A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Really?
I was not aware of that.
I will correct my statement then:
The Church has been part of the establishment and power elite since the time of Emperor Theodosius (at least in Europe).
- Status
I was not aware of that.
I will correct my statement then:
The Church has been part of the establishment and power elite since the time of Emperor Theodosius (at least in Europe).
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I certainly am not. They denounce what God gave them and pretend to be men. As far as what the Church teaches, here it is:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html
It is lengthy but quite clear.
God bless,
Ed
I have read it before.
It seems nice on the surface, but offers few practical ideas or solutions. Some of the ideas expressed in the document are impractical (or even counterproductive) at best. Such as the idea that women MUST not be the competitors/rivals with men.
The fact remains though, that if women are to be truly equal with men they NEED to compete with men sometimes (just as men compete with each other). For jobs, elected office, awards, etc.
If women are denied such things, or even given them without being allowed to compete, then they are not really equal. If women are equal they MUST be competitors sometimes.
N
nickybr38
Guest
Womens rights. Mens rights. We’re so concerned with asserting ourselves that we’ve forgotten we are nothing but slaves…
Slaves to Christ.
Slaves to God.
What rights does a slave have?
Thankfully we have a loving Master, so it’s easy to give ourselves over to Him.
I dunno. I don’t think these women are being deliberately malicious. Whatever their motivation I think they sincerely feel they are doing good.
Slaves to Christ.
Slaves to God.
What rights does a slave have?
Thankfully we have a loving Master, so it’s easy to give ourselves over to Him.
I dunno. I don’t think these women are being deliberately malicious. Whatever their motivation I think they sincerely feel they are doing good.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I am going to play Devil’s Advocate here 
and argue for the other side.
Most of the arguments I have heard against women’s ordination are not very convincing. They seem to fall into 2 main categories:
Appeals to authority, such as ‘if Jesus only ordained men who are we to question His Judgment?’
&
Arguments that suggest (if not outright say) that men have some vital quality that women lack. Like the masculine aspect of Jesus.
As an intellectual atheist I refuse to simply accept Divine or Church authority (at least without some evidence to back it up) and the 2nd position is just a backhanded way of saying women can’t be priests because their inferior.
But I did hear an argument against female ordination that made me sit up and think once. It was being expressed by a Catholic theologian who was being interviewed for his new book (on the radio).
The argument can be summarized like this:
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.
and argue for the other side.
Most of the arguments I have heard against women’s ordination are not very convincing. They seem to fall into 2 main categories:
Appeals to authority, such as ‘if Jesus only ordained men who are we to question His Judgment?’
&
Arguments that suggest (if not outright say) that men have some vital quality that women lack. Like the masculine aspect of Jesus.
As an intellectual atheist I refuse to simply accept Divine or Church authority (at least without some evidence to back it up) and the 2nd position is just a backhanded way of saying women can’t be priests because their inferior.
But I did hear an argument against female ordination that made me sit up and think once. It was being expressed by a Catholic theologian who was being interviewed for his new book (on the radio).
The argument can be summarized like this:
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.
R
Roy5
Guest
** The idea that we should be slaves to any church certainly turns me off.** I am a child of God, provided with a brain, and I feel both privileged, entitled and compelled to use it. The notion that I am a slave to the church, that I must echo the doctrines of any church, is repulsive.
Code:
**The attraction in mainline Protestantism (not fundamentalist Protestantism) is that it provides freedom for people to have various opinions about spiritual matters and not feel guilty or heretical.** Gradually, over the years, it has become clearer to me that we are limited in our human capacity. This does not mean that we turn our minds over to some church or some pope or some preacher or even some book. It does mean that we should be tolerant of different opinions since we all are in the same boat. My guess is that most of our treasured doctrines fall far short of the truth, since we are so limited by our finite nature. I'm ready to wait until I enter life eternal to know the full truth. Until then I suggest that we all be humble and respect the views of one another.
**Now, there have to be certain shared convictions as Christians.** But when it comes to such controversial topics as the sinless life of Mary, praying to saints as intermediaries between us and Christ, or ordaining women - well, why can't be respect the position of each other and walk together in the spirit of Christian unity? I don't mean union, but unity - a sense that we are part of the same family, worshiping the same God, disciples of the same Christ?
