Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[AngryAtheist8]

*As for your question, if the choice was between female soldiers and no soldiers or female soldiers and not nearly enough male soldiers, then yes I would be all for it. *

But that’s not your position. Your position is that women must all have the same rights (and therefore the same responsibilities) as men. If men have a responsibility to be drafted, and without excuse that they are men, then women must also have a responsibility to be drafted, and without excuse that they are women. So in your scenario, given affirmative action, there ought to be the same number of women as men on the battlefield.

Please don’t tell me that’s a false analogy.

Yes, I see nothing wrong with drafting women as well as men during a time of war (of course what everybody’s service consists of will defend on the circumstances of the war).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

larkin

Why would you imagine that there is any difference in the callings of the genders?

For the same reason posted above. The genders have different callings, different sympathies, different world views. Would you imagine there are any women willing to serve in the combat zones of war? If I were a soldier in the combat zone, the combat women who might be so willing to kill men are not women to whom I would turn my back.

The ones who would like to be pope I could suspect to be on the side of abortion and gay marriage. At least that’s the pattern we tend to see among the feminist women being ordained in the Anglican Church. When you see a female Archbishop of Canterbury, you will see the absolute end of the Anglican Church as a Christian sanctum sanctorum.

There have been and are women willing to serve on the battlefield.

Have you forgotten the Russian soldiers we were discussing already?

If you were ever on the battlefield, I would hope that you could get over your sexist squeamishness and focus on surviving and making sure that your comrades survived.
Even if your comrades were women.

 

[vsedriver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by vsedriver View Post
Actions speak louder than words. Although there were many devoted female disciples of Jesus, including both his Mother and Mary Magdalene, they were not present when Jesus instituted Holy Orders. He clearly chose men.

If it wasn’t a problem for Jesus, it’s not a problem for me.

Larkin: Nor is there any scriptural evidence that he disallowed them.

Me: So his immediate followers got it wrong? The ones at the Last Supper made a mistake? The 1st and 2nd century Christian leaders didn’t know what they were doing?

Larking: Yeah, I would have others. Women can serve God equally well as ministers to the congregants.

Addendum: Paul was clearly “sexist,” and repressed. The latter is weird, but the former was a continuation and intensification of the gender divide of his day. I do not fault him as much for this.

Me: So you are all for rewriting parts of the Bible to make it more current to modern culture?

Quote:
I’m still waiting to find out if we can have beer and pretzels for communion instead of wine and bread. I’m sure that would increase Church attendance!

Larkin: Huh?

Me: This has to do with what you need to have a valid Sacrament. According to the Church teaching you need a male priest to have a valid Eucharist. If the Church is wrong about this then how do we know what constitutes a valid Sacrament?

*Larkin: Same reasons men do. Why would you imagine that there is any difference in the callings of the genders? *

Me: I never said anything about there being a difference in the callings of the genders. I was simply giving my answer as to why women might want to be priests. But you are right the correct answer to the OP is “For the same reasons men do.” Which I think suffices to end the thread.

 

[vsedriver]

Nor is there any scriptural evidence that he disallowed them.

of course when your religion is based on only Sacred Scripture then you can have more room to alter things.

But if your religion is based on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Teaching Authority then you have more supports to your arguments.

So although Sacred Scripture only mentions male priests, and Sacred Tradition only has male priests, and the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, teaches only male priests, they are all wrong.

Or maybe you are wrong, because you both can’t be right.

 

[larkin31]

Me: So his immediate followers got it wrong? The ones at the Last Supper made a mistake? The 1st and 2nd century Christian leaders didn’t know what they were doing?

What they did is not* automatically* a requirement for what ALL MUST DO forever after, particularly when Jesus is not recorded as having ever stated any such requirement. Of course they “knew what they were doing.” This is an unhelpful way of putting your response.

Me: So you are all for rewriting parts of the Bible to make it more current to modern culture?

Yes, certainly. ALL Christians ignore sections of Biblical teachings, laws, and precepts for a variety of reasons. Moreover, the requirement that ONLY men can provide the Eucharist is not in scripture, so there is nothing “to rewrite” on this matter.

Me: This has to do with what you need to have a valid Sacrament. According to the Church teaching you need a male priest to have a valid Eucharist. If the Church is wrong about this then how do we know what constitutes a valid Sacrament?

