Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[glencora]

Those who deny that Christ ever ordained the apostles as bishops or priests, commonly give the following explanation of what happened in the early Church. But underlying this explanation is that we give up the idea of any real distinction between the laity and the clergy. It must be assumed that this distinction is a later invention and is not found in the New Testament. Here is how the explanation goes:

**In the early Church there existed a plurality of church organizations. Some churches were ruled by a committee or council of lay elders. Others were ruled by prophets and teachers. Still others were ruled by traveling apostles. Depending on who was ruling a given church, so the argument runs, different persons would be “Eucharistic presiders.”

The theology of the early church would demand that whoever presides over the community also preside over the Eucharist. One would assume that the person presiding over the community has arrived at this leadership position because of the leadership qualities discerned by the community. The presider would be the one whom the people have discerned to have the functional competence to be a good liturgist, an effective preacher of the Word and excel in enabling all the pastoral ministries of the community.

Such a Eucharistic presider would be ordained to call together a community, to continue building community, and then to celebrate it. This presider would be the public embodiment, the living symbol, of the community’s goals and values. As such, the presider would be a sacrament of God’s presence in the community. At the same time, he/she would be a unifying symbol who reconciled the members of the community to God and to each other. He/she would bring order and harmony into the community so that all its ministries would build up the church. This presider, in the prophetic tradition, would also extend the community’s vision to include the whole human community. Finally, he/she would represent the larger institutional church. Despite its human frailty, the institutional church is the visible sacrament of God’s saving grace for all humankind. Neither the Eucharist nor its presider ever becomes the property of one community.

In the immediate future, this Eucharistic presider will probably continue to be the diocesan or religious priest who is already ordained. As these priests die, the future presider will have to come from the community’s actual leaders, male or female, married or single. Presiding over the Eucharist will always remain one among many shared ministries to the community.**

As you hear these statements, in print, widely circulated, and written by priests, you ask yourself, “Am I dreaming, or is this real?”

My answer is “It is real!”

We begin our reflections with saying that a Catholic in the modern world must be ready to live a martyr’s life for his faith in the priesthood.

What is this faith? It is the faith professed now for twenty centuries.

**

• That Jesus Christ did institute the sacrament of Holy Orders on Holy Thursday night when He ordained the apostles bishops with the full power of the priesthood.
• That the apostles ordained men bishops and bishops ordained other bishops and priests.
• That from the very dawn of Christianity, it was given to only ordained priests.
• Only priests could offer the Sacrifice of the Mass.
• Only priests could change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
• Only priests could absolve sins in the sacrament of confession and thus reconcile sinners with an offended God.

Once you believe this, you have no choice. As a priest you cannot deny your faith. All the learned jargon about the lay ministry is just that: jargon.

But those priests who believe they are divinely empowered by Christ to do what no one else can effect

**

• Like change bread and wine into the living Christ.
• Like reconcile sinners with their God—such priests will have to pay dearly for their faith convictions. I know! I know!

The Church is going through the worst crisis of her Catholic history. But she will not only survive, she will thrive. On one condition: that we priests be willing not only to live, but to die a martyr’s death for our faith in the priesthood given to us by Jesus Christ on the night before He died. Amen.

Copyright © 1998 Inter Mirifica****

therealpresence.org/archives/Priesthood/Priesthood_018.htm

• Only priests could administer the sacrament of the sick.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry Atheist

But several posters in this thread (such as Ed, Charlemagne II, and PetersKeys) seem to be arguing that women shouldn’t be able to compete with men for things like jobs, awards, and customers at all.

Where did I say that?

 

[glencora]

Those who deny that Christ ever ordained the apostles as bishops or priests, commonly give the following explanation of what happened in the early Church. But underlying this explanation is that we give up the idea of any real distinction between the laity and the clergy. It must be assumed that this distinction is a later invention and is not found in the New Testament. Here is how the explanation goes:

**In the early Church there existed a plurality of church organizations. Some churches were ruled by a committee or council of lay elders. Others were ruled by prophets and teachers. Still others were ruled by traveling apostles. Depending on who was ruling a given church, so the argument runs, different persons would be “Eucharistic presiders.”

