Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

.

Growth and adaptation ARE change.

As for the ‘Rome Question’ the Papacy refused to acknowledge Italy for a long time, and regarded its taking of territory that formerly belonged to the Papal States as illegitimate. But then the Papacy signed an agreement with the Mossulini government in 1929, which recognized Italy and established the Vatican as a sovereign nation.

It should also be acknowledged that the Church had to give up the Papal States because the Church government had lost the support of the people and their opponents were more heavily armed. Proving that the Church can (and has in the past) change significantly in response to outside pressure.

 

[jmcrae]

Growth and adaptation ARE change.

As for the ‘Rome Question’ the Papacy refused to acknowledge Italy for a long time, and regarded its taking of territory that formerly belonged to the Papal States as illegitimate. But then the Papacy signed an agreement with the Mossulini government in 1929, which recognized Italy and established the Vatican as a sovereign nation.

How is this related to any doctrine or moral precept?

It should also be acknowledged that the Church had to give up the Papal States because the Church government had lost the support of the people and their opponents were more heavily armed. Proving that the Church can (and has in the past) change significantly in response to outside pressure.

And again, how is this a change in morality, or a change in theology?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

"AngryAtheist8:

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.

I think what we’ve been saying over and over is that the priesthood is not different. The whole point is that even if a bishop (and on a few cases it has unfortunately happened) put their hands on a woman’s head and says the words, she is not a priest. If the pope were to do so, she would not be a priest.

Priests aren’t just hired, they are ordained. This is an action of God administered by a bishop. A bishop can try to ordain a woman, and can even believe he is doing so (and even put her in a Church), but this would no more make her a priest - hence capable of administering the sacraments - than someone tapping me on the shoulder and saying “I now pronounce you capable of motherhood” would in fact make me capable of motherhood.

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).

Catholic understanding is that (the dogma part) is run by God through humans. Priests bishops, etc are instruments through which God acts, not managers in their own right.

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.

I don’t think you understand what we mean by unchanging. The papal state stuff was not dogma defined as revealed by God. That was just temporal policy - in large part to maintain order in the region if I understand what you are talking about. Temporal policies (rules and regulations) are subject to change, and some of the teaching which are not said to be determined with certainty could change as well.

A better example for you to use would have been the idea of Limbo. For some time many people within the Church supported the idea that unbaptized children neither go to Heaven nor to Hell when they die, but to a place of perfect “natural bliss.” But this was never taught to be definitively true, and it is currently not believed by as many people (thought I don’t think it is taught to be definitively false either). The point is that nothing which is said with certainty to be true is later said to be false.

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.

This assumes that it needs to change. We say it doesn’t and didn’t, or at least not in the way that we say that it can’t. Clearly, such things as posting official documents on the internet instead of having monks hand write as many copies as they can and deliver them to a couple places is a valuable change, but just as clearly it isn’t a change of the type we say can’t and won’t happen.

In reality an organization that static and stagnant probably could not survive so long, and would certainly not deserve to.

You seem really hung up on things changing. If something can survive for a long time without changing, what that means is that it started out really good. “Change” with no adjectives is neutral. It’s good change, or improvement that we want, in general. As it is, one of the arguments that the Church is what it says it is is precisely that it didn’t need any change (outside of a deepening of understanding) in dogma to survive 2000 years.

Change a long the lines of “teaching what most people want to hear at the moment” we, or at least I, tend to consider to be stupid.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

How is this related to any doctrine or moral precept?

-The Papacy publicly condemned the EXISTENCE of Italy. Calling the loss of territory it had suffered immoral and illegitimate.

And again, how is this a change in morality, or a change in theology?

-The hierarchy admitted that it had no right to (directly) rule the people surrounding its capital. A complete change from CENTURIES of prior policy.

 

[jmcrae]

-The hierarchy admitted that it had no right to (directly) rule the people surrounding its capital. A complete change from CENTURIES of prior policy.

And again, which moral law (Ten Commandments or Eight Beatitudes) did they reverse, by means of this policy change? Or which of the truths about Jesus did they reverse?

A change in the political landscape does not affect the teachings on morality and doctrine, which are the only two areas in which the Church claims infallibility.

