Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AngryAtheist8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tantum_ergo said:
If the priesthood of the Jewish people was not limited to men why were there no female ‘priestesses’ when, among the societies and cultures of that time, such females were prevalent?
Click to expand...
It WAS limited to men. I only said that I know of no scriptural (OT or NT) evidence of either God or Jesus stating this.
And if this was not a decision of God’s, where is your proof it was a decision of ‘men’?
Click to expand...
“Proof”??? Who is possibly talking about “proof”? I am simply stating that in the ABSENCE of any scriptural requirements of the sort, then I am SUSPICIOUS and DOUBTFUL of the claims of DIVINE directive on this matter. When nearly all of the religious and secular culture of Biblical times was organized around a patriarchal authority, then why would one simply ADD that the justification for Catholic exclusion of women from priesthood was from DIVINE COMMANDMENT? Especially when there is no record of any such commandment, when so many other direct commands were conveyed either in God’s or Jesus’ own words? From my point of view, the history of Jewish/Hebrew religion and culture shows an exclusion of women from said positions, and the early Christians continued that exclusion, and Paul reinforced it. But as for saying that this was God’s wish or God’s desire–that women be excluded for eternity from this position–because Jesus selected men (most probably ONLY) and because the Jews have that history and because Paul (a FAMOUS Jew) also put women in their place, seems to me to be an inference not justified by the facts.
 
larkin31 said:
It WAS limited to men. I only said that I know of no scriptural (OT or NT) evidence of either God or Jesus stating this.

“Proof”??? Who is possibly talking about “proof”? I am simply stating that in the ABSENCE of any scriptural requirements of the sort, then I am SUSPICIOUS and DOUBTFUL of the claims of DIVINE directive on this matter. When nearly all of the religious and secular culture of Biblical times was organized around a patriarchal authority, then why would one simply ADD that the justification for Catholic exclusion of women from priesthood was from DIVINE COMMANDMENT? Especially when there is no record of any such commandment, when so many other direct commands were conveyed either in God’s or Jesus’ own words? From my point of view, the history of Jewish/Hebrew religion and culture shows an exclusion of women from said positions, and the early Christians continued that exclusion, and Paul reinforced it. But as for saying that this was God’s wish or God’s desire–that women be excluded for eternity from this position–because Jesus selected men (most probably ONLY) and because the Jews have that history and because Paul (a FAMOUS Jew) also put women in their place, seems to me to be an inference not justified by the facts.
Click to expand...
The trouble with your conclusion is that Christ taught by word and deeds. As the saying often goes, actions speak louder than words.
18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, (Romans (RSV) 15)
Click to expand...
What Jesus did carries as much weight as what he said.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
So does the ‘reason’ then justify their ‘ability’?

I mean, I 'm sure that most of us would feel that a person seeking to be a priest–a ‘role’ that is meant to be humble, self-sacrificing, all for God’s glory and not for his own --should not become a priest if they are doing so for a ‘wrong’ reason.

But suppose you have a person who truly ‘believes’ that he–or she–is being ‘called’ to this service. And this person truly ‘intends’ to do all the ‘good’ he–or she–possibly can.

Now here is the rub.

Suppose that the Faith you wish to serve says, “Only men may serve.” And you’re a woman.

If you want to serve God, do you say, "Yes, God, I understand, but even though you say “men only” I just know that either somebody ‘lied’ and you really said women are fine, or even if you said it I know you won’t **care that I don’t obey you, **because you would value what I DO as a priest over whether I obey your teaching."

Really, when it comes to women desiring to be priests, you have the following:

You have women --some of them no doubt very ‘good’ people–who are basically saying,
  1. I don’t believe God really MEANT for women NOT to be priests.
  2. I believe what I think I feel ‘called by God’ to do is more important that actually obeying what He has said. . .especially when I don’t believe he ‘really’ said it.
  3. Because being a priest is more important to me than obeying what is taught–especially when I don’t ‘trust’ the teaching --I feel that I can justify the disobedience.
  4. I feel that disobedience is less important–if it is important at all–than following my ‘conscience’. I feel that it is more important for me to do what I feel ‘entitled to’ than it is to comply with the faith that I am insisting I must be a ‘priest’ in, in order to be ‘equal’ or to have the kind of ‘fairness’ that I feel entitled to.
So it comes down to lack of trust, lack of obedience, and insistence that one’s ‘feelings’ are more important than actual teachings.