The theology of the early church would demand that whoever presides over the community also preside over the Eucharist. One would assume that the person presiding over the community has arrived at this leadership position because of the leadership qualities discerned by the community. The presider would be the one whom the people have discerned to have the functional competence to be a good liturgist, an effective preacher of the Word and excel in enabling all the pastoral ministries of the community.

Such a Eucharistic presider would be ordained to call together a community, to continue building community, and then to celebrate it. This presider would be the public embodiment, the living symbol, of the community’s goals and values. As such, the presider would be a sacrament of God’s presence in the community. At the same time, he/she would be a unifying symbol who reconciled the members of the community to God and to each other. He/she would bring order and harmony into the community so that all its ministries would build up the church. This presider, in the prophetic tradition, would also extend the community’s vision to include the whole human community. Finally, he/she would represent the larger institutional church. Despite its human frailty, the institutional church is the visible sacrament of God’s saving grace for all humankind. Neither the Eucharist nor its presider ever becomes the property of one community.

In the immediate future, this Eucharistic presider will probably continue to be the diocesan or religious priest who is already ordained. As these priests die, the future presider will have to come from the community’s actual leaders, male or female, married or single. Presiding over the Eucharist will always remain one among many shared ministries to the community.**

As you hear these statements, in print, widely circulated, and written by priests, you ask yourself, “Am I dreaming, or is this real?”

My answer is “It is real!”

We begin our reflections with saying that a Catholic in the modern world must be ready to live a martyr’s life for his faith in the priesthood.

What is this faith? It is the faith professed now for twenty centuries.

**

• That Jesus Christ did institute the sacrament of Holy Orders on Holy Thursday night when He ordained the apostles bishops with the full power of the priesthood.
• That the apostles ordained men bishops and bishops ordained other bishops and priests.
• That from the very dawn of Christianity, it was given to only ordained priests.
• Only priests could offer the Sacrifice of the Mass.
• Only priests could change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
• Only priests could absolve sins in the sacrament of confession and thus reconcile sinners with an offended God.
• Only priests could administer the sacrament of the sick.

**

Once you believe this, you have no choice. As a priest you cannot deny your faith. All the learned jargon about the lay ministry is just that: jargon.

But those priests who believe they are divinely empowered by Christ to do what no one else can effect.

**

• Like change bread and wine into the living Christ.
• Like reconcile sinners with their God—such priests will have to pay dearly for their faith convictions. I know! I know!

**

The Church is going through the worst crisis of her Catholic history. But she will not only survive, she will thrive. On one condition: that we priests be willing not only to live, but to die a martyr’s death for our faith in the priesthood given to us by Jesus Christ on the night before He died. Amen.

therealpresence.org/archives/Priesthood/Priesthood_018.htm

 

[edwest2]

You can’t have single mothers without deadbeat Dads.

Yes, well, in the upside down world of secular immorality, the father no longer matters. In something like a magic trick, a woman allows a man to have sex with her and he suddenly disappears. Since it is “her body,” she has the right to dispose of the child as she sees fit. Very sad.

Deadbeat dads? There are laws about that. Another way secular society deals with a sympton but avoids dealing with the actual disease - rampant, advertised immorality.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I realize that competition between individual men and women isn’t the same as competition between masculinity and femininity.

But several posters in this thread (such as Ed, Charlemagne II, and PetersKeys) seem to be arguing that women shouldn’t be able to compete with men for things like jobs, awards, and customers at all.

I never argued that. What I pointed out, which you apparently missed, is that individual women make individual choices. In your version of reality, they must do as you propose here. And exactly as you propose it. And as fellow human beings, cooperation makes more sense. Compete is a bunch of mice fighting to get at the same piece of cheese. We’re human beings - cooperation should be a way of life.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think Sinead O’connor was ordained a “catholic” “priest”. At least by a group that she considered to be in communion with the church.

