Why women cant be Catholic Priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
QwertyGirl said:
40.png
goout:
Why do you deny men the right to have children just because they are men?
Click to expand...
Did you read what I wrote? I don’t deny men anything. Please re-read my response.
Click to expand...
I hear you recognizing sexual differentiation, and make real distinctions based on that.
Good for you. It’s a happy day when Catholics and atheists can agree on some common sense observations.
 
Last edited:
Traditions can lie. But suppose it’s true, in what possible way is it fair to punish all women for the “crime” of one woman?

All of that without getting into the extremely suspicious symptoms of a patriarchy-promoting agenda by whoever was the author of Genesis
 
QwertyGirl said:
You miscalculated. If you can find a way for men to grow the necessary body parts to carry and birth a baby, I wouldn’t stand in their way. I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I know a lot of men who are more suited to that role, actually, than the woman they are attached to.
Click to expand...
It’s great that you’d be willing to “share” motherhood with men, but no matter what you do, a man can’t get pregnant (and I’m not talking about women who decide to “become men”). Similarly, no matter what the Church does, a woman can’t be ordained because God hasn’t given it the authority to do so. A woman can’t consecrate the bread and wine, she can’t hear confessions, and she can’t ordain others. The Church won’t cave to social pressures. Souls are at stake, and they would be in further peril if we permitted women to be ordained while knowing that they can’t confer the sacraments.
 
Can’t and won’t aren’t the same thing. Please be intellectually honest.
 
Sy_Noe said:
But there are plenty of Catholics who have dropped out of the practice of the faith.
Click to expand...
I agree. And when the remaining Catholics make remarks like, “Why do non-catholics bring up these issues? Catholics don’t seem to have a problem with them.” You don’t have to think too hard to realize that the people who object tend to leave. All that remains is an echo chamber. Of course most people still in the pool don’t have a problem with the dirty water.
 
AlNg said:
Jesus chose a married man to be the first pope. Would that mean that a Pope should be married?
Click to expand...
Say he chose someone with a full head of hair. Does that mean that no bald person should ever be pope. Doesn’t it ever occur to anyone that perhaps too much is read into all of this, including gender?
 
Sugabee43 said:
Therefore, they are always Catholic, whether they choose to remain faithful to her or not.
Click to expand...
You don’t get to define people that way. I know the Church likes to, to keep their rolls looking good. However, it is a very prideful thing to try to tell someone, at the core of their spirituality, what they are. I would be very careful with that.
 
goout said:
Did the Church foist these things on the world?
Click to expand...
If your perception is that sex and marriage are things that were “foisted” on the world, I guess it tells me a lot about how you have arrived at some of your conclusions. That isn’t the way I choose to view the world.
 
QwertyGirl said:
40.png
goout:
Did the Church foist these things on the world?
Click to expand...
If your perception is that sex and marriage are things that were “foisted” on the world, I guess it tells me a lot about how you have arrived at some of your conclusions. That isn’t the way I choose to view the world.
Click to expand...
Let’s be honest.
The assertion was made that the Church is obsessed with sex.
Your assertions about sexuality insert the negative overtones about sex, as if the Church is imposing negative restrictions on others proactively.
Let’s be honest.

The Church proposes fulfillment for human beings, and responds when false narratives about sexuality arise.
 
QwertyGirl said:
Say he chose someone with a full head of hair. Does that mean that no bald person should ever be pope. Doesn’t it ever occur to anyone that perhaps too much is read into all of this, including gender?
Click to expand...
. No one says that the Church has no authority to choose a Chinese, a Cambodian, or a Norseman as priest, even though Jesus only chose Middle Eastern men.
Some things are said to be disciplines, others are said to be essential. Questions are being raised about whether the restriction against women priests is an arbitrary decision or is it something that everyone would agree with as essential.?
 
QwertyGirl said:
Yes, but not at the expense of the well being of others.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you’re suggesting, but it sure sounds like you’re saying that the well-being of individual women is being harmed by the Church not calling them to orders.

Is that what you’re trying to say?
QwertyGirl said:
It is man made because that is what the men (not Jesus) decided it would be.
Click to expand...
And you know, then, that the rationale the Church gives is “we can’t do it because Jesus never did it”… right?
I believe Jesus probably isn’t a happy camper over how things are with regard to this.
Click to expand...
I can respect that. I disagree – especially since He told Peter “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” – but I can respect that this is your personal opinion.
PS… I am well versed in the gospels already.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. That means that you just missed all the counter-cultural and convention-breaking actions of Jesus? 🤔
QwertyGirl said:
My point is that when an organization automatically eliminates half of the population, they have no room to complain when there is a shortage.
Click to expand...
OK… then mine is that, when an organization does allow the other half of the population to apply, and there’s still a problem, it demonstrates that the vocations shortage issue among Christians in the Western world isn’t a gender issue. 🤷‍♂️
QwertyGirl said:
You don’t have to think too hard to realize that the people who object tend to leave.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. I’m still of the mind that those who leave haven’t heard – or are unwilling to hear – the Church’s reasoning. In other words, it’s a catechesis issue. 🤷‍♂️
QwertyGirl said:
Say he chose someone with a full head of hair. Does that mean that no bald person should ever be pope. Doesn’t it ever occur to anyone that perhaps too much is read into all of this, including gender?
Click to expand...
You’re moving the goalposts. The discussion isn’t about physical accidents, it’s about the distinctions between persons. There are male persons and there are female persons. Equal in dignity. But not identical.
QwertyGirl said:
Nothing denies my views, either.
Click to expand...
The thing is, though, that the Church makes its doctrines and dogmas based on positive revelation in Scripture and Apostolic Teaching. If it ain’t there, then it ain’t gonna happen.
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
You don’t get to define people that way. I know the Church likes to, to keep their rolls looking good. However, it is a very prideful thing to try to tell someone, at the core of their spirituality, what they are. I would be very careful with that.
Click to expand...
I’m not defining anyone. That’s the Church’s definition.
 
Thom18 said:
Come again? This whole thread has been people explaining to you why you’re wrong.
Click to expand...
Nothing biblically, that is. But don’t take that too seriously; I am not a big fan of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Brendan_64 said:
There are only two genders, male and female.
Click to expand...
Gender is a cultural/societal conception of the roles of males and females. “Sex” is the term properly used to designate whether one is a “male” or “female”. There are a minority of people born that do not fit well into either of these categories.

http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex

I don’t believe the Church chooses from among these persons to become priests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top