Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[styxpix]

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

Good grief!!! Isn’t the Catholic church in enough trouble with that sort of behaviour???

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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?

Not ‘indignant’ but questioning. Do you really think that Jesus (who is fulfilling the Scriptures) has to come out and say, “Oh by the way, you know that when My Father and the Spirit and I taught the Jews that priests were to be men, I mean to keep that up. So remember, guys, priests must be men.” Actually, you need to show us Scriptural proof that He did NOT want to continue the God-sanctioned Scriptural mandate for priests to be men.

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.

That’s not what I said. Strawman.

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

Because that is what the Holy Spirit teaches. The Church passes on the teachings. That is why when we say, “The Church has no authority” we are passing on what the Spirit has told to us. We can, in our limited human understanding, search the Scripture and understand as best we can some of the many different factors by which God made this decision, but when it comes right down to it, God’s ways are ‘above’ ours. We can’t know 'completely. But we can ‘walk in faith’.

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

It is not the ‘calling’ which is the factor. Plenty of people feel ‘called by the Spirit’, but are they? There is not just ‘one’ Spirit; in fact, Scripture warns us of the evil one who ‘disguises himself as an angel of light.’ How can these women be sure they are called by the Holy Spirit and not an evil spirit in disguise?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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!

I don’t think that women should join the Catholic priesthood.

I personally believe that people who believe in female ordination would be better off simply leaving the Catholic Church, and am frankly puzzled as to why they would even want to stay given the prevalence of attitudes like the above poster’s in the Church.

This thread was started because I wanted to rationally discuss what motivates these women (and their supporters) who want to be priests. However I am beginning to think that such a discussion is impossible here.

 

[cassini]

I don’t think that women should join the Catholic priesthood.

I personally believe that people who believe in female ordination would be better off simply leaving the Catholic Church, and am frankly puzzled as to why they would even want to stay given the prevalence of attitudes like the above poster’s in the Church.

This thread was started because I wanted to rationally discuss what motivates these women (and their supporters) who want to be priests. However I am beginning to think that such a discussion is impossible here.

Just dipped in to your interesting thread AngryAtheist, read a dozen posts and skipped to the last. Don’t know what I missed but it seems to me you got the discussion you were after even though some of the opinions were a bit ‘strong.’

No doubt there are many reasons why women want to be priests from those who want to serve God as best they can to the feminists who believe they have all the rights and abilities to do what men do.

So, what would I say to a woman who wants to be a priest. Well, I would first ask them what do they think a priest is. I would then tell them that a priest is an alter-Christ, a person who becomes a living Christ to replicate the same sacrafice He made on Calvary, only in an unbloody manner. I would then ask them how in God’s name, literally, could they as women represent the person of Christ Who was/is a man.

Then I would give them an contrary example of this absurdity. It would be like a man demanding to play the part of Mary in a Christmas panto.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Just dipped in to your interesting thread AngryAtheist, read a dozen posts and skipped to the last. Don’t know what I missed but it seems to me you got the discussion you were after even though some of the opinions were a bit ‘strong.’

.

Not really.

I would like to say that I learned what motivated people against female ordination but for the most part those against it have used the same old arguments. Oddly enough they have even gone so far as to question or criticize me when I have offered my own reasons as to why women shouldn’t be priests.

 

[edwest2]

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?

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.

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

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

“now and in the future” is part of the calendar myth. Just as no one received knowledge or enlightenment when the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century, the same will be true in the future.

Change only occurs because people decide to make changes. The clock and calendar accomplish nothing.

There will be no change. I am not convinced you are concerned about the Holy Spirit, just change.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rocinante]

Not ‘indignant’ but questioning. Do you really think that Jesus (who is fulfilling the Scriptures) has to come out and say, “Oh by the way, you know that when My Father and the Spirit and I taught the Jews that priests were to be men, I mean to keep that up. So remember, guys, priests must be men.” Actually, you need to show us Scriptural proof that He did NOT want to continue the God-sanctioned Scriptural mandate for priests to be men.

considerring that so much of the ancient hebrew law is no longer considered binding and the bible affirms that christians are not bound by hebrew tradition, i think we would need some affirmative statement.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

considerring that so much of the ancient hebrew law is no longer considered binding and the bible affirms that christians are not bound by hebrew tradition, i think we would need some affirmative statement.

You ‘think’ that. You’re entitled to think what you choose provided you make it clear it’s simply your opinion. You might ‘want’ an affirmation in writing, but what you ‘want’ and what God has chosen to give aren’t necessarily the same thing, right? Or are you presuming to (in your own opinion) tell us that either God hasn’t given us ‘enough’, or that somehow He is being ‘prevented’ from giving his teaching by some ‘nefarious’ forces? In either case, what exactly is your proof to support your ‘opinion?’

