Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

there are many ways to contribute to the Church without demanding to be in the priesthood priesthood. Priesthood however is an office of great authority, and thus women are not allowed. Just as Jesus only appointed men as his apostles. Just as the Levite priesthood was always men. Even ark carriers. Christ himself was a male. The female was never an authority figure. She was created as a helpmeet for Adam, and is under the authority of her husband(Gen 3:16, Ephes 5:22). The actions of wanting to grab on positions of spiritual authority, like the pulpit, shows the woman is rebellious and is not concerned with God’s precepts between man and woman. Rebellious immodest women don’t like being told ‘NO’ over something they have no control over. hence its a control and power issue for then, not a real concern with what God wants… That is the real reason behind it…

In all reality this is just a egalitarian feminist argument that is the exact same argument that they use for things like gay marriage. Throwing out the word “equality” like its a weapon for them.

Exactly.

Here is someone defending the traditional position that women are not equal (at least in any meaningful way). That they cannot have authority, that they cannot be trusted with power over themselves or others.

As I have said before Catholicism is inherently patriarchal, as PetersKeys does so well to articulate. He reminds us that its not about service, its about the authority.

 

[PetersKeys]

Exactly.

Here is someone defending the traditional position that women are not equal (at least in any meaningful way). That they cannot have authority, that they cannot be trusted with power over themselves or others.

As I have said before Catholicism is inherently patriarchal, as PetersKeys does so well to articulate. He reminds us that its not about service, its about the authority.

1 Timothy 2:12

authority has nothing to do with equality. If anything apostolic authority is a form of mortification and a hard hard road with regard to Holy Orders. The apostles in fact lowered themselves in order to preach Christ, and there are many times when priests must lower themselves(ridicule, persecution, jail, even death) in order to help other people. Both men and woman have equal merit. However they have differing roles and functions.

A woman asking to be a priest is a like a man asking to be a wife. It just is not possible due to natural and divine law…

It is, in the book of Genesis, that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead(since Eve was tempted by Satan and them tempted Adam to fall with her). Thus with this action, she had evinced a readiness to yield to temptation; a feebleness of resistance; a pliancy of character, which showed that she was not adapted to the situation of headship, and which made it proper that she should ever afterward occupy a subordinate situation. It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the tempter, but that the woman opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptation as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him. To tempt and seduce him to fall, there were needed all the soft persuasions, the entreaties, and example of his wife.

We see here that Eve failed her attempt at being a teacher or leader to Adam. In regular conjugal duties Eve failed at her position as being a director to Adam. Thus for this reason, Adam was put in authority over her(Gen 3:16) and any type of situations that involved authority were put in mens hands(as we see in the OT and NT). How much more so with the priesthood.

Satan understood this, and approached man not with the specious argument of the serpent, but through the allurements of his wife. It is undoubtedly implied here that man in general has a power of resisting certain kinds of temptation superior to that possessed by woman, and hence that the headship properly belongs to him. This is, undoubtedly, the general truth, though there may be many exceptions, and many noble cases to the honor of the female sex, in which they evince a power of resistance to temptation superior to man. In many traits of character, and among them those which are most lovely, woman is superior to man; yet it is undoubtedly true that, as a general thing, temptation will make a stronger impression on her than on him. When it is said that “Adam was not deceived,” it is not meant that when he partook actually of the fruit he was under no deception, but that he was not deceived by the serpent; he was not first deceived, or first in the transgression. The woman should remember that sin began with her, and she should therefore be willing to occupy an humble and subordinate situation.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Titus 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Proverbs 1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them:

nor to usurp authority over the man; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do,

 

[karbear]

But authority is about service, its all about service. Masculine roles are very self sacrificing in nature.

 

[karbear]

But authority is about service, its all about service. Masculine roles are very self sacrificing in nature.

It just occured to me that some men not like patriarchy for this reason either.

 

[larkin31]

1 Timothy 2:12

authority has nothing to do with equality. If anything apostolic authority is a form of mortification and a hard hard road with regard to Holy Orders. The apostles in fact lowered themselves in order to preach Christ, and there are many times when priests must lower themselves(ridicule, persecution, jail, even death) in order to help other people. Both men and woman have equal merit. However they have differing roles and functions.

