Why doesn't God want Female Priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BornInMarch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone might have already said this, but I will add my two cents.
If Jesus wanted to women to have the ability to become he would have let them. Jesus was not at all afraid of breaking norms and scandalizing people. For crying out loud, he threw people out of the Temple. Pretty hardcore right there. That would be like Random Priest # 789 going into the Vatican and throwing people out. Can you imagine the controversy that would create? No, if Jesus wanted to ordain women, he most definitely would have.
 
I think the problem is he didn’t ordain non-Jews, Irishmen, Britons, Frenchmen, Chinese, Japanese, etc., etc., and yet they all can be priests. The fact that He didn’t ordain women, by itself, may mean nothing. That He didn’t ordain women, and why He didn’t…and does that matter seems to me to be the issue.
 
Last edited:
johnnykins said:
He didn’t ordain women, by itself, may mean nothing.
Click to expand...
Au contraire. It means a great deal. What doesn’t make any sense is trying to equate one’s sex to their nationality. That’s a non-starter.
 
Last edited:
Actually it points up what is seriously deficient in the argument…that’s the point. By itself it’s a ridiculous argument to say “Well He didn’t choose women for that role and that’s it” and ignore he didn’t choose lots of categories. If all you want to say is, that the Church has simply interpreted that one choice as important and not others misses the entire point of this thread. What’s being asked is what’s behind that choice or lack of same …that’s what matters.

If all you have to offer is, that’s the rule - that’s not much help to anyone.
 
johnnykins said:
Violent, fighting, lying, craven Peter - who ultimately came through it all in the end - is a role model most of us can match."
Click to expand...
Which is why I chose him for my special name saint… Hoping I too can come through it all in the end!
I know its’ off topic, but I just had to throw that in… 🙂
 
johnnykins said:
An old priest I know once said, 'I think God chose Peter rather than John as Pope because He knew very few, if any, of us would have the courage to stay at the foot of the Cross when things got tough. Violent, fighting, lying, craven Peter - who ultimately came through it all in the end - is a role model most of us can match."
Click to expand...
I heard something very similar in a homily about the first three people to come to the tomb on Resurrection Day. Can’t remember which bishop it was but it was on WAOB radio. The homilist talked about how Mary Magdalene was the model for great love of God and John was the model for a brilliant theologian, but Peter was chosen as Pope because he was just an ordinary bumbling guy with faults, and most of us are going to be more like that than like Mary Magdalene or John, so Peter was the best one to relate to and lead ordinary people.
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
The Bible makes no mention however of his wife being anywhere near Peter as he is following Jesus Christ and then leading the Church as the first Pope. It’s likely she had passed before Peter came in contact with Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
The History of the Church by Eusebius says that St. Peter was married, had children and witnessed his wife’s martyrdom in Rome. And J. Quasten writes, “Except for Origen, Eusebius outdistances all Greek Church Fathers in research and scholarship”
 
It is a genuine theological question along the lines of why does the Old Testament, as well as the new, refer to God as Father.

Ad all sorts of reasons can be and have been expounded on the matter. But ultimately, one can ask God, since that is what He has revealed.

It is not all that far removed from asking why God created the universe as it is.
 
Because women make bad leaders. Generally speaking.
 
Last edited:
johnnykins said:
Actually it points up what is seriously deficient in the argument…that’s the point. By itself it’s a ridiculous argument to say “Well He didn’t choose women for that role and that’s it”
Click to expand...
Not true.

I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that stronger arguments couldn’t be made. However the fact that Jesus Christ chose no female Apostles IS a strong argument by itself.
 
Idk if that’s a good argument. I’ve heard people saying that choosing female priests would be a terrible idea, especially since these priests traveled to preach the good news. They would travel to patriarchal societies and nobody would listen anyways? Eg male only altar servers in the past does not mean that girls can’t ever be altar servers, so why is it different with priests? You see the whole ‘Jesus picked only men’ argument is rather incomplete, you have to mention Scared tradition along with it, I guess?

I usually start with scared tradition and the authority of the church first, but ik lots don’t trust the church on this 😦
 
Last edited:
Yeah. This is the best answer.

B/C he didn’t want worthy people, like women, to hang out with.

Just a few old drinking buddy fishermen. Cursin’ like a sailor. Early to bed, early to rise, fish like hell, and make up lies.

On the other hand, his mother had some cousins/ladies that she hung around with, and they were very important in the whole scheme. they were disciples but not apostles (I think).
 
Priests act in the person of Christ, and Christ is male. Had the Second Person of the Trinity become incarnate as a woman, then we would necessarily have women priests, not men. But that is not the case.
 
Oh, I agree. Backup is probably needed when speaking to fellow Catholics. It might be a good opening for non-Catholics though who think Jesus was just propping up the Patriarchy.
 
God has shown a preference for choosing the weak to manifest His power, lest the strong think they alone are responsible for their accomplishments. When it comes to spiritual matters, men are the weaker sex, as the failings you pointed out concerning Jesus’ male disciples show compared to the faithfulness of Jesus’ female disciples. In choosing to allow only men, i.e., the weaker sex in spiritual matters, to be church leaders, God shows His power. That a spiritual institution led exclusively by men could thrive for 2000 years is a true miracle, a manifestation of the power of God.
 
billsannie said:
Most of the Apostle’s parents weren’t mentioned either, but I strongly suspect they had them, nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing, though: in the description of the cure of Peter’s mother-in-law’s healing, we’re told that she gets up and serves all of them food.

So, here’s my question: if you’re Peter’s wife (and still alive and still around), and your mom is on death’s door but gets healed… wouldn’t you serve your guests dinner and tell your mom to rest up?

I think it makes perfect sense to conclude that Peter was already widowed. 🤷‍♂️
 
Maybe it’s not God who doesn’t want them, but man. Anyway a woman would be a priestess because she is not a male, but there is no room in the Catholic church for such a position. Maybe in another 1,000 years…or not…
Women do not resemble God, is the message I hear, they are here to aid men in their leadership on spiritual matters, and it seems most all women are very happy with this set up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top