Sinead O’Connor tore up a picture of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

And I am saying that she is not really equal if she can’t.

Moreover, I think you’re making a pretty big assumption when it comes to Ed, Charlemagne II, and PetersKeys.

I agree with him. Somehow, I need to respectfully point out that your “formula” for female success seems to be just as dictatorial as saying the opposite, i.e. stay home, have kids, and by that standard, call herself a success.

Or to put it blunly, you appear to saying ‘it’s my way or you’re dead wrong.’

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In my heart of hearts, I believe a man can keep a secret better than a woman.

I therefore conclude that women priests would be not be right for confession.

At least you’d never catch me going to one.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I agree with him. Somehow, I need to respectfully point out that your “formula” for female success seems to be just as dictatorial as saying the opposite, i.e. stay home, have kids, and by that standard, call herself a success.

Or to put it blunly, you appear to saying ‘it’s my way or you’re dead wrong.’

Peace,
Ed

You agree with me?

 

[karbear]

I agree with him. Somehow, I need to respectfully point out that your “formula” for female success seems to be just as dictatorial as saying the opposite, i.e. stay home, have kids, and by that standard, call herself a success.

Or to put it blunly, you appear to saying ‘it’s my way or you’re dead wrong.’

Peace,
Ed

OK, actually I was hoping one of the catholics here would help me out. It’s like somehow, the authority thing turned into something else entirely. I’m still not exactly sure where I’m going wrong. I am in architecture school now, but if I am blessed with a husband and kids someday? I’m confused. I don’t think that I was saying that success was being a wife and mother. Doing it well and loving God would be, right? I’m not sure how this became a question of success. We should just do the right thing, right? I find myself more confused than ever but want to hear this because I’m feeling like there is something not quite right here either. What part was dictatorial?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Angry Atheist

But several posters in this thread (such as Ed, Charlemagne II, and PetersKeys) seem to be arguing that women shouldn’t be able to compete with men for things like jobs, awards, and customers at all.

Where did I say that?

-In this post you said that Senator Nancy Pelosi’s actions as Speaker of the House show that women don’t make good leaders:

Angry

Feminism by and large has not created injustices against women. It has merely highlighted them.

Ironically, it has exacerbated them. When women insist on being treated exactly as men, they will get what they insist upon. Men no longer treat women with the same courtesy they used to extend because women have become their competitors more than anything else. In the workplace men resent women bosses to a great extent. This is largely because men and women do not think the same way, and there is bound to be a clash of mentalities based on sexual identity if nothing else. How many executive women have abused male underlings in the work place? Does this create respect for women, or resentment, the same resentment feminists used to express before the feminists came into power.

Is Nancy Pelosi beloved by her colleagues and the American people? How can you admire someone who insists that “to find out what is in the bill you first have to vote for it”? What kind of a power-mad strategy is that? Is that a remark any self-respecting male would have made as Speaker of the House, or is it the remark of a power mad woman who cares not a fig for how shameful her logic appears to the vast majority of Americans? Pelosi has single handedly shown what trouble we will be in if more irrational and power hungry women take over the country. It is a blessing that the American people see through her insanity and have ended her days as Speaker of the House.

There is no doubt in my mind that the same kind of women would like to be bishops and popes in the future Catholic Church. The first item on their agenda would be to declare Paul’s teaching on homosexuality null and void. The second item on their agenda will be to require affirmative action for the selection of priests and bishops. The third item on their agenda will be to demand as many female cardinals as male. The fourth item on their agenda will be to create more female cardinals than males. The fifth item on their agenda will be to make sure all future popes are female. The last item on their agenda will be to turn the Catholic Church into a New Age religion.

Lots of luck, girls!

-In this post you restate the idea that women are always bad leaders, and imply that women all have bad judgment (or at least that their judgment can’t be trusted):

Hitler is an example of someone who was worse than Pelosi, for sure! A great deal of Hitler’s power came from his popularity with women. So much for the political astuteness of women.