A woman asking to be a priest is a like a man asking to be a wife. It just is not possible due to natural and divine law…

It is, in the book of Genesis, that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead(since Eve was tempted by Satan and them tempted Adam to fall with her). Thus with this action, she had evinced a readiness to yield to temptation; a feebleness of resistance; a pliancy of character, which showed that she was not adapted to the situation of headship, and which made it proper that she should ever afterward occupy a subordinate situation. It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the tempter, but that the woman opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptation as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him. To tempt and seduce him to fall, there were needed all the soft persuasions, the entreaties, and example of his wife.

We see here that Eve failed her attempt at being a teacher or leader to Adam. In regular conjugal duties Eve failed at her position as being a director to Adam. Thus for this reason, Adam was put in authority over her(Gen 3:16) and any type of situations that involved authority were put in mens hands(as we see in the OT and NT). How much more so with the priesthood.

Satan understood this, and approached man not with the specious argument of the serpent, but through the allurements of his wife. It is undoubtedly implied here that man in general has a power of resisting certain kinds of temptation superior to that possessed by woman, and hence that the headship properly belongs to him. This is, undoubtedly, the general truth, though there may be many exceptions, and many noble cases to the honor of the female sex, in which they evince a power of resistance to temptation superior to man. In many traits of character, and among them those which are most lovely, woman is superior to man; yet it is undoubtedly true that, as a general thing, temptation will make a stronger impression on her than on him. When it is said that “Adam was not deceived,” it is not meant that when he partook actually of the fruit he was under no deception, but that he was not deceived by the serpent; he was not first deceived, or first in the transgression. The woman should remember that sin began with her, and she should therefore be willing to occupy an humble and subordinate situation.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Titus 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Proverbs 1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them:

nor to usurp authority over the man; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do,

I am glad that the Protestant church of my upbringing did not espouse such rigid patriarchal doctrine.

 

[larkin31]

…In all reality this is just a egalitarian feminist argument that is the exact same argument that they use for things like gay marriage. Throwing out the word “equality” like its a weapon for them.

Something wrong with “equality”? I might remind you that Jesus was radical in his own day about “equality”. He was killed for it. He was out to strip righteous religious authority of their presumed superiority. He established a new group of common fishermen who were to give up their families and possessions and eat only as guests at the tables of others. The low and the meek and the sick and the shunned were to be valued as highly as the rich. Religious authority was to be purged of its hypocrisy and sin.

So the state killed the radical.

“Equality.” Indeed. It should be a “weapon” of choice for Christians.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry

*As I have said before Catholicism is inherently patriarchal, as PetersKeys does so well to articulate. He reminds us that its not about service, its about the authority. *

As an atheist you appear to have a problem with authority. Understandable that you want to take a slap at the Catholic Church. It is doubtful that as an atheist you would be interested in submitting to the authority of female priests, bishops, and popes any more than male priests, bishops and popes.

larkin

*I am glad that the Protestant church of my upbringing did not espouse such rigid patriarchal doctrine. *

You also appear to have a problem with authority, since as an agnostic you have rejected what little authority the Protestant churches claim. Right?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

1 Timothy 2:12

authority has nothing to do with equality. If anything apostolic authority is a form of mortification and a hard hard road with regard to Holy Orders. The apostles in fact lowered themselves in order to preach Christ, and there are many times when priests must lower themselves(ridicule, persecution, jail, even death) in order to help other people. Both men and woman have equal merit. However they have differing roles and functions.

A woman asking to be a priest is a like a man asking to be a wife. It just is not possible due to natural and divine law…

It is, in the book of Genesis, that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead(since Eve was tempted by Satan and them tempted Adam to fall with her). Thus with this action, she had evinced a readiness to yield to temptation; a feebleness of resistance; a pliancy of character, which showed that she was not adapted to the situation of headship, and which made it proper that she should ever afterward occupy a subordinate situation. It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the tempter, but that the woman opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptation as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him. To tempt and seduce him to fall, there were needed all the soft persuasions, the entreaties, and example of his wife.

