Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[PRmerger]

I think women could do a great job being priests. They couldn’t be any worse could they?

Well, of course, if the priesthood is a job, then a woman can certainly* do* all of the things a priest does.

However, saying the priesthood is a job shows an impoverished understanding of the nature of the priesthood.

That is, ordination is not the “deputizing” of someone to perform an assignment; it is NOT the admission of someone to a profession such medicine or law.

We might even hear about molestation stories a lot less.

When it comes to spirituality and teaching, I think men and women are equal.

Amen!

And yes, I do think sexism stems from religions. History can prove that.

Sexism stems from a divorce of one’s conscience from the Truth.

 

[larkin31]

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.

Indeed.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Well, of course, if the priesthood is a job, then a woman can certainly* do* all of the things a priest does.

However, saying the priesthood is a job shows an impoverished understanding of the nature of the priesthood.

That is, ordination is not the “deputizing” of someone to perform an assignment; it is NOT the admission of someone to a profession such medicine or law.



Amen!

Sexism stems from a divorce of one’s conscience from the Truth.

Yes it is a job, because they make money from it, and two, it is a spiritual job and you just said that women and men are equal spiritually which means that she can be a priest.

 

[edwest2]

Yes it is a job, because they make money from it, and two, it is a spiritual job and you just said that women and men are equal spiritually which means that she can be a priest.

No. They can’t. Not in the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[jmcrae]

I1) 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.

It was not a council of men who chose not to ordain women - in the first generation, it was Jesus who did not ordain any women to the priesthood, to the diakonite, or to become Bishops - of the 72, all were male; of the 5,000, all were male, and of the 12, all were male - Jesus had plenty of opportunities to ordain women - the Samaritan woman, the four women who followed Him with the Apostles - why did He not ordain them to be Bishops? His own Mother, whom He named Woman and Queen of Heaven - He never ordained her to the priesthood, and never made her to be a Bishop.

The Church, looking at what Jesus did, does not find itself to have any authority to ordain women, when Jesus, having had ample opportunity to do so, never did so - even while elevating the dignity of women to a much higher level than had been seen before, up to that point - speaking to women in public, healing their diseases, and even in the Temple and synagogue, acknowledging them and speaking with them.

Are we to imagine that Jesus, while doing things with and for women that had been unthinkable up to that time, would not have thought of elevating women to the priesthood? Or are we to imagine that this same Jesus who argued fearlessly with the Pharisees, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple, who dined with prostitutes and allowed them to play with His hair and feet while at table, was so fearful of human authority that He refrained from ordaining women in case of the scandal it might cause?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*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. *

Both can seek to minister because it is a calling, but there are different ways to minister. The woman is not denied the right to minister, but only denied the same kind of ministry that men are called to. Marriage itself is a ministry; the husband ministers to the wife, and the wife ministers to the husband. But they do not minister in the same way. When the female assumes the dominant ministry in this relationship, she is out of her depth, and she seeks to displace the man’s ministry with her own, which is psychologically different from the man’s because her psyche is different from his.

The man who submits to the woman’s dominance is always considered to be weak and effeminate. That is not a prejudice; that is a fact of life. There is hardly anything so comical as a man under a woman’s thumb. It has been the subject of many a theatrical farce down through history.

A nation under a woman’s thumb can also produce a mighty entertaining farce … as we have been entertained by Nancy Pelosi for the past several years.

I’m afraid Nancy Pelosi as pope, however, I would not find amusing. And I can hardly imagine a woman wanting to be pope other than the type of feminist woman grasping for power that Nancy Pelosi epitomizes.

Larkin, you are not a Catholic, so you can’t begin to see this logic. If you ask the more conservative Anglicans in England and the U.S., they will be glad to explain why Anglicanism world wide is imploding.

But Saint Paul said it best, and he is certainly the authority on this: 1 Corinthians 14:34

“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.”

How do you suppose they can keep silent if they are preaching from the pulpit or from Peter’s throne?