However, we are looking for patterns of behavior, not individual instances. Pelosi, if she did not represent the pattern of female craving for power over men, certainly gives that impression. Of all the women the Democrats had to select from, why did they put her first and foremost as their leader? Because she was a good leader for the nation? “In order to find out what is in the bill, you first have to vote for it.” Has any male Speaker of the House ever said anything so absurdly arrogant? If you would like to counter with a comparable quote from any earlier male Speaker of the House, I’m all ears.

Pelosi is also in the habit of telling Catholics what the Catholic Church teaches on abortion … absolutely the opposite of what the bishops actually teach. More absurd arrogance. So apparently that is another policy we can expect to be promoted by female priests, bishops, and popes cut from the same cloth as the power craving Pelosis of the world?

It should have dawned upon you long ago that the Catholic Church is the oldest and most powerful living institution in the world. That was accomplished by a patriarchal priesthood. The Church has never stopped teaching what she taught from the start … regardless of what feminists and homosexuals would like to see happen in the very near future … and what they would fully expect to happen in the very near future if the Church were taken over by power craving women.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

OK, actually I was hoping one of the catholics here would help me out. It’s like somehow, the authority thing turned into something else entirely. I’m still not exactly sure where I’m going wrong. I am in architecture school now, but if I am blessed with a husband and kids someday? I’m confused. I don’t think that I was saying that success was being a wife and mother. Doing it well and loving God would be, right? I’m not sure how this became a question of success. We should just do the right thing, right? I find myself more confused than ever but want to hear this because I’m feeling like there is something not quite right here either. What part was dictatorial?

Don’t take it personally.

From what I have seen this is just Ed’s writing style.
Remember he doesn’t like new things or any kind of change (based on his own words).

He has actually written long posts in other threads condemning the idea of change itself.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I never argued that. What I pointed out, which you apparently missed, is that individual women make individual choices. In your version of reality, they must do as you propose here. And exactly as you propose it. And as fellow human beings, cooperation makes more sense. Compete is a bunch of mice fighting to get at the same piece of cheese. We’re human beings - cooperation should be a way of life.

Peace,
Ed

Cooperation requires compromise, give and take, and other changes over time. And as I recall you reject change itself (and time keeping devices).

So I’m not sure how much (or how little) your advocacy of cooperation now is worth.

And you are wrong about me (again).

I don’t say that women have to have a career, and seek wealth and power like men. I am saying that they should be able to if they want to. That it is unfair to deny them the opportunity. That they are not really equal if they cannot have their own jobs, money, and careers. Most of all, that they are not really equal if different (and harsher) laws apply to them than men.

Moreover your understanding of capitalism is wrong.
If you remove the element of competition from it its no longer capitalism.

Here’s the definition:
answers.com/topic/capitalism

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

 

[larkin31]

Each to their own preference. I have friends that make the financial sacrifice, and what they get far outweighs what they give up.

Well, of course they do. They made that choice with a certain outcome in mind. Assuming that they get that desired outcome, then the sacrifice is worth it.

Others who make a different choice with a different outcome in mind will rate the exchange differently.

If you want to discuss gender roles and work outside the home, we need to be much more sophisticated about the development, historically. The vast majority of women have ALWAYS worked through history. It was only a mid-late 19th century upper-middle class phenomenon in the west that began to suggest that women should remain in the home, partake in little physical labor, produce no goods, and primarily ONLY serve their husbands and children domestically by creating a valuable and nurturing “home” which, for the most part, was purchased by the labors of the men outside the home.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*If you want to discuss gender roles and work outside the home, we need to be much more sophisticated about the development, historically. The vast majority of women have ALWAYS worked through history. It was only a mid-late 19th century upper-middle class phenomenon in the west that began to suggest that women should remain in the home, partake in little physical labor, produce no goods, and primarily ONLY serve their husbands and children domestically by creating a valuable and nurturing “home” which, for the most part, was purchased by the labors of the men outside the home. *