The Church can freely be wrong about science, math, English, geography, politics, and sports, without losing its claim to infallibility.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think what we’ve been saying over and over is that the priesthood is not different. The whole point is that even if a bishop (and on a few cases it has unfortunately happened) put their hands on a woman’s head and says the words, she is not a priest. If the pope were to do so, she would not be a priest.

Priests aren’t just hired, they are ordained. This is an action of God administered by a bishop. A bishop can try to ordain a woman, and can even believe he is doing so (and even put her in a Church), but this would no more make her a priest - hence capable of administering the sacraments - than someone tapping me on the shoulder and saying “I now pronounce you capable of motherhood” would in fact make me capable of motherhood.

I think a problem that I am having in this thread is that I’m trying to talk Reason and Philosophy and you (along with several other posters) are answering in Faith.

 

[BlueShadow123]

They’re talking in faith. What do you expect? They are religious people. Their belief revolves around faith. That is what religion is: faith.

Also too, I think women should be able to be priests if they want. I mean for all you know, the priests that people may have could be transgenders. You don’t know. and I think if they do a good job at it, then there is no reason why they can’t be priests.

 

[jmcrae]

They’re talking in faith. What do you expect? They are religious people. Their belief revolves around faith. That is what religion is: faith.

Also too, I think women should be able to be priests if they want. I mean for all you know, the priests that people may have could be transgenders. You don’t know. and I think if they do a good job at it, then there is no reason why they can’t be priests.

I doubt there have ever been any transgendered or female priests pretending to be men - they do have to pass a physical.

And again, the priesthood isn’t about being “good at” something. It’s about being a physical representation of Christ to the world - a kind of walking, breathing art work.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think what we’ve been saying over and over is that the priesthood is not different. The whole point is that even if a bishop (and on a few cases it has unfortunately happened) put their hands on a woman’s head and says the words, she is not a priest. If the pope were to do so, she would not be a priest.

Priests aren’t just hired, they are ordained. This is an action of God administered by a bishop. A bishop can try to ordain a woman, and can even believe he is doing so (and even put her in a Church), but this would no more make her a priest - hence capable of administering the sacraments - than someone tapping me on the shoulder and saying “I now pronounce you capable of motherhood” would in fact make me capable of motherhood.

Catholic understanding is that (the dogma part) is run by God through humans. Priests bishops, etc are instruments through which God acts, not managers in their own right.

I don’t think you understand what we mean by unchanging. The papal state stuff was not dogma defined as revealed by God. That was just temporal policy - in large part to maintain order in the region if I understand what you are talking about. Temporal policies (rules and regulations) are subject to change, and some of the teaching which are not said to be determined with certainty could change as well.

A better example for you to use would have been the idea of Limbo. For some time many people within the Church supported the idea that unbaptized children neither go to Heaven nor to Hell when they die, but to a place of perfect “natural bliss.” But this was never taught to be definitively true, and it is currently not believed by as many people (thought I don’t think it is taught to be definitively false either). The point is that nothing which is said with certainty to be true is later said to be false.

This assumes that it needs to change. We say it doesn’t and didn’t, or at least not in the way that we say that it can’t. Clearly, such things as posting official documents on the internet instead of having monks hand write as many copies as they can and deliver them to a couple places is a valuable change, but just as clearly it isn’t a change of the type we say can’t and won’t happen.

You seem really hung up on things changing. If something can survive for a long time without changing, what that means is that it started out really good. “Change” with no adjectives is neutral. It’s good change, or improvement that we want, in general. As it is, one of the arguments that the Church is what it says it is is precisely that it didn’t need any change (outside of a deepening of understanding) in dogma to survive 2000 years.

Change a long the lines of “teaching what most people want to hear at the moment” we, or at least I, tend to consider to be stupid.

Just because someone has labeled a certain kind of change as not-change doesn’t mean that no change is occurring. It simply means that the person in question is using the word improperly (or outright lying).

Moreover, change is a natural and healthy part of life.

We have more money when we get a paycheck, and we have less after we pay for something. Our bodies change everyday, and even the Earth itself changes (although slowly for the most part).

Change is natural and normal. More importantly, it is inevitable.

The idea that the Catholic Church could remain fundamentally unchanged from the time that it was founded to the present is an obvious falsehood. But the reason why it would promote this concept of an Unchanging Church is equally obvious.

According to Catholic doctrine God is perfect. Therefore he is also unchanging, because (due to the fact he is already perfect) any change could only result in imperfection.

