Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[JimG]

This idea that the Church can’t ordain a woman.

I am old enough to remember when women had to cover their heads in church (as St. Paul called for), women could not read from the altar (also according to St. Paul), and women and perhaps other laity (I forget the precise rule) could not go beyond the old altar rails that used to be up front. I even think the rule related more to women than to men - when, for example, no girls could become altar girls.

These are only some of the changes I have witnessed, not to mention the liturgy in English, changes in the liturgy, radically different music at mass, most statues removed from the front of most churches, worshiping in Protestant churches no longer a grave sin, mixed weddings now permitted at the altar, non-Catholic no longer has to sign promise to bring up children as Catholic, etc., etc. 

 If the church wanted to ordain women, they would find a reason and a way. The church can give Mary such titles as Queen of the Universe and a hundred or more Our Lady of.... If that is okay, and if we can pray to numerous female saints for assistance, they can ordain women - at least as Deacons. I suspect that will happen eventually. But I don't claim the gift or prophecy - or of exorcism. Frankly, I wish I could exorcize (sp) some of the traditionalists who are determined to resist change and maintain practices and customs suited to medievalism but not to the world of today.

You mention a lot of changes: liturgy, music, statues, marriage regulations. Now we also have girl altar servers, women readers at Mass, numerous changes.

Of course the Church changes. It has always changed. It changes in many ways, in matters of discipline, liturgy, canon law, custom. But some things it cannot change: the deposit of Faith, morality, the essentials of sacraments.

The Church does not have the power to approve of adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, or any other aspect of morality. It does not have the power to use oatmeal instead of bread in the Eucharist. It does not have the power to use alcohol instead of water in the sacrament of Baptism. It does not have the power to use vaseline instead of oil in the sacrament of Confirmation. It does not have the power to unite same sex couples in the sacrament of marriage. It does not have the power to ordain women in the sacrament of Orders. If a priest or bishop were to attempt to do any of those things they would have absolutely no effect. And note that Catholics believe that the sacraments have real spiritual effects; they are not merely symbols. But without proper matter and form they have no effect.

While the Church can change a lot of things, it other matters it is utterly powerless; it’s commission is to hand down what has been received.

Women are of course, not powerless in the Church. Many parishes are staffed by mostly women. There are women theologians, women professors, women in charge of retreat centers. There are no women fathers, just as there are no male mothers.

In a way, I’m surprised that this subject keeps coming up. Because it simply will not happen. It is an ontological impossibility.

 

[Rocinante]

In a way, I’m surprised that this subject keeps coming up. Because it simply will not happen. It is an ontological impossibility.

it keeps coming up for lack of good reasons why this is so or why the church thinks this is so. and in this thread there has been a lot of disagreements among the catholics on why it is so.

yes, we understand that the church claims to not have the power to ordain women, but why not?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

i also predict that within my lifetime, the Church will discover that it indeed has the authority to ordain women in the same sort of way that it turned out in the 1950 that the Church had actually always taught the assumption of mary as doctrine.

That example works. The Assumption of Mary was always and everywhere taught, although maybe not with the precision that it is now taught. IOW, it was an example of development of doctrine. Just as an acorn becomes an oak, although its appearance changes over time.

However, female priests has never and nowhere been taught until the 20th century. But its more concrete than that, nowhere and never have there ever been female priests in the Catholic Church, or any teaching that allowed even the possibility of female priests. This is an entirely new novelty peculiar to the late 20th century feminist movement. You just have to be casually familiar with history to know this is true.

I know some will object that there were female deacons in the early Church. However, although they may have been called Deaconesses, there is absolutely no proof or substance to the claim that they were actually ordained to the Deaconate, in the same way that men were.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

They’re acting like spoiled children; they need a spanking, and the male bishop who first “ordained” a woman should be hauled before an Inquisition, defrocked, and publicly excommunicated.

And that kind of condescension is exactly why I would leave the Church if I were one of these women.

I am with you on this one Atheist.

I believe many women want to be priests because they feel that they could honestly serve the church for good. Now that women can be educated, many feel that they could contribute a lot to the church, and the fact that they are being told “no” because they don’t have the correct plumbing is hurtful.

I don’t think it has anything to do with being “spoiled brats” or the other hurtful things said directed at these women.

I DO think that ordination to the priesthood needs to be reserved for men, but there needs to be more and better opportunities for women (EDUCATED women) to be involved in the church, rather than pumping out babies and hoping one of them chooses to be a priest.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I should have mentioned this when I first responded to your post.

But the gravity of what your saying here didn’t hit me until later.

