Why doesn't God want Female Priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BornInMarch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it is because the role of the male is to represent while the role of the female is to magnify.
As the Virgin Mary said in the magnificat, ‘my soul magnify the Lord’.
I don’t think this was just poetry.
Consider how we were made in the image of God.
God is: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Man is: father, child, and mother

Notice how the difference between the two natures is represented by the third person of each nature.
While we were made in the image of God, we are not God, we are creatures. A creature was made an image of divinity. This means it can represent and magnify.

The Holy Spirit who is the heart of God where the Son of God is, had to come to the woman who is the heart of man where the son of man is to be.

So the Holy Scripture rightly say that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. The two persons who represent their respective natures had to come together so the Son of God can take on a new nature. There was no need for a male, because God was coming himself. But there was a need to magnify. So Mary conceived and sang the magnificat.

So if you look at all the great holy women, you will notice that ‘magnifying the Lord’ pattern showing in a very special way in them.
 
Last edited:
billsannie said:
The big problem with citing Mary in this case is that while Mary is extremely important in the Catholic Church, modern women are not (at least, not in a direct way) and no matter what their competence, they never can be. This, of course, is not true of men.
Click to expand...
Wow, a comment like that leaves me lost for words…
 
billsannie said:
The only real reason why women can’t be ordained is the “in alter Christi” doctrine. But this idea is nowhere even hinted at in the Bible. I realize the Bible isn’t the only source of Traditions, but compared to other Traditions this one seems a bit of a stretch, especially in those cases when it can be so very much not in evidence.
Click to expand...
I don’t find it to be a stretch at all. A priest acts in persona Christi—in the Person of Christ. Can a priest, speaking in the person of Christ pronounce the words “This is My Body” while having a female body, as an effective sacramental sign?

Does anyone think that if the Second Person of the Trinity had become incarnate as a woman–”The Daughter of God”–that there would be any male priests whatsoever? It would be an ontological impossibility.
 
How many times does this question have to be asked on a Catholic forum? The Catholic Church has answered this question ad nauseam. Don’t keep asking why God or the Catholic Church won’t allow women priests or women deacons. Ask yourself why you can’t seem to accept God’s reasoning why there is an all male priesthood.
 
Last edited:
God does want female Priests, its society and how its constructed that made that happen. Of course women can be Priests but certain people in power try to contain female and male roles. I am from Poland but moved to North America and yes, Poland is very sexist, and oppressive towards women I find more powerful women leaders In North America. Its a cultural thing that needs to change. God didn’t make that happen people did.
 
Mark121359 said:
How many times does this question have to be asked on a Catholic forum? The Catholic Church has answered this question ad nauseam. Don’t keep asking why God or the Catholic Church won’t allow women priests or women deacons. Ask yourself why you can’t seem to accept God’s reasoning why there is an all male priesthood.
Click to expand...
Like there aren’t 500 other questions ranging from “Is Masturbation a Sin” to “Do I have to believe in Fatima” to everything else under the sun, coming up on this board multiple times. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, even if they are the same ones people have asked in the past. Perhaps you should look at why you have such an impatient reaction to this one.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the U.S.
However, I find it interesting that you state that God ‘wants female priests’. Exactly where do you find this required, except in your own fallible desires? How should your personal opinion of what ‘God wants" be erected as infallible truth? “Men” have caused this? Well then you must be able to show where God desired female priests and then where men’ changed’ it, or else you are arguing the fallacy of ‘argument from silence’, i.e. God never said anything one way or the other but men ‘did’, and somehow contravened God, who had no ‘power’ to change things.

The God who became incarnate, suffered and died and rose from the dead, created the universe. . .had no ‘power’ to transmit authentic teaching to His people and no ‘power’ to stop them from teaching untruth . . .at least until AD 2017 when miraculously some random internet posters decided what He really wanted all along even though the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit (unless of course you choose to call Christ a liar and claim there is no Holy Spirit, or that the Spirit had no power to lead the Church into truth) had proclaimed something so fundamentally logical and true that it stops all rational argument in its tracks: The Church has no authority to ordain women.

Not “The Church does not wish to ordain women.”
Not: The Church has decided not to ordain women.:
Not" The Church never has ordained women so it’s a tradition."