The Catholic Church is also perfect (at least as much as they reflect and practice the will of God). Therefore any real change would make the Church weaker and more imperfect.

So since the Church is perfect it cannot make mistakes (or at least ones that really count), must resist change, and cannot admit to any mistakes (since it’s perfect it cannot really make mistakes, and admitting to them would be a lie).

Frankly I think that this mentality helped lead to the cover-up of sexual abuse in Ireland and other countries by the hierarchy. Protecting the reputation of the Church is actually a reason that Bishops and other priests themselves used when silencing victims. This makes sense if you believe the Church cannot admit to any mistakes or imperfections.

But we are getting off topic.

Does anyone in Philosophy really want to discuss what motivates women who want to become Catholic priests?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

-The hierarchy admitted that it had no right to (directly) rule the people surrounding its capital. A complete change from CENTURIES of prior policy.

We aren’t talking about public (secular) policy, though, sug. We’re talking matters of **faith and morals. **

 

[BlueShadow123]

I doubt there have ever been any transgendered or female priests pretending to be men - they do have to pass a physical.

And again, the priesthood isn’t about being “good at” something. It’s about being a physical representation of Christ to the world - a kind of walking, breathing art work.

Well of course.
Also too, might be a little tmi, but you are able to get surgery these days, so the physical wouldn’t really change anything.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

They’re talking in faith. What do you expect? They are religious people. Their belief revolves around faith. That is what religion is: faith.

Also too, I think women should be able to be priests if they want. I mean for all you know, the priests that people may have could be transgenders. You don’t know. and I think if they do a good job at it, then there is no reason why they can’t be priests.

honey, the CHURCH HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN.

Isn’t that a reason?

If I can’t make you king of the world (and believe me, I can’t). . .then no amount of snarling at me to MAKE you king of the world, dangit, is going to make it possible for me to make you king of the world.

So why would you think that people bleating, “the Church needs to ordain women” when the Church HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN is somehow going to make it possible FOR the Church to ordain women?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I think a problem that I am having in this thread is that I’m trying to talk Reason and Philosophy and you (along with several other posters) are answering in Faith.

Reason and philosophy with what axioms?

You are discussing the Catholic faith. Do you really expect that this can be done without considering the faith? To discuss what is required of a priest, you must first agree on what a priest is.

If you are trying to prove us wrong rather than simply figure out what we think (which is not a goal I consider invalid, though it is one I don’t think is possible), then the best you can do is examine Catholicism from the perspective of Catholicism (in addition to the reason-style stuff that we agree with but which are not specific to Catholicism) and hope to find a contradiction.

But if you start with a basis that priests aren’t priests and the Church isn’t the Church - well I suppose that’s fine but we’ve got a long, long way to go before we get to whether or not women can be priests.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just because someone has labeled a certain kind of change as not-change doesn’t mean that no change is occurring. It simply means that the person in question is using the word improperly (or outright lying).

Moreover, change is a natural and healthy part of life.

We have more money when we get a paycheck, and we have less after we pay for something. Our bodies change everyday, and even the Earth itself changes (although slowly for the most part).

Change is natural and normal. More importantly, it is inevitable.

The idea that the Catholic Church could remain fundamentally unchanged from the time that it was founded to the present is an obvious falsehood. But the reason why it would promote this concept of an Unchanging Church is equally obvious.

According to Catholic doctrine God is perfect. Therefore he is also unchanging, because (due to the fact he is already perfect) any change could only result in imperfection.

The Catholic Church is also perfect (at least as much as they reflect and practice the will of God). Therefore any real change would make the Church weaker and more imperfect.

So since the Church is perfect it cannot make mistakes (or at least ones that really count), must resist change, and cannot admit to any mistakes (since it’s perfect it cannot really make mistakes, and admitting to them would be a lie).

Frankly I think that this mentality helped lead to the cover-up of sexual abuse in Ireland and other countries by the hierarchy. Protecting the reputation of the Church is actually a reason that Bishops and other priests themselves used when silencing victims. This makes sense if you believe the Church cannot admit to any mistakes or imperfections.

But we are getting off topic.

Does anyone in Philosophy really want to discuss what motivates women who want to become Catholic priests?

So you mean that way back when, in the dawn of time, when society ‘changed’ and allowed people to enslave other people (when they had never done this before), that was something normal and natural and good because change is so good for humanity?