The Catholic Church claims that Catholic women don’t need to be part of the priesthood to be equal with men because being a priest is about service, not power. Yet here you are, admitting that you think that women should not enter the priesthood because it would give them authority (power).

I think you’re making a stretch here.

First of all, “The Catholic Church” is not ‘saying’ that women don’t need to be priests because priesthood is service, not power.

Some posters mention that priests are about service (which is true) and that women mistakenly think that priesthood is **all about **about having power, and you have turned those remarks into “The Catholic Church claims”. That is not true.

Why are you arguing with me even when I am saying something that supports your position?

 

[JimG]

And that kind of condescension is exactly why I would leave the Church if I were one of these women.

I am with you on this one Atheist.

I believe many women want to be priests because they feel that they could honestly serve the church for good. Now that women can be educated, many feel that they could contribute a lot to the church, and the fact that they are being told “no” because they don’t have the correct plumbing is hurtful.

I don’t think it has anything to do with being “spoiled brats” or the other hurtful things said directed at these women.

I DO think that ordination to the priesthood needs to be reserved for men, but there needs to be more and better opportunities for women (EDUCATED women) to be involved in the church, rather than pumping out babies and hoping one of them chooses to be a priest.

At least you have answered the original question–why do women even want to be priests? “Many feel that they could contribute a lot to the church.”

They have, and they do, and they will continue, to contribute a lot to the Church. We used to have a retreat center in town that was operated by a particular order of priests. That order no longer serves this area; and we have a new retreat center which offers a great variety of services, retreats, adult study, support groups. Many of their services are provided by women. Women with advanced degrees in theology, counseling, and other areas. There are women spiritual directors.

Rocinante:

it keeps coming up for lack of good reasons why this is so or why the church thinks this is so. and in this thread there has been a lot of disagreements among the catholics on why it is so.

yes, we understand that the church claims to not have the power to ordain women, but why not?

Posters here have given a variety of answers to this, but at root the answer has to be because they are not men, and ontologically cannot provide their bodies, minds, and persons for Jesus to use in perpetuating the sacrifice and the sacraments without in some way re-imaging Jesus as female.

But that reason is not a matter of doctrine; it’s just me giving my best understanding. The fact is the Church does not need to know or understand the reason for this in order to faithfully hand it down. It doesn’t need to know the reason that only bread and wine can be used in the Eucharist or the reason that only oil can be used in annointing and in Confirmation. It’s solemn duty is to hand down that which has been received of the sacraments as instituted by Christ.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I know some will object that there were female deacons in the early Church. However, although they may have been called Deaconesses, there is absolutely no proof or substance to the claim that they were actually ordained to the Deaconate, in the same way that men were.

So why did the leaders of the ancient Church give them (the Deaconesses) an empty and meaningless title then?

 

[Rocinante]

I know some will object that there were female deacons in the early Church. However, although they may have been called Deaconesses, there is absolutely no proof or substance to the claim that they were actually ordained to the Deaconate, in the same way that men were.

So why did the leaders of the ancient Church give them (the Deaconesses) an empty and meaningless title then?

i don’t think women can be deacons, but i have seen women serve as extraordinary eucharistic ministers in a catholic church.

 

[Rocinante]

Posters here have given a variety of answers to this, but at root the answer has to be because they are not men, and ontologically cannot provide their bodies, minds, and persons for Jesus to use in perpetuating the sacrifice and the sacraments without in some way re-imaging Jesus as female.

is god male or female? what a silly question.

But that reason is not a matter of doctrine; it’s just me giving my best understanding. The fact is the Church does not need to know or understand the reason for this in order to faithfully hand it down. It doesn’t need to know the reason that only bread and wine can be used in the Eucharist or the reason that only oil can be used in annointing and in Confirmation. It’s solemn duty is to hand down that which has been received of the sacraments as instituted by Christ.

is this claim itself (the claim that the church need not claim to know the reason for a given requirement for priests) a matter of doctrine or can it be changed?

 

[davidv]

So why did the leaders of the ancient Church give them (the Deaconesses) an empty and meaningless title then?

Maybe because it wasn’t as empty and meaningless as you state? or
Maybe is was because the Church didn’t give them that title? Others did?

Seems like there is an awful lot of presumption going on here.

 

[JimG]

is god male or female? what a silly question.

God has no gender. But Jesus, in his human nature, does. And it is Jesus in whose person the priest acts.

is this claim itself (the claim that the church need not claim to know the reason for a given requirement for priests) a matter of doctrine or can it be changed?