**Too often our 'tribal loyalties' supercede everything else. **We may not know plenty of things about our Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox faith, but we are strong partisans nonetheless. May I suggest that this is silly? It's the cause of so much misunderstanding, prejudice, and even gross violence over the centuries.
May God bless all of his children, of every race, color, country - and gender! And may religion become a bridge and not a barrier!
N
nickybr38
Guest
Out of curiousity and respectfully; Do you feel repulsed at the idea of being a slave to God? If not, then how would you feel if you knew He had instituted certain doctrine?
I don’t think anyone here is advocating being a slave to any church, but I am certain all of us here want to please God and do what He wants us to.
E
edwest2
Guest
Jesus died for you and me. The Catholic Church gave the world the Bible.
This is the pearl of great price where a man sold all he had to obtain.
God bless,
Ed
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Church already teaches that God, as a perfect being, is beyond gender. He contains the fulness and perfection of both genders. But God is revealed to us in the image of a Father, so we continue to follow that. I’m a stern believer that if the Church believes she has the power to allow women priests, it would have been done a long time ago. Women have occupied many positions of power from the first days of the Church. Even in pagan lands eventually converted to Christianity, there were women priestesses in pagan temples. So there was truly never a social barrier to having women priests. God himself intended the priesthood only for men and only God himself can change this, the Church cannot.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Ah, another appeal to authority.Womens rights. Mens rights. We’re so concerned with asserting ourselves that we’ve forgotten we are nothing but slaves…
Slaves to Christ.
Slaves to God.
What rights does a slave have?
Thankfully we have a loving Master, so it’s easy to give ourselves over to Him.
To address your statement more specifically nickybr38;7253306, you may be a slave, but I am not.
In fact according to a lot of conservative Catholic theologians, priests, and even laymen I am a rebel against God because I refuse to believe in Him without proof. Which somehow also makes me a minion of Satan.
If true this is very troubling.
Because I have NEVER received a paycheck or any other compensation from the Devil. Despite all the man hours I have put in questioning things, thinking for myself, and mocking religious figures like Fred Phelps.
There is only one apparent solution.
Unionize the damned
R
Roy5
Guest
Perhaps it’s because of my association of the word slave, but, no, I don’t want to be a slave of God. God wants us to be free and willing servants of him and the kingdom. He wants us to serve him faithfully of our own free will, not as slaves. Slaves are oppressed, forced to serve. God wants us to freely give of ourselves.
Code:
My problem with Catholicism (and much of evangelical Protestantism) over the years is that it demands conformity. I must accept all the doctrines, the creeds, the dogmas, or I am not a 'good Catholic'. I am always accused of egotism or pride when I say this, but I treasure the freedom to weigh the teachings of the church. I can believe some, but have grave doubts about others. We were given a brain by the Lord, and will we are punished for using it and perhaps coming up with a conclusion in conflict with church doctrine?
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.
God bless all of his children whatever their creed, color or country - or gender!
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
To address your concerns on a more serious note Nicky, the reason we have to be concerned about our rights is simple.Womens rights. Mens rights. We’re so concerned with asserting ourselves that we’ve forgotten we are nothing but slaves…
Slaves to Christ.
Slaves to God.
What rights does a slave have?
Thankfully we have a loving Master, so it’s easy to give ourselves over to Him.
If God was just AND personally ran everything on Earth we would not have to be concerned about looking after our own welfare. But that isn’t the case.
People run human societies, businesses, churches, and all other human institutions. History has shown that groups that do not fight to defend their rights get taken advantage of.
They are all too likely to be enslaved, discriminated against, or simply abused in countless other ways. THAT is why women’s rights and human rights in general are important.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
No, its not being inferior. If you look at the physical aspect of both men and women, there are things that men can do and women can’t, and women can and men can’t. Its not about being superior and inferior but just being distinctively different. And different doesn’t mean one has to be better than the other. Take this for example, I have an infant son. The bond that my son has with my wife is something I wish we have. Its something different. By instinct a child is more attached to the mother especially at this early stage in life. And also the mother has different instincts than the father. Some of this bond is formed because of breastfeeding. Does that make me an inferior parent just because I cannot breastfeed? Of course not! I just have a different role in the life of my child than my wife has. That is why it is important in a family there is a mother and a father, not two fathers or two mothers. Because each gender offers something different. We only see the external but forget the internal, the emotional, the spiritual, the mental. Being equal doesn’t mean being the same, and being different doesn’t mean one has to be superior to the other.I am going to play Devil’s Advocate here
and argue for the other side.