This is more or less true. However, the labor of women was always tied primarily to domestic tasks, and it was always the man who was the primary income maker and decision maker for the rest of the family, both before the Industrial revolution and during it. It was not until the last century that feminism decided to reverse the roles. Women have entered the professions and have made significant contributions to society while at the same time raising families. On the other hand, the role of the male has certainly been diminished in society by the fact that women have been given preference for responsible positions of power while many men have become unemployable “moms” in the home. Is this good for society? I leave that for you to decide. The divorce statistics are simply stunning by comparison with what they were during my childhood. A professional woman is supposed to sensibly raise her children while her ex goes off and starts a new family instead of finishing the job with his first several children.

The fragmentation of the family and family values can be placed as much at the feet of professional moms as it can be placed at the feet of absentee dads now that divorce is virtually as commonplace as marriage. The toll on the children is simply incalculable, but I believe it is very much at the root of the fact that we have a whole generation of ineducable, lonely, neurotic, drug-ridden, and sex obsessed children destroying themselves as fast as they can.

Yes, equality we have. Is it worth it? Ask the first girls, whoever they will be, who will demonstrate the logical conclusion of this wild logic by agreeing to go armed and arm-in-arm with men onto battlefields with bullets aimed at them and bombs bursting around them. This is the *reductio ad absurdum *of sexual power elites. They want to sit in board rooms and in the senate chambers and the White House, but where will they want to be when the sound to “Charge” is called? Will they want young girls on the front lines dying by the dozens? Or will they want them at home having babies and nurturing them to be sane and healthy citizens that have a good deal more to offer the world than Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s, “You have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”?

What would a feminist pope say about abortion, gay marriage, and Saint Paul?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

larkin

*If you want to discuss gender roles and work outside the home, we need to be much more sophisticated about the development, historically. The vast majority of women have ALWAYS worked through history. It was only a mid-late 19th century upper-middle class phenomenon in the west that began to suggest that women should remain in the home, partake in little physical labor, produce no goods, and primarily ONLY serve their husbands and children domestically by creating a valuable and nurturing “home” which, for the most part, was purchased by the labors of the men outside the home. *

This is more or less true. However, the labor of women was always tied primarily to domestic tasks, and it was always the man who was the primary income maker and decision maker for the rest of the family, both before the Industrial revolution and during it. It was not until the last century that feminism decided to reverse the roles. Women have entered the professions and have made significant contributions to society while at the same time raising families. On the other hand, the role of the male has certainly been diminished in society by the fact that women have been given preference for responsible positions of power while many men have become unemployable “moms” in the home. Is this good for society? I leave that for you to decide. The divorce statistics are simply stunning by comparison with what they were during my childhood. A professional woman is supposed to sensibly raise her children while her ex goes off and starts a new family instead of finishing the job with his first several children.

The fragmentation of the family and family values can be placed as much at the feet of professional moms as it can be placed at the feet of absentee dads now that divorce is virtually as commonplace as marriage. The toll on the children is simply incalculable, but I believe it is very much at the root of the fact that we have a whole generation of ineducable, lonely, neurotic, drug-ridden, and sex obsessed children destroying themselves as fast as they can.

Yes, equality we have. Is it worth it? Ask the first girls, whoever they will be, who will demonstrate the logical conclusion of this wild logic by agreeing to go armed and arm-in-arm with men onto battlefields with bullets aimed at them and bombs bursting around them. This is the *reductio ad absurdum *of sexual power elites. They want to sit in board rooms and in the senate chambers and the White House, but where will they want to be when the sound to “Charge” is called? Will they want young girls on the front lines dying by the dozens? Or will they want them at home having babies and nurturing them to be sane and healthy citizens that have a good deal more to offer the world than Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s, “You have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”?

What would a feminist pope say about abortion, gay marriage, and Saint Paul?

Women have willingly served on the battlefield before. Sometimes posing as a man in order to do so.

