Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[ConstantineTG]

All right, at first you seemed to be restating this argument:
Thanks to their ability to carry new life and bring it into the world (pregnancy and childbirth) women can achieve a closeness and a oneness with God and His creation that no man can. God had to (as much as God has to do anything at least) give men the priesthood just to put men on an equal footing with women in that regard.

Being a priest isn’t about closeness or oneness with creation. You should analyze what a father’s role is in the life of a child and see that this is what makes a good preist. A mother would not sacrifice her child because of this close emotional bond, even for the good of the world. A father can be detached from that emotion and make a better judgment. This is why Abraham was able to do what he intended to do with Isaac, which God the Father did with Jesus. A mother would think of catering to a childs needs today, a father would not only think about today but the future. If a child cries, a mother will run to it and pick it up. A father may realize that a child may learn something from this and let the child cry it out. It may not be beneficial today but it will be for the future. And isn’t that what priests do for us? Prepare us for the future of life everlasting in heaven.

Now you seem to be employing one of these arguments:
Arguments that suggest (if not outright say) that men have some vital quality that women lack. Like the masculine aspect of Jesus (thus making women inferior in some fundamental way).

Yet you claim that you think men and women are equal (I think)

Please speak more clearly.
I can’t understand what you are trying to say.

I think you need to get your head unwrapped from the idea that equality means the same. Men and women are not and will never be the same. But that doesn’t mean they are not equal. Women will always be able to bear children, men can’t. Men will always be, given all things being equal, stronger physically than women. Etc. There are things inherent in a man that is not in a woman, and there are thing inherent in a woman that is not in a man.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

Lets be clear here for a moment. The priest is not being sacrified in the Mass. If you read the Old Testament, the priest is the one who offers the Sacrifice, not the one being Sacrified. Lets not forget that Christ has many roles, he is both High Priest and Sacrificial Lamb. The priest today only takes the role of the priest but not the lamb. There is only one lamb, and that is Christ. What we offer and sacrifice at Mass is the bread and wine.

 

[mackk]

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

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. "

BUT the OP didn’t ask why CAN’T women be a priest the OP asked why they WANT to be priests…
most of us agree that the can’t part is set in stone…

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AngryAtheist8;7259168:

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.’

So rather than address my points directly you imply that I am ignorant. That if I were educated and well informed the answer would be obvious and I would agree with you.

This is a debating tactic known as ‘attacking the messenger’ which consists of attacking the credibility of the person you are debating rather than their argument. It is also often a sign that the debater either suspects that they don’t have strong argument or that they simply have no logical reasons for what they believe.

Assuming that this last post of yours was meant as something more serious though, I would like to say that I am familiar with the type of historical analysis your referring to. I find it overly simplistic at best.

-AngryAtheist8

FYI-I am a college graduate and I HAVE studied history.

 

[glencora]

Requirements for the sacrificial Lamb in the Old Testament

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.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum ergo;7259304:

So rather than address my points directly you imply that I am ignorant. That if I were educated and well informed the answer would be obvious and I would agree with you.

This is a debating tactic known as ‘attacking the messenger’ which consists of attacking the credibility of the person you are debating rather than their argument. It is also often a sign that the debater either suspects that they don’t have strong argument or that they simply have no logical reasons for what they believe.

Assuming that this last post of yours was meant as something more serious though, I would like to say that I am familiar with the type of historical analysis your referring to. I find it overly simplistic at best.

-AngryAtheist8

FYI-I am a college graduate and I HAVE studied history.

Hmm. . .where did I imply that ‘you’ were ignorant? For somebody who more than once has intimated that I am addressing what I ‘think’ rather than what you ‘say’, it seems that you’re the one who is reading his own ‘take’ into my words here.

I am not attacking the messenger. But rather than ‘ask’ you simply ‘assume’ that your interpretation must be correct, and proceed to ‘read me a little lecture.’ You know, I don’t want to be dancing around every post with you wondering if you’ll actually be speaking to me or speaking to yourself as you ‘reinvent’ what I say. Could we please try to at least ASK before we ‘assume’ that we ‘know’ what the other person has said, PARTICULARLY if we think (as you apparently did) that the other person was being a bit ‘snippy?’