 

[AngryAtheist8]

“now and in the future” is part of the calendar myth. Just as no one received knowledge or enlightenment when the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century, the same will be true in the future.

Change only occurs because people decide to make changes. The clock and calendar accomplish nothing.

Ed

So Ed, not only are you against everything modern and change itself but you also dislike time keeping devices. Is there anything on the material plane that you like?

Moreover plenty of change occurs without active human participation. Like all of us (including you and me) getting older.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You ‘think’ that. You’re entitled to think what you choose provided you make it clear it’s simply your opinion. You might ‘want’ an affirmation in writing, but what you ‘want’ and what God has chosen to give aren’t necessarily the same thing, right? Or are you presuming to (in your own opinion) tell us that either God hasn’t given us ‘enough’, or that somehow He is being ‘prevented’ from giving his teaching by some ‘nefarious’ forces? In either case, what exactly is your proof to support your ‘opinion?’

Ancient Hebrews also had laws concerning the proper care of slaves, how to sell your daughter into bondage, and what causes are sufficient to stone your children.

As a modern day Christian do you think there is any reason to consider them binding on us?

 

[Rocinante]

So, what would I say to a woman who wants to be a priest. Well, I would first ask them what do they think a priest is. I would then tell them that a priest is an alter-Christ, a person who becomes a living Christ to replicate the same sacrafice He made on Calvary, only in an unbloody manner. I would then ask them how in God’s name, literally, could they as women represent the person of Christ Who was/is a man.

this is no better than asking how someone with blue eyes could replicate jesus who had brown eyes or how someone tall could represent jesus who was short, or how someone left-handed could represent jesus who was right handed, or how someone overweight could represent jesus who was thin, or how someone who has perfect vision could represent jesus who was near-sighted, etc.

what is lacking here is an account of how male-ness is somehow more essential in a priest standing in for christ than any other physical characteristic since all other physical characteristics are thought to be irrelevant.

otherwise there is no other reason why it continues to be done other than that it was done hat way in the past. but there are lots of reasons that it may have been done that way in the past that no longer apply today.

 

[edwest2]

this is no better than asking how someone with blue eyes could replicate jesus who had brown eyes or how someone tall could represent jesus who was short, or how someone left-handed could represent jesus who was right handed, or how someone overweight could represent jesus who was thin, or how someone who has perfect vision could represent jesus who was near-sighted, etc.

what is lacking here is an account of how male-ness is somehow more essential in a priest standing in for christ than any other physical characteristic since all other physical characteristics are thought to be irrelevant.

otherwise there is no other reason why it continues to be done other than that it was done hat way in the past. but there are lots of reasons that it may have been done that way in the past that no longer apply today.

Have you read the actual Church teaching? Change is not automatically good or even necessary. I hope you will consider that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

So Ed, not only are you against everything modern and change itself but you also dislike time keeping devices. Is there anything on the material plane that you like?

Moreover plenty of change occurs without active human participation. Like all of us (including you and me) getting older.

You are a little angry, aren’t you? All of us getting older has nothing to do with the worship of the god Change, which I am seeing here.

How many threads have there been that start with: "Isn’t it time for the Church to [change something]? What a ridiculous question. Why don’t you change your hair style or start drinking some other brand of soft drink? Why did I say this to you? Because change is always good and we should indulge in it frequently

Womem becoming “priests” outside of the Church is not a natural process. It is carefully thought out and for Catholics, leads to instant excommunication. But since the god Change compels some people to change - it’s the whole point, right? - then they will continue to make noise and this topic will be brought up again, and again, ad nauseum, and I do mean nauseum.

There are a few things I like on this material plane. I have a few hobbies that are not offensive to our Lord. And I believe He guides me in developing my talents.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ancient Hebrews also had laws concerning the proper care of slaves, how to sell your daughter into bondage, and what causes are sufficient to stone your children.

As a modern day Christian do you think there is any reason to consider them binding on us?

Why, thank you for bringing this up.

You see, the same Church which has the authority to proclaim God’s teaching infallibly in the subjects of faith and morals (that is, the Catholic Church) proclaims God’s teachings today.

I’m sure you feel --as most ‘civilized’ people do–that the idea of stoning a rebellious child is pretty ‘savage’. Do you also feel that abortion of innocent children is savage, or is it something that is not only ‘legal’ but a simple ‘choice’ of a woman which it would be ‘uncivilized’ to protest?