NOT exactly the best reasons to be a priest, you know?

“Hi, I’m Susie. I’m a real good Catholic who believes all the Catholic teachings, and I feel called to be a priest.”

“Um, Susie. Catholic teaching is that only men may be priests.”

“I know THAT, silly. But I feel CALLED to be a priest. And I’m a nice person. I’d make a good priest.”

"Um, Susie. You are a nice person, I’m sure. But you say that you believe all the Catholic teachings?

“Absolutely! That’s why I’d make a good priest! I know all about the sacraments, and I’ve read the Bible, and I pray a lot, and I love people.”

“Um, Susie. The Catholic Church teaches that only men may be priests.”

“I know THAT! I’ve read the Catechism. But He didn’t REALLY say that. I’ve read the Bible. Jesus never said, “men only.” Since He didn’t say that, then it’s all right for me to be a priest.”

“Um, Susie. Jesus didn’t say, “Porn is bad” either. But it is bad, and the Church teaches it’s bad.”

“I know THAT! everybody knows porn is bad. But that’s different.”

“How?”

“Um, it just is. Besides it isn’t just that Jesus didn’t say it. The Catholic Church never made an INFALLIBLE STATEMENT that women can’t be priests. So they can.”

“Um, Susie, what about Pope John Paul II and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? He said that the Church had no authority to ordain women.”

“It wasn’t ex cathedra! It doesn’t count! Besides, the Church COULD SO have the authority if it wanted to, and it will! I want to be a PRIEST and you HAVE TO LET ME or you’re a big MEANIE and I will LEAVE and then it will be YOUR FAULT and you’ll go to HELL because you’re a nasty bigot.”

“Yes Susie, what a priest you would have made. . .” :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Precisely.

Susie will be more happy somewhere else. Moreover conservative Catholics will be happier if feminists inside the Church simply leave instead of trying to reform the Church.
 
davidv said:
The trouble with your conclusion is that Christ taught by word and deeds. As the saying often goes, actions speak louder than words.

What Jesus did carries as much weight as what he said.
Click to expand...
so, because Jesus choose to overturn money-lender’s tables, we MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME?

because Jesus rode a donkey, we MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME?

because Jesus stopped the punishment of an adulterer, WE MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME?

because he had wine and unleavened bread, WE MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME? (at least with this one he explicitly said, “Do this in remembrance of me.”)

because he told disciples to eat from the tables of others and carry knives, WE MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME?

because he chose male disciples, WE MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
If the priesthood of the Jewish people was not limited to men, why were there no female ‘priestesses’ when, among the societies and cultures of that time, such females were prevalent?

And if this was not a decision of God’s, where is your proof it was a decision of ‘men’?
Click to expand...
Ergo has a point.

The ancient Hebrews were an extremely sexist and misogynistic bunch. Just read the Old Testament.

I warn you though, if you have any respect or regard for women there’s a lot of stuff in the OT to make you feel squeamish.
 
larkin31 said:
I have had this poster on ignore for months now. I recommend your doing the same if you find that he/she does not honor your requests on this off-topic issue.
Click to expand...
Oh, larkin! You’re so silly! I know you peek in every once in a while just to make sure I’m still addressing you! 😛
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Ergo has a point.

The ancient Hebrews were an extremely sexist and misogynistic bunch. Just read the Old Testament.

I warn you though, if you have any respect or regard for women there’s a lot of stuff in the OT to turn your stomach.
Click to expand...
I certainly don’t deny the patriarchal sexism of the OT! Nor do I ascribe it to God!
 