It surprises me that you find a detailed historical analysis of the type I mention ‘simplistic’ as opposed to a focus that relies solely or predominantly on one limited ‘contemporary’ analysis. I would have thought that you might have objected to it on the basis of its being too broad or too complex. Could you explain just where you find it 'too simplistic?'

 

[glencora]

Do those advocating female priests believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? What do believe is happening in the sacrifice of the Mass? What is Christ’s relationship to the Father and humanity?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Often long lines of men in robes file down a center aisle without one woman among them. Women clearly play a very minor part in such ceremonies.

Emphasis added. Yes, they do, at least in the officiating part (all the lay people participate in the Mass, though). But it’s the in such ceremonies part you need to pay attention to. This is only a problem and/or discrimination if you already assume that you’re right that it is even possible for women to be priests and so it does not, by itself, make that good of an argument that you are right. Note though that a key point of Pope Benedict’s trip was a visit with the Queen of England (or of the United Kingdom, I’m not so good with official titles). I think we can all agree that a woman played a large part there. But if the priesthood must be male, it should not be surprising that things which must (or ordinarily should, like distribution of the Eucharist) be done by priests are done by men.

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

I seem to recall Genesis saying “male and female He created them” as opposed to “Blue and Brown eyed He created them.” This tends to imply that there is in fact an important difference between men and women, while we have no reason to believe that eye color is terribly important. There is a wealth of material on why (and in what manner) Catholics think this difference is important - this is not some arbitrary new thing Catholics pulled out of their collective rear end just to argue against radical feminists.

 

[Rocinante]

Lets be clear here for a moment. The priest is not being sacrified in the Mass. If you read the Old Testament, the priest is the one who offers the Sacrifice, not the one being Sacrified. Lets not forget that Christ has many roles, he is both High Priest and Sacrificial Lamb. The priest today only takes the role of the priest but not the lamb. There is only one lamb, and that is Christ. What we offer and sacrifice at Mass is the bread and wine.

what was explained to me in this thread is that the priests is in persona christi and does indeed represent the sacrificial lamb as well as the one performing the sacrifice. so you argument isn’t with me here.

the reason given to me for why priests must be male is that god demanded that the sacrificial lamb be male. do you disagree?

 

[Rocinante]

Do those advocating female priests believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? What do believe is happening in the sacrifice of the Mass? What is Christ’s relationship to the Father and humanity?

what is of issue here is the relation of male-ness to all of this.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

what is of issue here is the relation of male-ness to all of this.

On a related note, there is something that I think I should point out.

Many of those on this thread have said that women demanding to be priests is like men demanding to be mothers. But that is a false comparison.

Motherhood (pregnancy, birth, nursing, etc.) is an innate biological fact. There have always been mothers, humanity in its present form could not survive without them. But it could survive without Catholic priests, and in fact did survive without the priesthood throughout most of human history (and still does in many parts of the world).

Moreover women (and for that matter men) have no ability to grant motherhood in its traditional (biological) sense to men. But the priesthood is different. Regardless of whether it was instituted or inspired by God the Catholic priesthood remains a human institution, managed and regulated by humans (who all happen to be male).

There are priestesses now, and female priests were relatively common in the Western world before Christianity became dominant. The Pope says that he has no authority to ordain women, but from a strictly practical point of view that isn’t true.

The current Pope COULD command that women be let into the priesthood (though Popes usually don’t like to so obviously and openly overrule a recent predecessor). The real question is whether or not God exists and whether or not he would have a problem with such a Papal decision.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

On a related note, there is something that I think I should point out.

Many of those on this thread have said that women demanding to be priests is like men demanding to be mothers. But that is a false comparison.

Motherhood (pregnancy, birth, nursing, etc.) is an innate biological fact. There have always been mothers, humanity in its present form could not survive without them. But it could survive without Catholic priests, and in fact did survive without the priesthood throughout most of human history (and still does in many parts of the world).

