Why women cant be Catholic Priests

[edwest211]

What kind of pain? I don’t understand.

 

[Arkansan]

Jesus never said anything about priests needing to be male. He never implied it through any of his actions. He lived in a time when picking females for his apostles could have had disastrous results

Jesus did all sorts of things that offended all sorts of people. If he had desired female apostles he could have appointed women as apostles.

 

[guanophore]

No one can ever explain to me why so much in the Catholic Church always goes to being based on sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. The Church seems completely obsessed with it.

This is a theological basis, not a physical one. It has to do with the role of the priest.

The Church has a lot to say about sex because PEOPLE are obsessed with it! More so now than ever! The Church is here to shepherd the faithful into heaven, and people are sexual beings. The Church is duty bound to provide teaching, guidance, discipline, and sacramental response to persons, who are sexual beings.

Jesus never said anything about priests needing to be male. He never implied it through any of his actions.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? If Jesus wanted to ordain women, He could do so, and if He had this desire after His ascension, He could have led the Church to do so. In fact, this did not happen. The Church has faced much more gnarley theological issues that the ordination of women, and managed to settle them by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We can trust that He will keep His promise to “guide (the church) into all truth”.

This “policy” is man-made. And yes, I do mean “man” made. No female (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever.

You say you are not a believer, so you maybe cannot appreciate that we consider Jesus to be God, and we believe we are His Creatures, and He has the authority to make all His decisions without any (name removed by moderator)ut from humans whatsoever, male of female!

I guess with a position like the Church has regarding the place of women within the hierarchy, there can’t be complaining aboutt a shortage of priests.

The two have nothing to do with each other, but I don’t think there should be any “complaining about the shortage of priests” in any case. When the Church teaches sound doctrine and holds fast to the faith, there are always plenty of priests. We are currently suffering the side effects from abysmal catechisis in the 70’s and 80’s.

I think it is important for Catholics to understand why most find this rule so objectionable.

I am not sure that “most” really do find it objectionable, and for those that do, it puzzles me why people think that the Church is a “democracy”, such that the members should be the ones to instruct the “Head” in what do to. The Church is a Theocracy, and humans objecting to what God wants to do is never efficacious.

To obey what we have received from Christ is not “blind”, although it may seem that way to those who do not experience the freedom that comes from obedience. The Church has the right to choose from among those qualified to serve in various capacities. The Church does not have the right to abrogate what Jesus has done.

 

[Mark121359]

These “women priests” threads never fail to amuse me. The same respondents over and over again who obstinately refuse to accept Church authority. (Why does Matthew 10:14 come to mind?) I’ve become convinced that no one, not even Christ Himself, will ever persuade those who have been schooled in modern feminism that women priests are an absolute impossibility in the RCC. Participating in these threads always turns out exactly the same way…an exercise in futility.

 

[QwertyGirl]

What kind of pain? I don’t understand.

Ed, I am assuming you are a man. I understand why you don’t understand, if that is the case. If you are a man, you have never been told you can’t participate in the hierarchy of the church. You have never been told to blindly follow the rules established by a bunch of men while knowing you will never be able to have an opportunity to carry as much weight as they do in the church. It doesn’t matter if women get to have active service roles in their church. It doesn’t matter if none of them have any interest in being a priest. What matters is they aren’t given the opportunity. It is hurtful. Quite painful, particularly if you are a person who thinks for yourself and doesn’t blindly follow anybody (or any organization). And the worst part, the very worst part, is if you dare to speak up about it, most probably what you will experience is your fellow Catholics telling you how un-Catholic you are. How you don’t understand the teachings of the church. How you don’t understand the intentions of Jesus. And worst of all, how you can go to the Episcopal Church with “those types” if that is what you are after. And if you are a 12 year old kid in a devout family, you are held hostage to this for at least the next 6 years. And once you turn 18 and decide you no longer want any part of it, you are shamed for leaving.

ETA: To clarify, the 12 year old in this scenario wasn’t me. I have seen this happen over and over in present day. Pre-teens and teens (female) very excited about their faith and catechised well about what the church teaches regarding the patriarchy of it all. These girls are smart, and they figure the whole thing out very quickly. It is a painful thing when you watch what happens when they realize the reality of it all.

That is the level of pain this type of thing causes.
Thank you for asking. I was wondering if anyone was even going to ask.

I am going to remove myself from posting on this particular thread any longer, because I believe the people who are responding really are not coming from a place of wanting to put themselves in the shoes of others. It is unusual, because most threads have offered great dialogue and debate.

 

[guanophore]

The only studies I have ever seen are biased, conducted by religious organizations.