We see here that Eve failed her attempt at being a teacher or leader to Adam. In regular conjugal duties Eve failed at her position as being a director to Adam. Thus for this reason, Adam was put in authority over her(Gen 3:16) and any type of situations that involved authority were put in mens hands(as we see in the OT and NT). How much more so with the priesthood.

Satan understood this, and approached man not with the specious argument of the serpent, but through the allurements of his wife. It is undoubtedly implied here that man in general has a power of resisting certain kinds of temptation superior to that possessed by woman, and hence that the headship properly belongs to him. This is, undoubtedly, the general truth, though there may be many exceptions, and many noble cases to the honor of the female sex, in which they evince a power of resistance to temptation superior to man. In many traits of character, and among them those which are most lovely, woman is superior to man; yet it is undoubtedly true that, as a general thing, temptation will make a stronger impression on her than on him. When it is said that “Adam was not deceived,” it is not meant that when he partook actually of the fruit he was under no deception, but that he was not deceived by the serpent; he was not first deceived, or first in the transgression. The woman should remember that sin began with her, and she should therefore be willing to occupy an humble and subordinate situation.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Titus 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Proverbs 1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them:

nor to usurp authority over the man; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do,

Thank you PetersKeys for articulating even further the way that when Catholics (or at least conservative Catholics) speak of the equality between the sexes they are not speaking in any sort of Earthly sense. That (according to them) women are too weak and/or sinful to be trusted with any authority or power.

That in every but the most spiritual and cosmic sense you and those like you consider women weak and inferior.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

But authority is about service, its all about service. Masculine roles are very self sacrificing in nature.

PeterKeys doesn’t think so.
He believes women simply can’t be trusted with authority or power.

 

[the_phoenix]

Remember there’s God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), but no God the Mother.

You may also remember hearing the phrase “Holy Mary, Mother of God.”
Jesus, who is true God and true man, has a mother … and this mother is a human woman!
The best human being ever created by God is a woman
(as the poet William Wordsworth wrote, “our tainted nature’s solitary boast”)
and Jesus first came to the world through Mary.
Good thing the male priests aren’t envious about that.
And Jesus, following the Commandment to “Honor your father and mother,”
obeyed her as He was growing up.

 

[karbear]

PeterKeys doesn’t think so.
He believes women simply can’t be trusted with authority or power.

Maybe he’s right. Although, I don’t think it’s fair to assume his position is as one-dimensional as that…but I don’t mind addressing that specifically. We are, in some ways, the weaker sex. I don’t consider this an insult because our strengths are complimentary. Of course some women handle authority with dignity in this egalitarian culture we live in, many do not. I’m pretty sure that most would agree, that we handle it differently. IMO and experience, women seem to have more trouble staying grounded in positions of power. It seems like the women I know who have authority positions usually fall into one of two camps—just sayin. Anyway, thank God that there are men out there willing to take on their roles still. I find those cultures where religion is relegated to the women of the family to be depressing.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It just occured to me that some men not like patriarchy for this reason either.

You have a bit of a point there.

In a household where the man has all the authority and the woman has none, the man MUST be more giving, generous, and self-sacrificing. Otherwise the woman will naturally be abused and degraded (for she cannot stand up for or assert herself).

The head of the family must be a slave to his wife’s needs (and the needs of any children they may have) just as the wife is a slave to his authority.

But most married couples don’t live like that (at least based on everything I have seen).

Either the husband and wife have something closer to a partnership, or the man simply rules the household so that his own needs always come first.

Nevertheless, I have heard testimony from men who tried to be a benevolent master to their wives and children.

Men raised in families where their mothers and sisters (if any) were clearly subservient to the boys in the family, but there was a strong emphasis on self-sacrificing headship. Men who tried to rule their households so that everyone else’s needs came first (because they saw such self-sacrifice as their duty).