Large numbers of Russian women fought against the Germans during World War II and many of them were decorated for bravery. You can read more about it here: forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7299772

Review your history the next time your tempted to accuse a whole group of cowardice.

 

[edwest2]

To Angry Atheist -

I am not against timepieces. I am against people who use time as a substitute for action.

“Well you know, that will all change in 10 or 15 years.” What will change? Change only occurs by people acting, not by waiting.

A few people here seem to think that women should self-identify with their thinking. And how will this happen? Through some sort of psychic osmosis? On a Catholic Forum, sacramental marriage needs to be promoted first and foremost, not the radical Leftist/Marxist class warfare nonsense. The war between the workers and the State, the war between men and women. “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” The chains are what? Oh yes. Men. All men.

Depose whoever’s in charge and let the workers/women/whoever happens to be filed under the “oppressed” category this week - put them in charge. Yeah, right. Rinse. Repeat.

Women being priests is a purely spiritual matter, but for those who think the Bible is fiction and all religions some sort of man-made racket, well, let’s just go on those Catholic forums and agitate for change. An interesting hobby but not worthwhile.

For this issue, nothing within the Church will change.

Peace,
Ed

 

[glencora]

AngryAtheist8

Truth is revealed to EVERYONE; in this life, or in the next! A Catholic woman in Louisiana had a near death experience. She witnessed souls coming before Jesus. At the moment of death, ALL souls will behold Jesus Christ. Those souls seeking truth will acknowledge him as LORD. Those souls lukewarmly seeking or outright opposing truth reject him. Your disposition does not change after death. God’s existence is self-evident. It is evident in creation itself. The truth is that mankind continues to reject God; becoming his own master. Mankind does not want to submit to authority! Mankind concocts every scheme, philosophical, and scientific reason to reject God because he hates TRUTH! No, women cannot be priests, have never been priests, and will never be priests in a true Roman Catholic Church! God speaks through the Church and the Church says no female priests!

 

[glencora]

**Roy5

“ Re: Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

---

Good point. However, many Catholics and other ecumenical-minded Christians tend to see our religion as one faith, despite its tragic divisions, and are interested in trends, changes, and traditions within all of its branches, and especially Catholicism, which is the largest. I Cor. 12.

The ordination of women is an important barrier to the spirit of unity which we pray will grow stronger among all those who seek to be devoted followers of Christ. If Catholicism does not ordain women as priests, it would be encouraging if it at least recognized the validity of the ordination of other Christian denominations (men and women, both) and not state, as Benedict XVI has done, that Protestant clergy do not have the authority to offer valid communion and that they do not have actual churches but only ‘ecclesial entities’. It also would help if women were accepted as Deacons within Catholicism, and an argument could be made that women performed Deacon-like responsibilities in the early church. See, for example, Phoebe. Romans 16:1 RSV.”**

So, Protestants who rejected the Roman Catholic Church want affirmation?! Irony of ironies! Protestants defaced centuries old, Roman Catholic Churches, banned Catholics from seceding to their thrones, banned Catholics from owning land, attending colleges, etc. and now want affirmation?! Submit to Jesus Christ and his Church and we will have unity! Recognize all the sacraments and there will be unity! Acknowledge the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, and DIVINITY of Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist and there will be unity! Unity without TRUTH is FALSE! There is ONE church, the Roman Catholic Church (and our separated Eastern brothers). I hate to sound harsh, but this cry for ecumenism without obedience to authority is heresy!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AngryAtheist

*Large numbers of Russian women fought against the Germans during World War II and many of them were decorated for bravery. *

You being an atheist, I’m certainly not surprised that you would use atheist Joe Stalin’s decision to throw women into the battlefield as a form of liberating them from the tyranny of men. Rather, it’s more likely that they became bull’s-eye targets for a lot of male German soldiers. How was that liberating?

By the way, how many American women do you think will volunteer for combat duty so that they can be released from the tyranny of men? I said combat duty, not desk jobs in the military.