Most of the arguments I have heard against women’s ordination are not very convincing. They seem to fall into 2 main categories:
Appeals to authority, such as ‘if Jesus only ordained men who are we to question His Judgment?’
&
Arguments that suggest (if not outright say) that men have some vital quality that women lack. Like the masculine aspect of Jesus.
As an intellectual atheist I refuse to simply accept Divine or Church authority (at least without some evidence to back it up) and the 2nd position is just a backhanded way of saying women can’t be priests because their inferior.
But I did hear an argument against female ordination that made me sit up and think once. It was being expressed by a Catholic theologian who was being interviewed for his new book (on the radio).
The argument can be summarized like this:
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.
Christ chose men to be priests for the same reason men are fathers. The role we take in nourturing the lives of children is the same role priests does in nourturing the spiritual lives of his flock. Women offer something else and can’t fill this role. That doesn’t mean they are inferior. The same that men doesn’t carry developing infants in their belly for 9 months and breastfeed them afterwards doesn’t mean we’re lesser parents.
T
tonyrey
Guest
We tend to overlook the fact that we can become slaves to ourselves. The truth makes us free, not our own desires.
If your disbelief is sincere you cannot be a rebel. On the other hand if your demand for proof is unreasonable it may be based on an ulterior motive. No one can see into the depths of a person’s soul…
What about your absolute freedom? Surely that is worth more than anything else…
Unrealistic! They are a law unto themselves…There is only one apparent solution. Unionize the damned
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Aren’t you just agreeing with the argument that I stated?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I tried to offer an explanation as best I can. Your complaint was that people either say 1)Jesus institutued men so thats it, or 2)men has a quality women lack which is the masculinity of Jesus. While my argument sounded more like #2, it is not. I argued that there is somethign far deeper of men and women than sex organs and hormones and mamary glands. While a woman’s ability to reproduce and nurse children is pure physical, there is still a greater emotional and spiritual component there that we cannot quantify. And this deep spiritual and emotional component is what makes man a good father and a perfect priest. Its not because Christ is a man therefore a priest is a man. In its simplicity that is true, but the reason runs deep. The problem of saying it that way is people only see the physical features and not beyond but the answer lied in the beyond.Aren’t you just agreeing with the argument that I stated?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
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.
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.
F
ForAll
Guest
I’m a late-comer, but perhaps my (name removed by moderator)ut would be welcomed…
I wanted to be a priest, for quite a while.
I never advocated for change, I never approached anyone to ask about it, and I never thought about taking it seriously. But I certainly wanted to, and was keenly interested in it.
Why?
Well, why do you think? I love the Eucharist. It’s the source and summit of my faith. I wanted to devote my life to giving that gift to God’s people. That didn’t lead me to a rebellious nature, but that longing was there to some degree. When I truly prayed about it, I didn’t really find that it satisfied me. So I discerned being a Poor Clare nun for quite some time!
I just want to say that not all women who want to be priests are horrible rebels. There may be plenty of women who feel the desire deep in their heart, but guided by the Church, channel their desire in a more appropriate direction.
I wanted to be a priest, for quite a while.
I never advocated for change, I never approached anyone to ask about it, and I never thought about taking it seriously. But I certainly wanted to, and was keenly interested in it.
Why?
Well, why do you think? I love the Eucharist. It’s the source and summit of my faith. I wanted to devote my life to giving that gift to God’s people. That didn’t lead me to a rebellious nature, but that longing was there to some degree. When I truly prayed about it, I didn’t really find that it satisfied me. So I discerned being a Poor Clare nun for quite some time!
I just want to say that not all women who want to be priests are horrible rebels. There may be plenty of women who feel the desire deep in their heart, but guided by the Church, channel their desire in a more appropriate direction.
J
JimG
Guest
To say that men and women are equal is a truism. It means that every human person is of equal value in the eyes of God. One’s human differentiating characteristics, whether of gender or abilities, do not negate our equality under God.