Men who felt a sense of relief when their views changed and they could treat their wives more like partners. Men who appreciated being able to share the burden.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Maybe he’s right. Although, I don’t think it’s fair to assume his position is as one-dimensional as that…but I don’t mind addressing that specifically. We are, in some ways, the weaker sex. I don’t consider this an insult because our strengths are complimentary. Of course some women handle authority with dignity in this egalitarian culture we live in, many do not. I’m pretty sure that most would agree, that we handle it differently. IMO and experience, women seem to have more trouble staying grounded in positions of power. It seems like the women I know who have authority positions usually fall into one of two camps—just sayin. Anyway, thank God that there are men out there willing to take on their roles still. I find those cultures where religion is relegated to the women of the family to be depressing.

Then you accept your inferior status?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Maybe he’s right. Although, I don’t think it’s fair to assume his position is as one-dimensional as that…but I don’t mind addressing that specifically. We are, in some ways, the weaker sex. I don’t consider this an insult because our strengths are complimentary. Of course some women handle authority with dignity in this egalitarian culture we live in, many do not. I’m pretty sure that most would agree, that we handle it differently. IMO and experience, women seem to have more trouble staying grounded in positions of power. It seems like the women I know who have authority positions usually fall into one of two camps—just sayin. Anyway, thank God that there are men out there willing to take on their roles still. I find those cultures where religion is relegated to the women of the family to be depressing.

It is often meant as an insult.
If women really cannot be trusted with authority or power, if they are too weak, sinful, and/or stupid to make decisions for themselves and others then they ARE inferior.

This is not what I believe, but you cannot believe in male superiority without accepting female inferiority.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It is often meant as an insult.
If women really cannot be trusted with authority or power, if they are too weak, sinful, and/or stupid to make decisions for themselves and others then they ARE inferior.

This is not what I believe, but you cannot believe in male superiority without accepting female inferiority.

Why are you attempting to make this into a ‘lack of trust’ issue?

The Church is not the one saying "those weak women can’t be trusted.’ No, those words are coming from posters like you. Why should we believe you have a correct understanding when you can’t bring up one single authoritative document from the Church that says anything of the kind?

 

[karbear]

Then you accept your inferior status?

It’s not an inferior status. Weaker in some ways, stronger in others…It’s actually a privledged status. One that inspires gratitude.

But I think we agree more than you think. Marriage is of course a partnership. There is a real danger of cultural backlash among those rejecting the femminist line of taking it too far in the other direction. It’s a delicate balance. I try to think of Mary and Joseph as a model. It’s doubtful that he saw he as inferior or underestimated her value. The must have had a vibrant and loving relationship. At the same time he took on that role of headship and protected her.

 

[karbear]

It is often meant as an insult.
If women really cannot be trusted with authority or power, if they are too weak, sinful, and/or stupid to make decisions for themselves and others then they ARE inferior.

This is not what I believe, but you cannot believe in male superiority without accepting female inferiority.

No one said that we are too weak to make decisions for ourselves. I am not advocating a childlike state in which one fails to become an adult. I believe that it was said that they should not have authority over men. I very much challenge the axiom that authority = superiority.

 

[karbear]

…or that weaker = inferior for that matter.

 

[karbear]

To clarify…

Men’s superior ability to handle authority makes them more suited to positions of authority. But just because our abilities in this sense are inferior, does not mean that we are inferior in value in that relationship. We have less physical strength as well…which means that our physical strength is inferior in that one respect, but that does not mean that we are inferior as people. We are superior to men in our ability to nurture. This does not mean that men are incapable of nurturing or that they are inferior as people…it just makes us better suited to that role.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Why are you attempting to make this into a ‘lack of trust’ issue?

The Church is not the one saying "those weak women can’t be trusted.’ No, those words are coming from posters like you. Why should we believe you have a correct understanding when you can’t bring up one single authoritative document from the Church that says anything of the kind?

I am not making this into a lack of trust issue.

PetersKeys and Karbear are.

And I know that it is the official position now of the Vatican that misogyny is bad. That women should not be discriminated against legally or socially just because their female.
That they should be entitled to all the privileges and legal protections that men are.

But that is not how traditional Catholics like PetersKeys think. They embrace a position of extreme (or at least conservative and misogynistic) patriarchy.