Nope, none of those which would tend to argue that “It’s a cultural practice” or ‘it’s a discipline that can change’ or "it’s a development only possible now that we’re ‘enlightened’.

Nope, it’s a statement that really can be attributable only to God Himself.

Because God is the one who gives the Church authority. God declares that the Church can 'bind or loose’
But what can be bound or loosed is only what is able to be bound or loosed.

The Church cannot declare a circle is really a square, or the Trinity is a Quarter, or the Eucharist can be pizza and beer, or men can marry men. Those are not things which the Church has authority to bind or loose.

And who the Church can ordain is likewise under God’s authority.
And He has spoken.

As I’ve said, nag, whine, complain to the King that He should have priestesses. But don’t blame “The Church” or whinge that it’s 'men" who are the problem.

The only problem is with those who want to usurp God’s authority. . .and it isn’t the CHURCH which is trying to do so in this matter. . .it’s fallible, whining, power-desiring, victim-claiming people. NOT of course directing this at you Rosa or anybody personally.
 
Regarding the thread title (which often has nothing to do with the questions posed): One must die in a state of grace and ask the Lord Himself. Until then, submission and obedience are the rule of the day.
 
Not impatient about someone who asks an honest question. Impatient about why so many Catholics fail, or more accurately refuse to accept God’s revealed truth.
 
Culture can create a variety of gender roles. But culture does not create man and woman. A woman cannot be a father any more than a man cannot be a mother. There will be no woman priests and no male mother-superiors.
 
Pope John Paul II clearly stated that the Church has no authority to allow women to become priests. This was not his opinion and is to be definitively held by all the faithful. Jesus, as God, acted as God and was not bound by the customs and traditions of His time on earth.
 
Last edited:
You badly influenced girl you! 😱

Yes if our modern society thought a little more like an indigenous first peoples in regard to the place of individuals in it,

We Wouldn’t have so many LABELS. And we would have a bunch more respect for each other. And for the value of each other.

It was an eye opener to learn there were other ways of looking at things.
 
Priesthood is linked to the Fatherhod of Christ. Only a male can be a father. An essential component of the priesthood is the male nature of it. Priesthood is spiritual fatherhood. Women can be spiritual mothers. But obviously not spiritual fathers.

The thing is, nobody asked these questions before the 20th century because people had a more solid idea of male/female roles. Obviously some of these roles are societal rather than something in the person. But men and women still are different and there are some roles that belong solely to men/women.
 
billsannie said:
It’s simply that God gave women the same abilities and desires to lead as men, for the same reasons.
Click to expand...
This is wrong for many reasons, not the least of which is that men (and women for that matter) are not as willing to follow women as they are other men. Evidenced by the extreme lack (relatively speaking) of female leaders throughout world history.

Can’t be a good leader if people won’t follow you and definitely can’t be a good leader if your reaction to that statement is to blame the followers and expect them to change.

@Lea101

Given a choice, would you be greatest here on Earth or would you be least?
 
Last edited:
Lea101 said:
I guess one of the main issues with ideas like men and women complementing each other in the Church (or family) is that many don’t seem to believe it. To many, it looks like something people say to appease women or to be PC. But it doesn’t seem to show. It’s one thing to say it, it’s another to actually show it.
Click to expand...
That may be your experience. But complementarity is a very much to the fore in marriage. The funny thing is…in my exprience many Catholic couples just prefer to conform to traditional gender roles. My wife wants to be a stay at home mom when we have kids and I want to be working to provide for the family. Women in general prefer to have time at home with their kids. Even women who have careers.
 
? I don’t really get what you’re trying to say here. Do you think female leaders in general should not be encouraged because men are unwilling to follow them? Surely that shows a problem with men if they value gender over ability? Can you clarify?

As for your question: I would honestly be neither. I don’t want to be the least on Earth. I don’t want to be raped, tortured and killed. Being the greatest have its many cons too. But if there was a gun to my head, I would pick the greatest because at least I would have some power to change the world for the better.
 
But you kind of proved my point. There are catholics who assume that just because they personally value women’s contributions equally as men’s, the whole Church as a whole feel the same way. Claiming that one believes in equality isn’t enough though. This idea of equality varies amongst individuals. You have ‘women should be encouraged to do so and so in the church’ and ‘I think men and women are equal but I want to see all males involved in the mass and I would never take communion from a woman’. Vastly different.

