!” and why do you think god requires that a male lamb rather than a female lamb be sacrificed to him?

She cannot be High Priest(Male). She cannot be “In persona Christi”; i.e., the sacrificial offering at the Mass. Female priests would effectively destroy the Mass. There would be NO sacrifice!

so the deal is that a female would be an unworthy sacrifice while only the sacrifice of a male could be worthy of being murdered for god? (leaving the absurdity of god demanding animals be slaughtered as a means of atoning for the sins of those doing the slaughtering) you want to say that there is nothing sexist about any of this???

 

[Tantum_ergo]

One great thing to be said for women getting older. . .they are more likely to start seeing what true freedom really is. Now, I’m not saying that they all will --or that even if they do, they’ll actually act on it. It can be rather scary to see that the people or society you’ve spent your life trying to please by living up to the ‘demands’ made on you (all for your own good, ye’ll ken) have been bass-ackward according to the whole normal human equation. So some will try even harder to fit into the ‘mold’ or to defend the indefensible rather than admit being wrong.

But admitting wrong can be liberating. You can’t start marching in the right direction, if you’ve been headed in the wrong one, until you STOP heading wrong.

Christianity has always been a kind of counter-culture in that culture, even the best and brightest, often is focused on the secular good as opposed to the ‘spiritual’ good. While often the two work for similar goals, the secular can get the wrong ‘em-PHA-sis’ because it’s focus is limited only to the secular.

I don’t fight against the good in society (and yes, there is good even today). . .but I will fight against true evil, even when it gets ‘called’ good.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If only we adopted the Orthodox rule of beards on priests, we wouldn’t have this problem today

 

[jmcrae]

oh, he we go at last. but this seems extremely far fetched. you mean to tell me that the theological justification of why women can’t be priests is that it says in the OT that god wanted male lambs sacrificed to him?* that’s* the reasoning???

Well, it’s the reason that Christ, the Lamb of God, was male - and it stands to reason that His priests - those who stand-in for Him at the Sacrifice of the Mass - should also be male, for the same reason.

by the way, where in the bible are you getting this “commandment from God that the sacrificial lamb be MALE!” and why do you think god requires that a male lamb rather than a female lamb be sacrificed to him?

The male is because of the sin of Adam (which is the sin that brought death into the world - Eve’s sin did not bring death into the world).

so the deal is that a female would be an unworthy sacrifice

Not “unworthy” but simply unnecessary - the female did not earn death - it was the male who earned death.

 

[Kingbear]

I dont understand it either.
Jesus through his revelations to Paul has already set out the order in very very simple terms.
The Head of the woman is the Man as the Head of man is Christ and the head of Christ is God.

Why would a woman who truely understood christs message want to put themselves in a position where they would prophesy in a church of Christ?

women have been instructed to keep quiet in church, and this really isnt too hard!
A Preist is required to have spiritual authority over his flock, He is expected to speak and bring Christs message!

What kind of a mockery of Gods word would be made out of such a situation?

This is not meant to upset anyone, women have a obviously **vital **role in supporting the family. God made women as a helpmeet for man, not as an equal to him but as a vitally important assistant.
Where would this stop if women became preists? Next they would be looking at being women popes.

 

[Rocinante]

Well, it’s the reason that Christ, the Lamb of God, was male - and it stands to reason that His priests - those who stand-in for Him at the Sacrifice of the Mass - should also be male, for the same reason.

but what is the reason? (you answer below)

and if it stands to reason that priests who stand in for jesus must be male just as jesus was, then it would be just as reasonable to say that they must be right handed as jesus was, or bearded as jesus was, or 5’6" as jesus was, or 159 pounds as jesus was, or any other characteristic we could think of. it doesn’t answer the question of why it “stands to reason” that this one characteristic above all others must be shared by those who stand in for jesus while no other characteristic of jesus must be shared by them.

The male is because of the sin of Adam (which is the sin that brought death into the world - Eve’s sin did not bring death into the world).

