Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[edwest2]

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.

As we, meaning American society, were closer to God and all media outlets respected our Judeo-Christian Heritage in 1960, it took time for the radical-anarchist message to seep in.

It took 40 years for the worst of it to get off the ground. The primary institutions to attack? The Family and the Church. “Destroy the family and you destroy society.” V.I. Lenin.

The dysfunctional Leftist ideology pouring out of most media outlets today must be rejected. The anti-women women need to be ignored. Beware of the following:

Choice - because we were offered and told to accept wrong choices.
Diversity - because too often immoral behaviors hide behind that word.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rocinante]

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.

that obvious answer could only explain why it is more important that a priest be male than that he be also like jesus with regard to age, skin color, portliness, handedness, hair color, etc. it can’t explain why the only physical characteristic that is considered at all important (besides not missing any limbs according to some on this thread) is maleness.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

As I have been saying throughout this thread (despite the fact that many posters seem to think that I am an advocate of women’s ordination) I can’t understand why more women don’t follow examples like this.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

that obvious answer could only explain why it is more important that a priest be male than that he be also like jesus with regard to age, skin color, portliness, handedness, hair color, etc. it can’t explain why the only physical characteristic that is considered at all important (besides not missing any limbs according to some on this thread) is maleness.

Must I repeat yet AGAIN that The Church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women?

Now you can come up with all sorts of questions as to why you think that women ‘should’ be priests. But it’s like coming up with all sorts of reasons as to why God ‘didn’t have to’ send His Son to earth to suffer and die for us.

Thing is. . .He DID send His son. So coming up with all sorts of reasons to explain why it wasn’t ‘necessary’ don’t mean anything. He DID send His son, so obviously even if WE think it 'wasn’t necessary, HE most certainly did.

God–God, not ‘the Catholic Church’–was the one who decided who could be a priest. Coming up with all kinds of reasons as to why His decision ‘can’t be right’ or ‘needs to be changed’ don’t mean anything, because it was HIS decision --not our decision. Surely He–an all loving creator–is more ‘fair’ than we, mere creations–so why are you presuming to find Him ‘wrong’ and 'hateful?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Rocinante:

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.

Those characteristics are shared by both men and women. The only characteristic not shared by both men and women is their gender.

What you are basically denying by your objections is that Jesus instituted the Priesthood. However, the Church has always taught that Jesus instituted ALL of the 7 sacraments, including Holy Orders. Therefore, since Jesus himself did not ordain any women to be Priests, when he said at the Last Supper, “DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.” it is with Jesus that you are in fact arguing, not the Church.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

As we, meaning American society, were closer to God and all media outlets respected our Judeo-Christian Heritage in 1960, it took time for the radical-anarchist message to seep in.

It took 40 years for the worst of it to get off the ground. The primary institutions to attack? The Family and the Church. “Destroy the family and you destroy society.” V.I. Lenin.

The dysfunctional Leftist ideology pouring out of most media outlets today must be rejected. The anti-women women need to be ignored. Beware of the following:

Choice - because we were offered and told to accept wrong choices.
Diversity - because too often immoral behaviors hide behind that word.

Peace,
Ed

I am curious as to how you think we should eliminate choice and diversity from society.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Must I repeat yet AGAIN that The Church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women?

Now you can come up with all sorts of questions as to why you think that women ‘should’ be priests. But it’s like coming up with all sorts of reasons as to why God ‘didn’t have to’ send His Son to earth to suffer and die for us.

Thing is. . .He DID send His son. So coming up with all sorts of reasons to explain why it wasn’t ‘necessary’ don’t mean anything. He DID send His son, so obviously even if WE think it 'wasn’t necessary, HE most certainly did.

God–God, not ‘the Catholic Church’–was the one who decided who could be a priest. Coming up with all kinds of reasons as to why His decision ‘can’t be right’ or ‘needs to be changed’ don’t mean anything, because it was HIS decision --not our decision. Surely He–an all loving creator–is more ‘fair’ than we, mere creations–so why are you presuming to find Him ‘wrong’ and 'hateful?

Ergo brings up a good point.

You can’t reason with God (either as an entity or concept), any more than you can have freezing fire.

One of the defining characteristics of the Catholic faith (perhaps THE defining characteristic) is the authority of the Catholic Church. So you can make a strong argument that disobeying the Church by refusing to accept an official Teaching is rejecting the faith itself, regardless of the wisdom or fairness of any particular Teaching.

 

[edwest2]

I am curious as to how you think we should eliminate choice and diversity from society.

I mentioned wrong choices. Wrong, and false, choices should be eliminated.

Diversity is a replacement word for immoral behavior today. God, and law enforcement, look at your behavior.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

One of the defining characteristics of the Catholic faith (perhaps THE defining characteristic) is the authority of the Catholic Church. So you can make a strong argument that disobeying the Church by refusing to accept an official Teaching is rejecting the faith itself, regardless of the wisdom or fairness of any particular Teaching.