Moreover women (and for that matter men) have no ability to grant motherhood in its traditional (biological) sense to men. But the priesthood is different. Regardless of whether it was instituted or inspired by God the Catholic priesthood remains a human institution, managed and regulated by humans (who all happen to be male).

There are priestesses now, and female priests were relatively common in the Western world before Christianity became dominant. The Pope says that he has no authority to ordain women, but from a strictly practical point of view that isn’t true.

The current Pope COULD command that women be let into the priesthood (though Popes usually don’t like to so obviously and openly overrule a recent predecessor). The real question is whether or not God exists and whether or not he would have a problem with such a Papal decision.

Well, biology is an accepted fact. Are you sure that (since we know that the sexes differ in biological function) there is absolutely no other way in which they could differ? That only because a woman gives birth (and a man does not) this is the only possible ‘difference’ between the two sexes? That God doesn’t know this (since He obviously knows a lot more about the brain, the body, and the soul of males and females than people themselves do?)

No, you really do misunderstand the Church.

The Pope cannot–he really cannot–‘Command that women be let in’. He really can’t.

Your ‘speculations’ are equally ‘off’ in that you imply that Popes ‘have’ overruled their predecessor on matters of faith and morals. They haven’t.

 

[JimG]

On a related note, there is something that I think I should point out.

Many of those on this thread have said that women demanding to be priests is like men demanding to be mothers. But that is a false comparison.

Motherhood (pregnancy, birth, nursing, etc.) is an innate biological fact. There have always been mothers, humanity in its present form could not survive without them. But it could survive without Catholic priests, and in fact did survive without the priesthood throughout most of human history (and still does in many parts of the world).

Moreover women (and for that matter men) have no ability to grant motherhood in its traditional (biological) sense to men. But the priesthood is different. Regardless of whether it was instituted or inspired by God the Catholic priesthood remains a human institution, managed and regulated by humans (who all happen to be male).

There are priestesses now, and female priests were relatively common in the Western world before Christianity became dominant. The Pope says that he has no authority to ordain women, but from a strictly practical point of view that isn’t true.

The current Pope COULD command that women be let into the priesthood (though Popes usually don’t like to so obviously and openly overrule a recent predecessor). The real question is whether or not God exists and whether or not he would have a problem with such a Papal decision.

Well yes, motherhood is innate to female biology. And fatherhood is innate to male biology. It’s also an innate biological fact that Christ was male. Priests are to act in his person, which is more than mere representation or symbolism, and goes to the ontological character of the priesthood.

(One could expand the question to why Christ became incarnate as a male and not as a female, and one could find theological discussions of that. Had he become incarnate as a female, men could not become priests.)

Catholics would disagree that the priesthood is a human institution. We would not have it had Christ not instituted it, and had he not been the first priest of the new covenant. That’s why the pope says we are not free to change it.

Priestesses were fairly common before Christianity, and in religions other than Judaism. Christ expanded the old covenant to include all of humanity rather than just the Jewish people, yet he did not expand the priesthood to women. Neither can the Church.

Of course, the question of whether or not God exists is a separate topic, but his existence and incarnation are presumed in considering the priesthood.

 

[Rocinante]

BUT the OP didn’t ask why CAN’T women be a priest the OP asked why they WANT to be priests…
most of us agree that the can’t part is set in stone…

you are correct. my question is different from though related to the OPs question. do you have the answer?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well yes, motherhood is innate to female biology. And fatherhood is innate to male biology. It’s also an innate biological fact that Christ was male. Priests are to act in his person, which is more than mere representation or symbolism, and goes to the ontological character of the priesthood.

(One could expand the question to why Christ became incarnate as a male and not as a female, and one could find theological discussions of that. Had he become incarnate as a female, men could not become priests.)

Catholics would disagree that the priesthood is a human institution. We would not have it had Christ not instituted it, and had he not been the first priest of the new covenant. That’s why the pope says we are not free to change it.