…

Not “unworthy” but simply unnecessary - the female did not earn death - it was the male who earned death.

i find it very surprising that anyone finds this reasoning convincing. why not say, “it was a blue-eyed person who brought death into the world, therefore a blue-eyed person must stand in for the sacrificial lamb?”

a lamb wouldn’t be deemed worthy of sacrifice if it has broken bones. if a priest has a broken bone can he still stand in as the sacrificial lamb in the mass?

plus, where are you getting this “adam not eve brought death” thing? was their sin not the same? (traditionally it is even said that it was eve that caused adam to sin, so she is the more culpable)

 

[jmcrae]

but what is the reason? (you answer below)

and if it stands to reason that priests who stand in for jesus must be male just as jesus was, then it would be just as reasonable to say that they must be right handed as jesus was, or bearded as jesus was, or 5’6" as jesus was, or 159 pounds as jesus was, or any other characteristic we could think of. it doesn’t answer the question of why it “stands to reason” that this one characteristic above all others must be shared by those who stand in for jesus while no other characteristic of jesus must be shared by them.

It states clearly in the Scriptures that Jesus died as “Second Adam” - not as “second blue-eyed Jew” or “second tall, strong carpenter” etc.

a lamb wouldn’t be deemed worthy of sacrifice if it has broken bones. if a priest has a broken bone can he still stand in as the sacrificial lamb in the mass?

No, if he is deformed or mutilated in any way, he cannot serve as a priest.

plus, where are you getting this “adam not eve brought death” thing? was their sin not the same? (traditionally it is even said that it was eve that caused adam to sin, so she is the more culpable)

Adam blamed Eve - this is why sacrifices became necessary. If he had taken ownership of his responsibility, the history of the world might have been a lot different.

 

[Rocinante]

It states clearly in the Scriptures that Jesus died as “Second Adam” - not as “second blue-eyed Jew” or “second tall, strong carpenter” etc.

nevertheless, presumably adam and jesus had other characteristics in common other than maleness. the question remains, why is maleness above all else considered essential?

Adam blamed Eve - this is why sacrifices became necessary. If he had taken ownership of his responsibility, the history of the world might have been a lot different.

this sounds made up. i had always been taught that the sin of adam was the same as that of eve–disobedience–rather than “telling on eve.” this is also what i readin the catechism. see below. do you have anything like a semi-official catholic source to confirm that this is the catholic view (i.e., that adam brought sin and therefore death into the world by his blaming of eve rather than his disobedience to god)?

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286
…

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. "

 

[TedDC]

No, if he is deformed or mutilated in any way, he cannot serve as a priest.

That can’t be true…can it?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There are some people out there who refuse to acknowledge the fact that the sexes are different.

They refuse to believe that one gender can do something that the other can not and vice versa.

Also, some view the position of priest with some sort of power and some women just have to have the same power as a man does.

Thats how I look at this misguided idea that women can be ordained.

 

[mackk]

Why do you think the priesthood is about power?

the priest hood isn’t JUST about power but power is involved and if it were not then there would only be monks ? and it is kind of sad that from that post this is the only thing you walk away with. i’m not talking about how much power priests have, but how little nuns get in comparison …

 

[glencora]

The Eucharist
In the Exodus account of the Passover, God commands the Israelites to take an unblemished, male lamb, sacrifice it, and spread its blood on their doorposts …
www.fisheaters.com/mass.html

Exodus
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt,
[2] "This month shall be for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year for you.
[3] Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month they shall take every man a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household;
[4] and if the household is too small for a lamb, then a man and his neighbor next to his house shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb.
[5] Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats;
[6] and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening.
[7] Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them.
[8] They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.
[9] Do not eat any of it raw or boiled with water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts.
[10] And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until the morning you shall burn.
[11] In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.
[12] For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.
[13] The blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
[14]This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance

Leviticus
And the LORD said to Moses,
[18] "Say to Aaron and his sons and all the people of Israel, When any one of the house of Israel or of the sojourners in Israel presents his offering, whether in payment of a vow or as a freewill offering which is offered to the LORD as a burnt offering,
[19] to be accepted you shall offer a male without blemish, of the bulls or the sheep or the goats.
[20] You shall not offer anything that has a blemish, for it will not be acceptable for you. an ordinance for ever.[/FONT[/COLOR]]

 

[jmcrae]

That can’t be true…can it?

Yes, it’s true. Disabled men cannot become priests.

 

[TedDC]

Yes, it’s true. Disabled men cannot become priests.

Wow, that really surprises me. Do you know where I could find the applicable canon law or some other official reference on that requirement?

 

[ConstantineTG]

There are some people out there who refuse to acknowledge the fact that the sexes are different.

They refuse to believe that one gender can do something that the other can not and vice versa.

Also, some view the position of priest with some sort of power and some women just have to have the same power as a man does.

Thats how I look at this misguided idea that women can be ordained.

Right. People always associate equality with being the same in every say. People should realize that being different doesn’t mean one is better than the other.