The RCC DECIDED this. Any and every church also “decides” this for themselves, as the early RCC did. That is, in your words, “how we know what makes a valid Eucharist”: religious groups collectively DECIDE.

Me: I never said anything about there being a difference in the callings of the genders. I was simply giving my answer as to why women might want to be priests. But you are right the correct answer to the OP is “For the same reasons men do.” Which I think suffices to end the thread.

You left out the biggest reason, but I don’t know why that you did this, except, perhaps, to cast female motivations in a negative light simply from prejudice.

 

[Richardprins]

What they did is not* automatically* a requirement for what ALL MUST DO forever after, particularly when Jesus is not recorded as having ever stated any such requirement. Of course they “knew what they were doing.” This is an unhelpful way of putting your response.

Yes, certainly. ALL Christians ignore sections of Biblical teachings, laws, and precepts for a variety of reasons. Moreover, the requirement that ONLY men can provide the Eucharist is not in scripture, so there is nothing “to rewrite” on this matter.

The RCC DECIDED this. Any and every church also “decides” this for themselves, as the early RCC did. That is, in your words, “how we know what makes a valid Eucharist”: religious groups collectively DECIDE.

You left out the biggest reason, but I don’t know why that you did this, except, perhaps, to cast female motivations in a negative light simply from prejudice.

1. What about the Magisterium? Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition form part of the teaching authority of the Church, you can’t leave the Church out of it as it generated both the New Testament and the Fathers.
2. You can’t just randomly ignore stuff. For example, we don’t abide by Jewish law because the apostles decided it was not necessary in the (binding) council of Jerusalem. When did Jesus/a ecumenical council/ a pope infallibly decide we can have women priests all of the sudden?
3. When the Church decides something, it’s not about just picking something, it’s about truth: for example, if the Church would hypothetically (putting aside the impossibility of that) decide that a hamburger constitutes valid matter for the Eucharist, that would be a DECISION, but simply not true. If a priest tries to consecrate a hamburger, nothing happens, even if some group decided that this is possible a thousand times over. If a bishop tries to ordain a woman to the priesthood, nothing happens

 

[Betterave]

So there can be peace and unity only if your religious enemies and rivals surrender and submit to you?

Well at least your honest.

Are you (honest)? This is often the only way to peace. Do you admit that?

 

[Betterave]

And I have NEVER advocated women becoming Catholic priests in this thread.

I have said repeatedly that I think they would be better off leaving and joining a more welcoming faith.

Or to put it more frankly: You aren’t interested in understanding the Catholic faith or considering the possible truth of its doctrines, you are just here to attack it and to encourage people to leave the Church?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AngryAtheist

*There have been and are women willing to serve on the battlefield.

Have you forgotten the Russian soldiers we were discussing already?*

Forget the Russians. What about American women? Are you willing to argue that if sexual equality is to prevail, and there was a military draft, then American women should be drafted for combat duty in the same proportion as American men?

Yes or no? Please don’t equivocate by going back to Russia.

 

[larkin31]

1. What about the Magisterium? Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition form part of the teaching authority of the Church, you can’t leave the Church out of it as it generated both the New Testament and the Fathers.
2. You can’t just randomly ignore stuff. For example, we don’t abide by Jewish law because the apostles decided it was not necessary in the (binding) council of Jerusalem. When did Jesus/a ecumenical council/ a pope infallibly decide we can have women priests all of the sudden?
3. When the Church decides something, it’s not about just picking something, it’s about truth: for example, if the Church would hypothetically (putting aside the impossibility of that) decide that a hamburger constitutes valid matter for the Eucharist, that would be a DECISION, but simply not true. If a priest tries to consecrate a hamburger, nothing happens, even if some group decided that this is possible a thousand times over. If a bishop tries to ordain a woman to the priesthood, nothing happens

What the Magisterium decides IS the truth, no? Are you stating that the Magisterium has made substantial decisions that are wrong?

 

[vsedriver]

What they did is not* automatically* a requirement for what ALL MUST DO forever after, particularly when Jesus is not recorded as having ever stated any such requirement. Of course they “knew what they were doing.” This is an unhelpful way of putting your response.

Yes, certainly. ALL Christians ignore sections of Biblical teachings, laws, and precepts for a variety of reasons. Moreover, the requirement that ONLY men can provide the Eucharist is not in scripture, so there is nothing “to rewrite” on this matter.