 

[larkin31]

It was not a council of men who chose not to ordain women - in the first generation, it was Jesus who did not ordain any women to the priesthood,

Are you claiming that Jesus stated that women could not be spiritual leaders? I did not claim that Jesus named any women. I said, repeatedly, that he never (as evidenced in the scripture) declared that women COULD NOT be.

to the diakonite, or to become Bishops - of the 72, all were male; of the 5,000, all were male, and of the 12, all were male - Jesus had plenty of opportunities to ordain women - the Samaritan woman, the four women who followed Him with the Apostles - why did He not ordain them to be Bishops? His own Mother, whom He named Woman and Queen of Heaven - He never ordained her to the priesthood, and never made her to be a Bishop.

Jesus did not name all these people.

The Church, looking at what Jesus did, does not find itself to have any authority to ordain women, when Jesus, having had ample opportunity to do so, never did so - even while elevating the dignity of women to a much higher level than had been seen before, up to that point - speaking to women in public, healing their diseases, and even in the Temple and synagogue, acknowledging them and speaking with them.

I agree. They had neither the courage nor the incentive to buck the history of a gender divided culture and religious history.

Are we to imagine that Jesus, while doing things with and for women that had been unthinkable up to that time, would not have thought of elevating women to the priesthood? Or are we to imagine that this same Jesus who argued fearlessly with the Pharisees, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple, who dined with prostitutes and allowed them to play with His hair and feet while at table, was so fearful of human authority that He refrained from ordaining women in case of the scandal it might cause?

Dunno. I also know that, according to scripture, he never commented on gender and priesthood and never, according to scripture, precluded them. The RCC took a cultural pattern of Hebrew religious leadership and made it a RULE (an exclusion based on gender). That is an interesting phenomenon. Especially when also rooted in the writings of Paul, who is quite neurotic (my pov) when it comes to gender and women, especially).

 

[BlueShadow123]

No. They can’t. Not in the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Ed

I know that they cannot be priests. I have been saying that. Thats the whole point.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it is a job, because they make money from it, and two, it is a spiritual job and you just said that women and men are equal spiritually which means that she can be a priest.

Again, saying the priesthood “is a job” demonstrates an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, saying the priesthood “is a job” demonstrates an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

Now, with that being said, Protestant denominations really have no argument for not ordaining women.

For, truly, a protestant clergyman is role is, indeed “a job”, and they ought to be able to have women preach a sermon and lead a congregation in prayer-- for who could doubt that a woman can do all these things, plus counsel families, manage a parish and nurture a sick child, perhaps with even more emotional investment than any male Protestant clergy?

 

[jmcrae]

Are you claiming that Jesus stated that women could not be spiritual leaders? I did not claim that Jesus named any women. I said, repeatedly, that he never (as evidenced in the scripture) declared that women COULD NOT be.

He never declared in red letters that they could not be, but at the same time, when ordaining the 12, He chose only men (with four women standing right there, He did not choose any of the four women, but only 12 of the men) - when ordaining the 72, He ordained only men, even though there were plenty of women to choose from, and when sending out the 5,000, He chose only men, even though there were probably an equal or greater number of women there who could have easily been chosen, if He had willed it.

They had neither the courage nor the incentive to buck the history of a gender divided culture and religious history.

And yet, they managed to buck just about everything else, and got sent to the lions for it.

Do you think they were thinking that the lions would have bitten harder or more painfully, if they had added ordaining women, to the practices of baptizing them, giving them rights to inherit money, and allowing them to prepare the altar for Mass?

Why draw any line at all, since all of these things were completely new, for women? And yet, they did - not because they were afraid of anything, but because Jesus had not authorized them to do so.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Again, saying the priesthood “is a job” demonstrates an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

Its a job in the understanding that they get money from it.

But it is a job to help others. A devotion.

Yes, I know what priesthood is, now lets not get in a big debate about this.

Move on from this post.

 

[PRmerger]

Its a job in the understanding that they get money from it.

But it is a job to help others. A devotion.

Absolutely not.

What you are describing is a Protestant clergyman.

Yes, I know what priesthood is, now lets not get in a big debate about this.

Move on from this post.

Certainly you are free to disregard this, BlueShadow. But my response is not only for you, but for the many lurkers who also share an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

Similarly, many share an impoverished understanding of the Sacraments.

As Fr. Vincent Serpa said, (paraphrasing): if we could see the change that occurs in the soul of the newly baptized, nuclear fission would appear as child’s play. A sublime, profound change occurs, at our very essence, at the very moment we are baptized. An indelible (unchangeable, immortal) mark has been placed on our soul–more powerful than any mere nuclear fission!