Priestesses were fairly common before Christianity, and in religions other than Judaism. Christ expanded the old covenant to include all of humanity rather than just the Jewish people, yet he did not expand the priesthood to women. Neither can the Church.

Of course, the question of whether or not God exists is a separate topic, but his existence and incarnation are presumed in considering the priesthood.

Something that I get from reading AAs (and similar) posts is the kind of idea that unless something is ‘scientifically’ proven to be impossible, it not only **could be **done, but it should be done.

I also seem to understand that (provided it is presented as a societal good–the consensus of society appearing to be the guarantator that it is a ‘true good’ as opposed to something which only a ‘few’ support) --whatever society supports as a good **should be **done.

Take women suffrage. At first, society did not ‘support it.’ Now, women suffrage did not change --the point was always that women as well as men should possess an equal ‘vote’, not that women should get it in place of men, or get a ‘bigger’ or a ‘smaller’ vote. What changed was society perception. And when the change in numbers grew large enough, what was once seen as ‘wrong’ became ‘right.’

Now the problem you have is that humanity is not always ‘right’. For every example where society has ‘righted a wrong’, you can see that dear old society has also ‘wronged a right.’ (You don’t suppose that slaves existed from the first time humanity walked the earth, right? "In the beginning’ no man made another a slave. At some point, society ‘wronged a right’ by allowing slavery.)

So just because ‘society’ has decided that some concept or some teaching or some action or some religion etc. etc. is ‘wrong’, is no reason to accept that **society itself is right. **

We have seen some glimmers of ‘women priests’ in women ministers, although the roles and functions are quite different.

Have women in ministry had a positive impact? What are the criteria for measuring? How long and how extensive is the study? What OTHER things have been happening in the denomination and how may these things have affected or been affected by this factor?

How can you be sure that contrary to ‘opinion’, women in ministry are a factor in the decline and failures of the groups that they are present in? Not because they aren’t ‘good’, or that men are ‘better’, but simply because the entire focus of ministry is something that is quite different from what people **currently, and erroneously, believe it to be–**and that, all unknowing and unwitting, these good and well intentioned women aren’t doing far more harm than good (we are speaking not just of the temporal but of the eternal world as well?)

 

[glencora]

The priesthood in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church cannot be opened to women. End of discussion! The faithful believe in God and that Jesus Christ is his Son. We believe that Jesus Christ is the sacrificial Lamb for our sins. We accept the commandment of God regarding the required characteristics of the Lamb. The main one is that the Lamb be male. Women are not men! Women will never be men! The priest is male because he acts"In persona Christi". He offers Christ, the sacrifice to God in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. We are at Calvary. Women and men are equal in worth, but NOT in the capacity to do all things. The priesthood was instituted by Jesus. He chose men. He did not choose women for that role. I don’t understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. I want a valid Mass! I want Christ in the Eucharist! The faithful will worship seperately before we relinquish our Church!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, biology is an accepted fact. Are you sure that (since we know that the sexes differ in biological function) there is absolutely no other way in which they could differ? That only because a woman gives birth (and a man does not) this is the only possible ‘difference’ between the two sexes? That God doesn’t know this (since He obviously knows a lot more about the brain, the body, and the soul of males and females than people themselves do?)

No, you really do misunderstand the Church.

The Pope cannot–he really cannot–‘Command that women be let in’. He really can’t.

Your ‘speculations’ are equally ‘off’ in that you imply that Popes ‘have’ overruled their predecessor on matters of faith and morals. They haven’t.

Yes, I am aware that of that theological principal.

That Catholic doctrine has never significantly changed throughout the history of the Church. It has merely been refined.

Aside from the fact that this obvious isn’t true (the official Church position regarding the Papal States and Italy has changed significantly over the last 150 years for instance) such a thing is nothing to be proud of.

If an institution around for two thousands years could not significantly change in that time, if it could not grow and adapt, that would be a mark of shame. In reality an organization that static and stagnant probably could not survive so long, and would certainly not deserve to.