Show me where it says in the Bible that everything you do MUST be and ONLY be from the Bible. The RCC does not ignore sections of the Bible.

The RCC DECIDED this. Any and every church also “decides” this for themselves, as the early RCC did. That is, in your words, “how we know what makes a valid Eucharist”: religious groups collectively DECIDE.

Yes, the RCC DECIDED because the RCC has the AUTHORITY granded by Jesus Christ through Peter and the Apostles to make that decision as well as the ASSURANCE from Jesus Christ that the Holy Spirit would guide them in the decision making process.

You left out the biggest reason, but I don’t know why that you did this, except, perhaps, to cast female motivations in a negative light simply from prejudice.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand this last sentence. I simply said that the answer to the question of “Why do women even want to be priests?” is probably “For the same reasons that men do.” I do not see any prejudice in that statement so please clarify for me.

 

[Betterave]

Are you stating that the Magisterium has made substantial decisions that are wrong?

No, Richard did not state that (in case you’re wondering how I know this, it’s just from reading what he actually wrote ).

 

[BlueShadow123]

The day they start allowing gay priests will follow with women.

LOL jk. That would never happen. Maybe an a million years.

I understand the gay part, but the women part, not so much. There are women out there who would make wonderful priests.

Don’t flame me now, I’ve already heard every excuse in the book to why they can’t be. I still don’t agree with it.

 

[larkin31]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand this last sentence. I simply said that the answer to the question of “Why do women even want to be priests?” is probably “For the same reasons that men do.” I do not see any prejudice in that statement so please clarify for me.

I can’t quote your inner quotes that you put within mine.

1. I acknowledge that the RCC uses more than just scripture to make their decisions. I am simply declaring that that is a “choice” that a council of men make.
2. All religious councils claim that God guides their decision-making. But it is still decisionmaking.
3. Ok. We both agree that women and men primarily seek to minister because it is a calling, and that to ascribe ulterior negative motivations to women is likely spurred only by prejudice.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Are you (honest)? This is often the only way to peace. Do you admit that?

I am honest, but the idea that the best way to peace is through warfare is idiotic.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Or to put it more frankly: You aren’t interested in understanding the Catholic faith or considering the possible truth of its doctrines, you are just here to attack it and to encourage people to leave the Church?

I have considered them, and I don’t consider the ‘Truth’ of the doctrines very believable.

I came to this board to debate with Catholics and question them about Catholicism. If the Catholics who manage the board didn’t want that then they shouldn’t have let non-Catholics join.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Forget the Russians. What about American women? Are you willing to argue that if sexual equality is to prevail, and there was a military draft, then American women should be drafted for combat duty in the same proportion as American men?

I will conditionally say yes. A lot would depend on the type of war we were fighting.

And don’t think I do not notice you trying to change the topic

 

[BlueShadow123]

AngryAthiest8, just wanted to say that debating with christians about policies in the church will only be backed up with their book.

I personally think a woman should be able to be a priest if she wants to, but obviously they can’t. and I think thats wrong and pretty sexist if you ask me.

And don’t tell me that I don’t understand. I do understand why she isn’t able to be one, but I disagree with it. I think the excuses for it are sexist.

 

[_Locke]

Forget the Russians. What about American women? Are you willing to argue that if sexual equality is to prevail, and there was a military draft, then American women should be drafted for combat duty in the same proportion as American men?

Yes or no? Please don’t equivocate by going back to Russia.

This is a very poor comparison, as you well know. The reason more men are in the military is because men are generally able to develop a lot more muscle mass, something necessary in a profession which requires physical strength and stamina. Perhaps you can explain why the physical characteristics of a man are important to being a priest? Does God need someone capable of lifting large weights to serve at Mass?

 

[BlueShadow123]

This is a very poor comparison, as you well know. The reason more men are in the military is because men are generally able to develop a lot more muscle mass, something necessary in a profession which requires physical strength and stamina. Perhaps you can explain why the physical characteristics of a man are important to being a priest? Does God need someone capable of lifting large weights to serve at Mass?

HAHA I know. I agree.

I think women could do a great job being priests. They couldn’t be any worse could they?
We might even hear about molestation stories a lot less.

When it comes to spirituality and teaching, I think men and women are equal. And yes, I do think sexism stems from religions. History can prove that.