Similarly, at the ordination of a priest a profound change occurs. **What existed 30 seconds prior to his consecration does not exist anymore. *He is a new creation: a priest, configured to Christ. Ontologically (that is, at one’s very essence), there is a change in his being. He may look like the same man, but what has just occurred is earth-shatteringly sublime! Just like in our sacrament of the Eucharist: "to observe that after bread becomes the Sacred Body of Christ, it still tastes like bread and feels like bread, *but is now the Body of Christ? There has been an ontological change. A cup of wine still smells like wine and tastes like it, but it is now the Blood of Christ. At ordination an ontological change takes place." source.

I’m guessing you have a limited understanding of our Baptism, a limited understanding of our Eucharist, thus you have a limited understanding of our priesthood.

 

[Betterave]

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

It’s not just the best way sometimes; sometimes it’s the only way, as I said. What is idiotic about that? Isn’t your claiming that it’s idiotic what is idiotic?

 

[BlueShadow123]

Absolutely not.

What you are describing is a Protestant clergyman.

Certainly you are free to disregard this, BlueShadow. But my response is not only for you, but for the many lurkers who also share an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

Similarly, many share an impoverished understanding of the Sacraments.

As Fr. Vincent Serpa said, (paraphrasing): if we could see the change that occurs in the soul of the newly baptized, nuclear fission would appear as child’s play. A sublime, profound change occurs, at our very essence, at the very moment we are baptized. An indelible (unchangeable, immortal) mark has been placed on our soul–more powerful than any mere nuclear fission!

Similarly, at the ordination of a priest a profound change occurs. **What existed 30 seconds prior to his consecration does not exist anymore. *He is a new creation: a priest, configured to Christ. Ontologically (that is, at one’s very essence), there is a change in his being. He may look like the same man, but what has just occurred is earth-shatteringly sublime! Just like in our sacrament of the Eucharist: "to observe that after bread becomes the Sacred Body of Christ, it still tastes like bread and feels like bread, *but is now the Body of Christ? There has been an ontological change. A cup of wine still smells like wine and tastes like it, but it is now the Blood of Christ. At ordination an ontological change takes place." source.

I’m guessing you have a limited understanding of our Baptism, a limited understanding of our Eucharist, thus you have a limited understanding of our priesthood.

Not true, I am just not going to go into a big detail about it. Its not worth my time. Anyways, moving on…

 

[Betterave]

Certainly you are free to disregard this, BlueShadow.

Unfortunately, yes. She is also free to claim to know and understand things she seems clearly not to know or understand and to dismiss request for her to justify her claims. Anyway, moving on, as BS says…!

 

[BlueShadow123]

Unfortunately, yes. She is also free to claim to know and understand things she seems clearly not to know or understand and to dismiss request for her to justify her claims. Anyway, moving on, as BS says…!

No, I just don’t waste my time debating catholics. Its pointless, nobody gets anywhere.

Sure, I should have used a different word, and i know what priests do, but they do make money from what they do aswell. Part of the money is given to the priest for their house to make payments.

Now quit assuming things please. Move on.

 

[PRmerger]

Unfortunately, yes. She is also free to claim to know and understand things she seems clearly not to know or understand and to dismiss request for her to justify her claims. Anyway, moving on, as BS says…!

Yes.

I have no doubt that many think of the priesthood as a job. In the Protestant world, their minister’s role is just a job.

This is why they can’t understand why women can’t do this job.

I am certain that I, as a woman, could perform the tasks of a Protestant minister!

 

[BlueShadow123]

Yes.

I have no doubt that many think of the priesthood as a job. In the Protestant world, their minister’s role is just a job.

This is why they can’t understand why women can’t do this job.

I am certain that I, as a woman, could perform the tasks of a Protestant minister!

I’m not even a protestant though. Way to assume things.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I just don’t waste my time debating catholics. Its pointless, nobody gets anywhere.

LOL! That’s like going to a Cruciverbalist forum and saying, “I don’t like to waste my time talking to people about crossword puzzles.”

Sure, I should have used a different word, and i know what priests do, but they do make money from what they do aswell. Part of the money is given to the priest for their house to make payments

Yes, priests get paid. Again, impoverished understanding of the nature of the priesthood.

People get wet when they are baptized. Doesn’t mean that’s the only thing that happens.