 

[Rocinante]

The priesthood in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church cannot be opened to women. End of discussion! The faithful believe in God and that Jesus Christ is his Son. We believe that Jesus Christ is the sacrificial Lamb for our sins. We accept the commandment of God regarding the required characteristics of the Lamb. The main one is that the Lamb be male. Women are not men! Women will never be men! The priest is male because he acts"In persona Christi". He offers Christ, the sacrifice to God in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. We are at Calvary. Women and men are equal in worth, but NOT in the capacity to do all things. The priesthood was instituted by Jesus. He chose men. He did not choose women for that role. I don’t understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. I want a valid Mass! I want Christ in the Eucharist! The faithful will worship seperately before we relinquish our Church!

i understand that your position (and possibly the Church’s position though i have seen no documentation) is that the reason the priest must be male is because the priest stands for jesus and that jesus stands for the sacrificial lamb who god commanded must be male. but why did god command that the sacrificial lamb must be male? why does the requirement that a lamb be male also apply to jesus? even if it does, why would the requirement that jesus be male apply to priests?

if you don’t presume to know god’s reasoning on the subject, then why presume to know that god reasons that since the lamb must be male then jesus must be male for the same (unknown) reason and the priest must be male for whatever this (unknown) reason is? it seems to me that at bottom, your answer to why priests must be male is that you don’t know. it’s just been part of the tradition, but there may be no good reason for it to continue.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

How can you be sure that contrary to ‘opinion’, women in ministry are a factor in the decline and failures of the groups that they are present in? Not because they aren’t ‘good’, or that men are ‘better’, but simply because the entire focus of ministry is something that is quite different from what people **currently, and erroneously, believe it to be–**and that, all unknowing and unwitting, these good and well intentioned women aren’t doing far more harm than good (we are speaking not just of the temporal but of the eternal world as well?)

I think that you may have something of a point there.

I suspect that Christianity is so inherently patriarchal that you can’t try to treat women as being really equal without weakening the whole structure. It would be like Nazism without the belief in Aryan supremacy or Communism without class struggle. Yes, it might look the same on the outside, but the heart of the doctrine has been torn out.

Furthermore I have never advocated women becoming Catholic priests in this thread.

I honestly think that women who want to be priests (and Catholic feminists in general) would be better off leaving the Church. There are plenty of secular and religious groups that would welcome them.

I started this thread to ask the question of why these women think that becoming priests is worth the trouble at all. However, it seems like most of the posters to this thread have assumed that I was advocating female ordination and then told me how very wrong I was.
Or simply gone on little rants about how selfish and misguided these women are.

But I posted this to the Philosophy thread because I was hoping that we could discuss it philosophically.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, I am aware that of that theological principal.

That Catholic doctrine has never significantly changed throughout the history of the Church. It has merely been refined.

Aside from the fact that this obvious isn’t true (the official Church position regarding the Papal States and Italy has changed significantly over the last 150 years for instance) such a thing is nothing to be proud of.

If an institution around for two thousands years could not significantly change in that time, if it could not grow and adapt, that would be a mark of shame. In reality an organization that static and stagnant probably could not survive so long, and would certainly not deserve to.

Grow and adapt is one thing. But change is another.

Can you explain to me how the 'official Church position" (which is what, and where is the documentation) has ‘changed’ and how that is related to faith and morals? Nobody argues that the Church hasn’t ‘changed’ some things (including clerical dress and other non-essentials) but you don’t seem to understand infallibility. Come on, the catechism is on-line and easy to access.

Now the thing with the Church’s teachings on faith and morals is that they are true. They aren’t 'true, for the times of say AD 100 to AD 1000", or ‘true when applied to western society’, or 'true if a person accepts them as true.

They are true. Period.

And just because an individual, or a group, or a society, decide that (for ‘them’) they no longer want to accept one of those teachings as ‘true’, doesn’t make those teachings no longer true.

And trying to argue that it’s better for the Church to change its teachings ‘conform’ to society and that "not changing’ is somehow a sign of those teachings–and thus the Church itself- being false shows again a lack of understanding of not just the teachings but the Church. . and of course, ultimately, a lack of understanding of God.