I don’t know whether it’s a doctrine or not, but it seems obvious to me. The Church was founded by Jesus, who gave instructions but not necessarily reasons. The Church is bound to follow his instructions whether or not it knows his reasons.

 

[styxpix]

The female priests in the Anglican Church have been uniformly bent on legitimizing homosexuality and other radical causes. Why would female priests ordained in the Catholic Church be any different? The Church is 2,000 years old for a reason. And Anglicanism, barely 400 years old, is falling apart for another reason. How many Catholics are leaving the Church for Anglicanism? How many Anglicans are leaving their Church for Catholicism?

Do the math.

How do you know how many Catholics are leaving the church for Anglicanism? The noisy misogynistic Anglicans are just making it into the news at the moment after the Pope’s sneaky offer! If the Catholic church wants to waste 50% of its potential workforce they’ll have to do something about celibacy or they won’t get enough priests. I have never understood the reasoning behind this woman/priest thing - Jesus didn’t have a black disciple with him - why don’t you discriminate on colour too?
Is it something Paul said…? He didn’t like women did he?!

 

[barb_finnegan]

I don’t think we’ll ever be rid of this issue until everyone understands that ordination to the sacrificial priesthood is not a right. These “Womenpriests” have somehow got it in their heads that they are being left out of the club and they want to smash the door in and have things run their way, and the want it now.

They’re acting like spoiled children; they need a spanking, and the male bishop who first “ordained” a woman should be hauled before an Inquisition, defrocked, and publicly excommunicated.

What can I say but, AMEN, BROTHER! That’s what these women priest-wannabes need…a good spanking! You’re darn right! :sad_yes:

 

[Rocinante]

God has no gender. But Jesus, in his human nature, does. And it is Jesus in whose person the priest acts.I don’t know whether it’s a doctrine or not, but it seems obvious to me.

but the question is, what part is essential here? is jesus’s height essential? his weight? his skin tone? his left-handedness? his hair style? his 20/25 vision? his brown eyes? his ability to roll his tongue?

what would make us think that his male-ness is essential if these other physical characteristics are not thought to be essential? there is something very sexist in presuming that male-ness is more essential to being in persona cristi than any of these other characteristics.

that is, unless there is a good reason…

The Church was founded by Jesus, who gave instructions but not necessarily reasons. The Church is bound to follow his instructions whether or not it knows his reasons.

jesus never said priests must be men. if he had, this question would not be controversial.

 

[JimG]

but the question is, what part is essential here? is jesus’s height essential? his weight? his skin tone? his left-handedness? his hair style? his 20/25 vision? his brown eyes? his ability to roll his tongue?

what would make us think that his male-ness is essential if these other physical characteristics are not thought to be essential? there is something very sexist in presuming that male-ness is more essential to being in persona cristi than any of these other characteristics.

that is, unless there is a good reason…

jesus never said priests must be men. if he had, this question would not be controversial.

Well, it never has been controversial! At least not until the last 30 or 40 years or so. But if someone wanted to start a lottery on when the Church will ordain the first woman priest, I imagine that there will be a lot of losers. Heck, I’d be willing to bet big bucks on the matter, but I would be long dead before it ever happened. I could live for centuries and it still won’t have happened!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

"AmbroseSJ:

I know some will object that there were female deacons in the early Church. However, although they may have been called Deaconesses, there is absolutely no proof or substance to the claim that they were actually ordained to the Deaconate, in the same way that men were.

So why did the leaders of the ancient Church give them (the Deaconesses) an empty and meaningless title then?

It wasn’t an empty title. It was a descriptive title. The word comes from the Greek, and it was only in the Greek (Eastern) church where you hear of deaconesses. However, no Greek father, or bishop ever ordained deaconesses in the sense that deacons are ordained. They may have been commissioned, just as Eucharistic Ministers are commissioned today.

If you are really interested in this topic, there is much written about it if you are willing to give it your time.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

but the question is, what part is essential here? is jesus’s height essential? his weight? his skin tone? his left-handedness? his hair style? his 20/25 vision? his brown eyes? his ability to roll his tongue?

what would make us think that his male-ness is essential if these other physical characteristics are not thought to be essential? there is something very sexist in presuming that male-ness is more essential to being in persona cristi than any of these other characteristics.

that is, unless there is a good reason…

jesus never said priests must be men. if he had, this question would not be controversial.

Your questions may have merit, but it is to Jesus that you must direct them, not to the Church, as has been said elsewhere. You are falling into the Protestant/Scientific mindset of demanding proof for everything that is not explicitly taught in Scripture. The Church is the Oracle of Divine Revelation. If you don’t believe that, then why do you care what the Church says about anything?