You are mistakenly equating “official teachings” with fundamental doctrines like the existence of God and the divinity of Christ. The Church teaches that our ultimate authority on earth is our conscience. If we sincerely believe a particular teaching is unjust we have a moral obligation to do what we are convinced is right. The ultimate authority is not the Church but God!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I mentioned wrong choices. Wrong, and false, choices should be eliminated.

Diversity is a replacement word for immoral behavior today. God, and law enforcement, look at your behavior.

Peace,
Ed

So you believe that people should only ever be able to choose to do the right thing (however right is defined)?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You are mistakenly equating “official teachings” with fundamental doctrines like the existence of God and the divinity of Christ. The Church teaches that our ultimate authority on earth is our conscience. If we sincerely believe a particular teaching is unjust we have a moral obligation to do what we are convinced is right. The ultimate authority is not the Church but God!

So you are saying that people can morally disobey the Catholic Church if it tells them to do something immoral?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

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

While I will not claim that I am a well accomplished theologian, I still do not believe that the priest takes the place of Christ as Sacrificial Lamb. Because there is only one sacrifice, the priest doesn’t need to fulfill that role, the sacrifice is extended by the offering of the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ. That is the sacrifice there, the preist’s role is merely to offer it, the same way Jesus offered himself for us.

 

[jmcrae]

While I will not claim that I am a well accomplished theologian, I still do not believe that the priest takes the place of Christ as Sacrificial Lamb. Because there is only one sacrifice, the priest doesn’t need to fulfill that role, the sacrifice is extended by the offering of the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ. That is the sacrifice there, the preist’s role is merely to offer it, the same way Jesus offered himself for us.

Right the priest is not the Lamb, but he is still the priest and standing in for Christ in His role as the Second Adam, making the sacrifice necessary to redeem Eve and all of her children, the whole human race.

 

[edwest2]

So you believe that people should only ever be able to choose to do the right thing (however right is defined)?

Yes. Yes I do. Let me put it this way. I tell you the answer to a problem by giving you instructions on how to solve it. After solving it to your satisfaction, you tell me you have an idea about doing something else. You tell me it will be fun and increase my freedom and there will be no consequences. I then point out why it would be wrong to do.

However, I am not here to force you to do this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

While I will not claim that I am a well accomplished theologian, I still do not believe that the priest takes the place of Christ as Sacrificial Lamb. Because there is only one sacrifice, the priest doesn’t need to fulfill that role, the sacrifice is extended by the offering of the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ. That is the sacrifice there, the preist’s role is merely to offer it, the same way Jesus offered himself for us.

The priest acts in persona christi - in the person of Christ. He is not the Lamb but through the sacrament of Holy Orders, he can perform the mass, forgive sins and so on.

americancatholic.org/features/sacraments/HolyOrders.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

The modern feminist movement is built around the idea that women should do everything that men do. Some women, perhaps a majority, are beginning to realize that this strategy is not working out. Nonetheless the radicals are still trying to smash down the last few barriers. The only things left are armed combat, sperm production, major league sports and the Catholic priesthood. It should come as no surprise if the radicals “want” these things as well.

 

[cassini]

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.

Well talk about scraping the barrel of reason.

I answer that it was God who introduced the ‘male-ness’ into His revelation of Himself to us. He chose to be born a MALE. He chose to call the First Person of the Trinity FATHER. He chose twelve MEN - with different coloured eyes - to be the first priests of His Catholic Church. In the Scriptures we find Melchisedech was a MALE, the King, priest and philosopher. Not only that, but God guaranteed He meant only MALES when Pope John Paul II used his infallible perogative only once in his pontificate - TO PROTECT THE PRIESTHOOD FOR MALES ONLY BASED ON THE WILL OF GOD.

.

 

[Betterave]

that obvious answer could only explain why it is more important that a priest be male than that he be also like jesus with regard to age, skin color, portliness, handedness, hair color, etc. it can’t explain why the only physical characteristic that is considered at all important (besides not missing any limbs according to some on this thread) is maleness.

Again, that’s a reasonable argument. I think it might be misleading to talk about “the only physical characteristic that is considered at all important” though - that seems different from what I said. The other traits seem to really just be physical characteristics. That is not the case with sex. Sex is not just an important physical characteristic - agree? That was why I said, “eye color, height, handedness, portliness, and visual acuity are far less profoundly determinative characteristics of human identity than sex,” rather than, say, “eye color, height, handedness, portliness, and visual acuity are far less important physical characteristics than sex.”

 

[Betterave]

So you are saying that people can morally disobey the Catholic Church if it tells them to do something immoral?

We can say yes, with the proviso that any sincere conscience must recognize its own fallibility and any believing Catholic must believe in the Church’s infallibility in her definitive teachings on faith and morals.

 

[Betterave]

Ergo brings up a good point.

You can’t reason with God (either as an entity or concept), any more than you can have freezing fire.

One of the defining characteristics of the Catholic faith (perhaps THE defining characteristic) is the authority of the Catholic Church.

Sure, as long as we understand that the Church (not to mention God!) is a moral authority that is profoundly reasonable, as opposed to an authority based on an arbitrary exercise of raw power (which is often the case for the authority of the state, for example, or for the authority of individual conscience, even when it claims to be sincere).