Originally Posted by Betterave
Sure, you can look at it that way: religion is a big war. Atheism is just another party to that war though, so your comment doesn’t make sense (true, some atheists might see things that way, but only if they’re being irrational). “Do not think I have come to bring peace.” (Know who said that??)(QUOTE.)

If religion is a war atheists are conscientious objectors.

Here’s a definition of atheists to help you.

Atheists:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

If someone wants to claim to know a lot about Catholicism and to be here for open-minded and respectful debate, there should be evidence of this in his/her posts. Don’t ya think?!(QUOTE.)

Yes, you should start providing evidence.

-AngryAtheist8

P.S. I am re-posting this message because I messed up the quote function when I first tried to reply to Betterave’s message.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Ergo has a point.

The ancient Hebrews were an extremely sexist and misogynistic bunch. Just read the Old Testament.

I warn you though, if you have any respect or regard for women there’s a lot of stuff in the OT to turn your stomach.
Click to expand...
I wonder if there’s any examples of coeval societies which respected and revered women as having inherent dignity?
 
larkin31 said:
so, because Jesus choose to overturn money-lender’s tables, we MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME?

because Jesus rode a donkey, we MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME?

because Jesus stopped the punishment of an adulterer, WE MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME?

because he had wine and unleavened bread, WE MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME? (at least with this one he explicitly said, “Do this in remembrance of me.”)

because he told disciples to eat from the tables of others and carry knives, WE MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME?

because he chose male disciples, WE MUST ALWAYS DO THE SAME?
Click to expand...
David, how about this point: why do Catholics only ascribe SOME of Jesus’s actions as models for later permanent regulations for specific behavior? Why, in this selective case, would men in authority say that Jesus’s actions in selecting only men as apostles should become a permanent rule, but that many of the other behaviors and choices of Jesus are NOT to become permanent rules of conduct? Obviously, I am deeply suspicious of the the pattern of continuation of male authority on DIVINE grounds when neither God nor Jesus ever spoke such words.
 
larkin31 said:
David, how about this point: why do Catholics only ascribe SOME of Jesus’s actions as models for later permanent regulations for specific behavior? Why, in this selective case, would men in authority say that Jesus’s actions in selecting only men as apostles should become a permanent rule, but that many of the other behaviors and choices of Jesus are NOT to become permanent rules of conduct? Obviously, I am deeply suspicious of the the pattern of continuation of male authority on DIVINE grounds when neither God nor Jesus ever spoke such words.
Click to expand...
Are all of the examples you gave of equal value? Do you know what each means? Why do you think its a selective case? None these instances can be taken in isolation.

Your suspicions don’t lead me to any doubt of the validity of the teaching of a male only priesthood nor to any expressed or implied sexism.
 
larkin31 said:
I don’t refer to any individuals. Why are you being cagey? My post does not clarify whom you mean with your question.
Click to expand...
No caginess. Did you make a claim that the OT described patriachal sexism? It seemed to me to be a baseless assertion.
 
davidv said:
Are all of the examples you gave of equal value? Do you know what each means? Why do you think its a selective case? None these instances can be taken in isolation.

Your suspicions don’t lead me to any doubt of the validity of the teaching of a male only priesthood nor to any expressed or implied sexism.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to convince you in any way. I am simply offering the courtesy of explaining why I have serious doubts about the claim that God has chosen this as a permanent rule. All the evidence, from my point of view, is human, rather than divine. And, as I said, I am especially suspicious of selecting only SOME of Jesus’s behaviors as permanent axioms when neither God nor Jesus is ever attributed as saying or commanding so, and when the rule tends to continue the power and authority of those already in power. That is an all-too-familiar human hegemonic behavior from my readings of patriarchy.

But my suspicions do not need to be shared by anyone else. That’s ok by me! 👍
 
larkin31 said:
David, how about this point: why do Catholics only ascribe SOME of Jesus’s actions as models for later permanent regulations for specific behavior?
Click to expand...
Because we have the guidance of Holy Mother Church to tell us which of Jesus’ actions were “models for later permanent regulations for specific behavior” and which weren’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top