People also think of the US and fail to think about Catholics in different countries and get confused when they hear about unhappy women?

From my experience, I notice people preferring women to do the heavy lifting at the background, and then praising them for their contributions. But when the conversation turns to women having more visibility in the Church, you see all kinds of opinions.

As for what you said about traditional roles, It’s not really about preference, it’s how people value these preferences (anyway I was focused more on women’s contributions to the church rather than just family). It’s great you both are doing what you want and I’m truly happy for you because not everyone gets a choice, but that doesn’t mean what your wife is doing gets enough credit/people genuinely think your wife is just as important as you.
 
What I’m trying to say is that the one-legged man might be a great guy, but he probably ain’t gonna win the race. And the ugly man with a stammer might be a brilliant thinker, but if he wants an audience he probably needs to hire an orator.

So a woman wants to be a leader? Well she’s gonna have to accept that some basic facts of biology are working against her, and also accept that her would-be followers will hold her to higher and harsher standards than they would a man. And getting upset at prejudices of would-be followers and denying biological realities are not the qualities of a good leader. Tough reality.

Jesus told us the least here on Earth would be the greatest in Heaven, the last first, and the poor wealthy. So if we’re talking about what a person should want, it definitely should not be “I want to be a leader because I deserve to be equal to others” but only “I want to be a leader so I can sacrifice more, become less, and suffer greater sorrows than others.”
 
I don’t think it’s fair for you to compare a woman to a disable man.

What facts of biology? Children? Personality differences that are blown out of proportion? Depending on the context, it’s possible to be a leader with children or with feminine traits. There are many different types of leaders out there. It is not like a one legged man trying to win a race…don’t you know how insulting that is?

Nothing wrong with getting upset with prejudices and seeking justice for it. Imagine how crappy society would be if we just ‘accept’ prejudices. It’s not extreme for me to want to be taken seriously as a man. We should be aspiring to reach to that level anyway. Anyway, female leaders are working harder to get the same amount of respect as a male leader. Malala just got ridiculed for wearing jeans, how ridiculous is that.

As for your last paragraph, I don’t deny that at all. I just think it’s irritating this gets brought up during a topic about women + leadership. There are plenty of men in favor of patriarchy not because they want to serve, but because they want to be on top anyway. There are also lots of women who want to serve, who want to make the world better, so I don’t really get why you’re telling this to me.

It’s also idealistic thinking to assume that’s the first thought people would have at inequality. If men were banned from doing something (idk going to school for example). The first reaction would be ‘well that’s not fair, men should be allowed to do this’. Wanting equality and wanting to serve are not mutually exclusive.

And also, there’s a difference between wanting to be a leader for the sake of equality VS wanting other people to be leaders because they have something to offer. You would be doing a great disservice to women if you think these women want these positions because they want power as opposed to really wanting that responsibility to do good.
 
Lea101 said:
You have ‘women should be encouraged to do so and so in the church’ and ‘I think men and women are equal but I want to see all males involved in the mass and I would never take communion from a woman’. Vastly different.
Click to expand...
The Church as an institution is Patriarchal. That’s just the way Christ instituted it.
There’s no reason to want to see women up on the altar doing what the priest does. That’s just clericalism in a different form. You’re essentially saying that being a Catholic layperson isn’t enough…everyone should be just like the priest.
Lea101 said:
As for what you said about traditional roles, It’s not really about preference, it’s how people value these preferences (anyway I was focused more on women’s contributions to the church rather than just family). It’s great you both are doing what you want and I’m truly happy for you because not everyone gets a choice, but that doesn’t mean what your wife is doing gets enough credit/people genuinely think your wife is just as important as you.
Click to expand...
Well…even a man who stayed at home to mind the kids while the wife works would get no recognition or credit in today’s society. That’s not the Church’s fault though. That is because caring for children in the home is not given enough credit by society. In my circle of Catholic friends that would be the norm though and they all support each other and recognise the important role the mother has in the home.

Women in the Church have many roles that they can fill, catechists, readers, cleaners, teachers, musical or choir leaders etc. They can’t become priests. The view of equality that sees women in the church as less active or able is simply a view that doesn’t recognise differences between men and women. I suspect from your other posts that the culture and context you live in is probably more Patriarchal than the West. Perhaps that has influenced your view but you should not mix that up with the view of the Church as a whole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top