You also misunderstand Church teachings.

Won’t you PLEASE go on-line to the Catechism and read up about INFALLIBILITY so that you’ll understand exactly WHAT is ‘unchanging’ in the Church and what is NOT?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Reason and philosophy with what axioms?

You are discussing the Catholic faith. Do you really expect that this can be done without considering the faith? To discuss what is required of a priest, you must first agree on what a priest is.

If you are trying to prove us wrong rather than simply figure out what we think (which is not a goal I consider invalid, though it is one I don’t think is possible), then the best you can do is examine Catholicism from the perspective of Catholicism (in addition to the reason-style stuff that we agree with but which are not specific to Catholicism) and hope to find a contradiction.

But if you start with a basis that priests aren’t priests and the Church isn’t the Church - well I suppose that’s fine but we’ve got a long, long way to go before we get to whether or not women can be priests.

Not only that, AA raises a kind of false dichotomy as though “reason” and "faith’ are somehow mutually exclusive. . .they aren’t.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

We aren’t talking about public (secular) policy, though, sug. We’re talking matters of **faith and morals. **

They are one and the same in a theocracy.

Just ask the Iranians (assuming that you can find one who isn’t too afraid of the Iranian clerics thugs to talk openly).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

They are one and the same in a theocracy.

Just ask the Iranians (assuming that you can find one who isn’t too afraid of the Iranian clerics thugs to talk openly).

Strawman.

I have told you over and over to go to the catechism and read (from an authoritative source, not just from me) what the Church teaches instead of trying to tell us over and over your personal opinions as to what you THINK she teaches.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Strawman.

I have told you over and over to go to the catechism and read (from an authoritative source, not just from me) what the Church teaches instead of trying to tell us over and over your personal opinions as to what you THINK she teaches.

Hardly.

The Papal States was a theocracy, and so is its direct descendant the Vatican. Besides Blessed Pope Pius IX (who was Pope when the hierarchy lost the Papal States) certainly considered it a moral issue. Pope Pius even went so far as to excommunicate the first king of a unified Italy.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hardly.

The Papal States was a theocracy, and so is its direct descendant the Vatican. Besides Blessed Pope Pius IX (who was Pope when the hierarchy lost the Papal States) certainly considered it a moral issue. Pope Pius even went so far as to excommunicate the first king of a unified Italy.

Again, irrelevant to the fact that the Catholic Church itself teaches that infallibility of teachings is that of faith and morals.

The Catholic Church has never taught that any given person (including the Pope) is ‘impeccable’ or incapable of error PERSONALLY. The Catholic Church DOES teach that when it comes to the Deposit of Faith (that is, teachings on faith and morals, which do not include contrary to your PERSONAL OPINION the ‘loss’ of the Papal States) these teachings are PROTECTED from ERROR.

**No matter how often you ‘say’ something is a ‘moral issue’ you offer no proof that it is indeed part of the Deposit of Faith. **

**And indeed, even that deposit can be ‘better understood’. Do you think that St. Peter or even St. Paul understood that the Trinity was Three Divine Persons in One God or expressed their understanding in exactly the terms of the Nicene Creed? But their understanding was, as far as it went, perfectly ‘in line’ with the Creed. It wasn’t even ‘incomplete’ (for the time). And it is possible, as the Trinity remains a mystery, that the Spirit will lead us to an even GREATER understanding now, 20 years from now, 200 years or 2000 years from now. But the Trinity and the teaching of the Trinity WILL NOT CHANGE in that the Trinity will NEVER become the Dynamic Duo or the Fab Four or involve any kind of fundamental change in the number of persons or their relationship to each other. **

And the Papal States (or heck, why not even bring up Constantinople?) undergoing secular change have NOTHING to do with infallible teachings.

I don’t wonder you get ‘angry’ when you’re confused about what you’re fighting against.

 

[BlueShadow123]

honey, the CHURCH HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN.

Isn’t that a reason?

If I can’t make you king of the world (and believe me, I can’t). . .then no amount of snarling at me to MAKE you king of the world, dangit, is going to make it possible for me to make you king of the world.

So why would you think that people bleating, “the Church needs to ordain women” when the Church HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN is somehow going to make it possible FOR the Church to ordain women?

Lol, you are snippy. The church could let a woman be a priest, but they choose not to. that is their choice.