 

[glencora]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the women demanding to be priests AND their supporters HATE the Roman Catholic Church! They do not accept the Magisterium; in essence rejecting the authority of Jesus Christ! They are arrogant, prideful, boastful, deceitful, etc. They would DESTROY the Eucharist; raping grace from the faithful! There is no reasoning with them from sacred scripture or scared tradition. The Pope has tried to catechize, to NO avail. It would be wise for him to call a council and declare the teaching on the priesthood, "ex cathedra”! Perhaps, the message would finally be understood!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

but the question is, what part is essential here? is jesus’s height essential? his weight? his skin tone? his left-handedness? his hair style? his 20/25 vision? his brown eyes? his ability to roll his tongue?

what would make us think that his male-ness is essential if these other physical characteristics are not thought to be essential? there is something very sexist in presuming that male-ness is more essential to being in persona cristi than any of these other characteristics.

that is, unless there is a good reason…

jesus never said priests must be men. if he had, this question would not be controversial.

Excuse me? How can you say “Jesus never said priests must be men?” Is not God the author of Scripture? Did not God establish the Jewish priesthood (which indeed ‘must be’ male–even though at the time there were plenty of ‘female’ priestesses in other cultures)? Did Jesus come to fulfill the Scriptures? Did He not make very clear that His Church has authority but that this authority cannot **supersede God’s authority? **

Now, men for example could be married before they became priests in Jewish history. And the first priests in Christianity could be married before they became priests. But–they could also be single. And many were. In fact, it was encouraged because it was difficult for the wives and families of priests, and this back when Christianity was persecuted and when a man might see only one small fraction of believers in one small village and tend to their needs. . .the responsibilities of a priest today are much much greater and to a much higher number of people. As Christianity grew and the role of priests grew as well, it was seen that it would be better for men to be single (in the Latin Church). This is a reasonable authority decision based on circumstances and indeed, the Church could once again permit both married before ordination as well as single males to discern the priesthood.

But the Church has no authority to ordain women. This is shown not only in Scripture in which the maleness of the priest is explicit, as is Christ’s own role as High Priest. . .it is also shown in Sacred Tradition. All the way back to Christ.

The Church has authority to limit priesthood to single males (in the Latin Church) just as it has authority to ‘open’ to married and single. But it has no authority to ‘open’ priesthood to women. None.

Don’t you believe that the Holy Spirit would have made clear that ‘women’ were ‘open’ for priestly calling? Or was the poor Holy Spirit as limited as Jesus was, and held hostage to ‘patriarchical views’? Tsk tsk. Jesus was radical enough to teach that we had to eat His Flesh and drink His blood, and people died for this teaching because of its truth, but oh noes, some ‘nameless faceless conspiracy’ kept the people from the ‘truth’ of ‘women can be priests’ all these years and God was powerless to keep this from happening. . .um, no.

Are there OTHER aspects of Catholic teaching that you don’t think are really "God’s word’ that have been around since Christ and the Holy Spirit didn’t ‘fix’ yet either?

 

[Rocinante]

Excuse me? How can you say “Jesus never said priests must be men?” Is not God the author of Scripture? Did not God establish the Jewish priesthood (which indeed ‘must be’ male–even though at the time there were plenty of ‘female’ priestesses in other cultures)? Did Jesus come to fulfill the Scriptures? Did He not make very clear that His Church has authority but that this authority cannot **supersede God’s authority? **

when you got all indignant and opened with "Excuse me? How can you say “Jesus never said priests must be men?” i kinda thought you would provide some scriptural support. where exactly does jesus say that men can’t be priests?

But the Church has no authority to ordain women. This is shown not only in Scripture in which the maleness of the priest is explicit, as is Christ’s own role as High Priest. . .it is also shown in Sacred Tradition. All the way back to Christ.

most people will no longer accept “that’s how it’s always been in the past” as a justification for why things ought to be that way now and into the future.

The Church has authority to limit priesthood to single males (in the Latin Church) just as it has authority to ‘open’ to married and single. But it has no authority to ‘open’ priesthood to women. None.

yeah, i’m just asking why that is. why does the church say that?

Don’t you believe that the Holy Spirit would have made clear that ‘women’ were ‘open’ for priestly calling? Or was the poor Holy Spirit as limited as Jesus was, and held hostage to ‘patriarchical views’? Tsk tsk.

lots and lots of women claim to have been called, moved by the holy spirit, to the priesthood.