 

[Roy5]

One quick antecdote. A gifted woman in this community became the administrator at a nearby Catholic Church. Gradually, she became disullusioned by what she saw from the inside, and especially what she regarded as am exclusive ‘men’s club’ which she could never join. She also felt that she never was an insider, never was consulted on really important decisions, never could participate in clergy gatherings, etc.
What did she do? She decided enough was enough, joined the Episcopal Church, attended seminary and is now a priest.

 

[jmcrae]

One quick antecdote. A gifted woman in this community became the administrator at a nearby Catholic Church. Gradually, she became disullusioned by what she saw from the inside, and especially what she regarded as am exclusive ‘men’s club’ which she could never join. She also felt that she never was an insider, never was consulted on really important decisions, never could participate in clergy gatherings, etc.

What did she do? She decided enough was enough, joined the Episcopal Church, attended seminary and is now a priest.

You know, she could have started a Catholic retreat centre and had all the decision making and administrative duties she wanted, without giving up her Catholic faith, or working in a religious environment.

You don’t have to change religions to become “in charge” of something.

 

[Betterave]

I don’t think that women should join the Catholic priesthood.

I personally believe that people who believe in female ordination would be better off simply leaving the Catholic Church, and am frankly puzzled as to why they would even want to stay given the prevalence of attitudes like the above poster’s in the Church.

This thread was started because I wanted to rationally discuss what motivates these women (and their supporters) who want to be priests. However I am beginning to think that such a discussion is impossible here.

Puzzlement is usually a sign that you need to re-examine some of your basic premisses - assuming that it is sincere. So I’m curious: are you really just puzzled? If you had to *guess *why such people want to stay, what would you say?

 

[Betterave]

this is no better than asking how someone with blue eyes could replicate jesus who had brown eyes or how someone tall could represent jesus who was short, or how someone left-handed could represent jesus who was right handed, or how someone overweight could represent jesus who was thin, or how someone who has perfect vision could represent jesus who was near-sighted, etc.

what is lacking here is an account of how male-ness is somehow more essential in a priest standing in for christ than any other physical characteristic since all other physical characteristics are thought to be irrelevant…

That’s a reasonable argument. Here’s an obvious answer, for starters, just based on common sense: eye color, height, handedness, portliness, and visual acuity are far less profoundly determinative characteristics of human identity than sex.

 

[edwest2]

One quick antecdote. A gifted woman in this community became the administrator at a nearby Catholic Church. Gradually, she became disullusioned by what she saw from the inside, and especially what she regarded as am exclusive ‘men’s club’ which she could never join. She also felt that she never was an insider, never was consulted on really important decisions, never could participate in clergy gatherings, etc.

What did she do? She decided enough was enough, joined the Episcopal Church, attended seminary and is now a priest.

A convert to Catholicism recently said on Catholic radio that he is no longer an Evangelical Christian because he saw the Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth. That is what is being defended here.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, not to denigrate community and good feelings and all that, but if I believed that something was ‘true’ I would not be sidetracked simply because in a particular time and place (say 2010 in the Western world) among a particular group of people, certain teachings of that ‘truth’ were somehow found ‘wanting’ among these fallible human people.

The same people who gasp at the ‘unfairness’ of the Catholic Church in proclaiming, as God’s truth (not ‘their truth’ but GOD’s truth) that the Church has no authority to ordain women very likely see nothing at all ‘unfair’ in things like divorce, abortion, sexual relations outside of marriage, etc. Because society doesn’t see anything ‘wrong’ with this today in the good ol’ secular Western world of 2010. Of course, society back in say 1960 DID see something wrong. But then something changed.

It wasn’t the actions. Divorce, abortion, sexual relations outside of marriage are absolutely no different in their essence today than they were then. But the ‘viewpoint’ of society ‘changed’.

Why should I trust the viewpoint of a society who 50 years ago believed something was wrong, and today thinks it’s right? How do ‘they’ get the moral authority to decide? How can you ‘trust’ human beings (who will err?)

So basically, people are kind of hypocritical if they are Christian and go with the ‘relativist’ flow. Non Christians and indeed non religious aren’t hypocritical in supporting ‘society’ because they aren’t supporting what their own teachings say is wrong. . .but then again, they aren’t ‘right’ or ‘guiltless’ either because they have the responsibility, as human beings, to look for the truth, and the Truth is not that hard to find. It may be hard to accept, particularly since in accepting it one turns away from ‘society’ (doesn’t the Scripture say something about how Christianity itself APPEARS foolish to the skeptic), but it isn’t hard to FIND.