To say that men and women are not the same is also a truism. Men cannot be mothers. Women cannot be fathers.
To put it at its most basic level, women cannot be priests because women are not men.
It’s not just that priests are spiritual fathers. We call them Father, for that reason.
It is that priests must act “in persona Christi.” Or to look at it another way, they allow Christ to use their person as His person. And Christ is male.
In the Mass, at the words of consecration, the priest does not say “this is Christ’s body.” He says “this is my body,” because he acts in the person of Christ. He is not just acting in a play representing the person of Christ at the last supper. He is allowing Christ to make that event present again using his body, his entire being.
It is as pointless for women to demand to become priests, as it is for men to demand to become mothers, in the name of equal rights.
To say that men and women are not the same is also a truism. Men cannot be mothers. Women cannot be fathers.
To put it at its most basic level, women cannot be priests because women are not men.
It’s not just that priests are spiritual fathers. We call them Father, for that reason.
It is that priests must act “in persona Christi.” Or to look at it another way, they allow Christ to use their person as His person. And Christ is male.
In the Mass, at the words of consecration, the priest does not say “this is Christ’s body.” He says “this is my body,” because he acts in the person of Christ. He is not just acting in a play representing the person of Christ at the last supper. He is allowing Christ to make that event present again using his body, his entire being.
It is as pointless for women to demand to become priests, as it is for men to demand to become mothers, in the name of equal rights.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
There’s a couple things that keep coming up that don’t make sense.
It is said that women can’t be priests because Catholicism is inherently sexist, or thinks men are better than women. But this doesn’t hold water - the most revered saint in the Catholic Church is Mary the mother of God, and there are may other female saints as well.
Similarly, it doesn’t make sense to say that women can’t be priests because Catholics don’t think they are able to carry out the leadership responsibilities of priests. This also is clearly not true, as convents are run by nuns, etc and because Catholics have no problem whatsoever with women in any of the thousands of leadership positions that are not associated with the Church (or many non-priest ones within the Church).
In the same way it has nothing to do with knowing the truth or the ability to teach it (my confirmation instructor was woman and nuns are often teachers in Catholic schools), ability to provide service to the poor (nuns and, for that matter, lay people do this as well) or anything else along those lines.
In fact, it has nothing to do with worldly responsibilities or activities of priests at all. For each one of those, you can find a non-priestly equivalent activity that Catholic women are encouraged to participate in.
If you reject appeals to authority (we can’t because Christ didn’t), you don’t understand the gravity of the situation. When the Church claims authority, it claims that the authority comes from God and is essentially God’s authority. To say this of something you are not certain of would be… bad. Note though that the argument that the Church can’t ordain women because Christ didn’t is simply a statement of how we know that we can’t. It is still valid to ask why it is that we can’t, but even if we ask that question we know by the authority argument that we won’t suddenly discover that we can.
And if you claim that Christ didn’t choose women apostles because of cultural restrictions, then you ignore 1) how many cultural restrictions he completely ignored, 2) how many women played a large part in his ministry, and 3) the fact that there were many women priests of different religions all over the area at that time, and so it would not even have seen odd, to the gentiles at least.
If you deny that the priesthood is special or try to change what it means, then your argument that women should be able to be priests is non-sense to Catholics, because you’re arguing that women should be able to be something that we don’t believe exists.
If you argue that women should be able to priests because there is no fundamental difference between men and women, then your argument does not work because a Catholic priest must by definition be a Catholic - that is he must accept the Church’s teachings, one of which is that men and women are in fact different. At best, you are then arguing that women should be able to be priests of some slightly different religion. If you stick to Catholicism, the male priesthood is built in.
Essentially, the actions of Christ make us know that there cannot be women priests, and if we examine why, we know there cannot be women priests because of the nature of the priesthood and the fact that the sexes are different. (see JimG’s post).
And finally:
Roy5:
Either:
A) the 20-century old Church, together with her collection of theologians, who made up some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen, and which is either inerrant on such matters, or whose errancy proves that after God’s incarnation, it was His will to leave us in a situation where we’re supposed to just kind of make our best guess about what He really meant when He was here bodily, or
B) I messed up a little bit.
I’d put my money on the second, especially since my brain has already lead me very soundly to the conclusion that God would leave us some guidance, and that this guidance is in the form of the Church he built on Peter. To reject a Church teaching would be to contradict my own reasoning as well, since my reasoning leads to the infallibility of the Church.
It is said that women can’t be priests because Catholicism is inherently sexist, or thinks men are better than women. But this doesn’t hold water - the most revered saint in the Catholic Church is Mary the mother of God, and there are may other female saints as well.
Similarly, it doesn’t make sense to say that women can’t be priests because Catholics don’t think they are able to carry out the leadership responsibilities of priests. This also is clearly not true, as convents are run by nuns, etc and because Catholics have no problem whatsoever with women in any of the thousands of leadership positions that are not associated with the Church (or many non-priest ones within the Church).
In the same way it has nothing to do with knowing the truth or the ability to teach it (my confirmation instructor was woman and nuns are often teachers in Catholic schools), ability to provide service to the poor (nuns and, for that matter, lay people do this as well) or anything else along those lines.
In fact, it has nothing to do with worldly responsibilities or activities of priests at all. For each one of those, you can find a non-priestly equivalent activity that Catholic women are encouraged to participate in.
If you reject appeals to authority (we can’t because Christ didn’t), you don’t understand the gravity of the situation. When the Church claims authority, it claims that the authority comes from God and is essentially God’s authority. To say this of something you are not certain of would be… bad. Note though that the argument that the Church can’t ordain women because Christ didn’t is simply a statement of how we know that we can’t. It is still valid to ask why it is that we can’t, but even if we ask that question we know by the authority argument that we won’t suddenly discover that we can.
And if you claim that Christ didn’t choose women apostles because of cultural restrictions, then you ignore 1) how many cultural restrictions he completely ignored, 2) how many women played a large part in his ministry, and 3) the fact that there were many women priests of different religions all over the area at that time, and so it would not even have seen odd, to the gentiles at least.
If you deny that the priesthood is special or try to change what it means, then your argument that women should be able to be priests is non-sense to Catholics, because you’re arguing that women should be able to be something that we don’t believe exists.
If you argue that women should be able to priests because there is no fundamental difference between men and women, then your argument does not work because a Catholic priest must by definition be a Catholic - that is he must accept the Church’s teachings, one of which is that men and women are in fact different. At best, you are then arguing that women should be able to be priests of some slightly different religion. If you stick to Catholicism, the male priesthood is built in.
Essentially, the actions of Christ make us know that there cannot be women priests, and if we examine why, we know there cannot be women priests because of the nature of the priesthood and the fact that the sexes are different. (see JimG’s post).
And finally:
Yes you can (and must) use your brain. But the heart of the matter is that if the Church comes up with one answer and I come up with another, one of us is wrong.
Either:
A) the 20-century old Church, together with her collection of theologians, who made up some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen, and which is either inerrant on such matters, or whose errancy proves that after God’s incarnation, it was His will to leave us in a situation where we’re supposed to just kind of make our best guess about what He really meant when He was here bodily, or
B) I messed up a little bit.
I’d put my money on the second, especially since my brain has already lead me very soundly to the conclusion that God would leave us some guidance, and that this guidance is in the form of the Church he built on Peter. To reject a Church teaching would be to contradict my own reasoning as well, since my reasoning leads to the infallibility of the Church.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Women are not inferior in any way (although, culturally, we seem to have treated women that way for a really long time, and there do exist people today who think it’s a religious precept that there is something sinful about being female; this is not an authentic Catholic view, though) - indeed, the reason Jesus came as a male, and the reason His priests are male, is in order to make up for what Adam did not give to Eve, which was her due (that is, because Adam treated Eve badly, and put her into the path of the Devil instead of rescuing her, Jesus took Adam’s place and became a second Adam to do for “Eve” (the human race, and especially women) what Adam had neglected to do - which was, to offer the Sacrifice for sins to restore her to God’s grace (that is, the original state into which she had been created, prior to her encounter with the Devil, and prevented Death from coming into the world.
Because this was Adam’s job to do, in the first place, this is why it is the man, and not the woman, who makes the Sacrifice for sins, and who re-presents it at Mass.
- Status