I can’t comment, because I have not seen, but I agree with your observation that He came into a time and culture that required a man to accomplish the purpose

Therefore, when it incorporates these teachings on human sexuality into issues like denying today’s women a place within the hierarchy of the Church, it loses me and people like me. I won’t go into everything I find wrong here, but suffice it to say there is a lot.

Apologies for being so blunt. I am feeling rather salty today for some reason, and this issue always gets my blood going. Lol.

Well, I guess we are fortunate that you are not willing to “go into it all here”, since this is not a thread on how “perverted” the Church’s position on sex is. I am curious if you would find Theology of the Body “perverted” also?

I think you have had a misunderstanding about “heirarchy”. Becoming ordained as a priest or a deacon is a ministerial role, not “hierarchical”. Their purpose is to serve the Body of Christ through the ministry of word and sacrament. The vast majority of priests are never involved in “hierarchy” with regard to the leadership management of the Church. Most of them are not even all Pastors of a parish, and those that are often hand off leadership positions to women in the parish.

it incorporates these teachings on human sexuality into issues like denying today’s women a place within the hierarchy of the Church

Well, it appears to be related to an 'obsession" about sex, and the misapprehension that women are being “denied a place within the hierarchy”. This may be due to ignorance of the nature of the Curia, or ignorance of the nature of humanity, or ignorance of the way parishes function, or ignorance of the vocation of Holy Orders, or a combination of these!

 

[goout]

goout:

It’s a happy day when Catholics and atheists can agree on some common sense observations.

I am not atheist.

I apologize I got you confused with someone.
Still, it’s good that we can agree that we are male and female, and that sexual differentiation is a real thing with real ramifications.

 

[guanophore]

Then I will again re-state that those women who are under the notion that being a priest or bishop denotes some kind of superiority ought to join one of the many denominations that allow it, and leave the Catholic and Orthodox Churches alone. They need to go find something that will bend to their wishes instead of ones that only bend to God’s.

Well, lets not encourage the embracing of heresies! If they do rebel against what God has set in place, then they will likely drift away from the Church or, as you say, go after pleasing themselves rather than God.

“For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.” 2 Tim. 4;2-4

I’m rather salty on this subject because I’ve seen the devastation wreaked upon ECUSA because they chose (by the narrowest of margins) to eschew canon law, and they’re paying for it in dwindling numbers.

Yes it has been very sad. The only benefit is that those who wish to cling to Traditional values have moved closer to coming Home.

I don’t think it has anything to do with superiority. It has to do with wanting equal representation within the hierarchy of the church.

Yes, this seems to stem from a misunderstanding about the nature of the Church - that it is a “democracy” that has “representative” government rather than a Theocracy.

There are actually a very few number of priests that have governing roles. The vast majority of them are pastoral, so it is an ill placed point.

I think the missing “bishop”, “cardinal” and “pope” in front of their name is more the concern for those women who feel like they don’t have a voice in the hierarchy of the church.

Perhaps, but one has to wonder why they feel they need to have such a voice? What is it about them that they do not trust the Holy Spirit to take care of their needs and interests? What kind of misapprehension are they suffering that they have mistaken the Body of Christ for some sort of “democracy”? Such “feeling” is based on false assumptions.

But you typically have to be a priest before you can be a Bishop Cardinal or Pope.

Yes, but there is an assumption being made here that is not factual, that being that a priest or even a Bishop has any kind of “say” in such things. Priests and Bishops are ordained to serve the Church, and they are custodians of the Church teaching and disciplines, not the origin of it. They also do not preoccupy themselves with “having a say”, since they have accepted that the Church is not a democracy.

 

[Wingz]

I understand how you feel about the Church’s stance on women in the priesthood. I honestly do not understand why the fact that the apostles and Jesus were not women means that women cannot be priests since all of the apostles and Jesus were also Jewish.

Anyway, I do not think there is much you could do as according to Church law the Church has no authority to lift the ban on women in the priesthood.

So unless God lifts the ban himself I guess women will not priests.

However, Pope Francis had summoned a Papal Commission to see if women can serve as deacons. It is the closest thing so far in getting women in the priesthood and hopefully they allow it as a ban on women in the deaconate will most likely make women in the priesthood an impossibility.

 

[Fauken]

However, Pope Francis had summoned a Papal Commission to see if women can serve as deacons. It is the closest thing so far in getting women in the priesthood

Not even close.

The study was over Deaconesses and their role in the early Church. This is not to be mistaken for the ordained order of Deacon. These women in the early Church helped strip and prepare women for entering the Church, since obviously having men help them get naked would be very inappropriate. Baptisms back then were done in the nude, so women would assist other women in preparing for it.

 

[Wingz]

The commission was created to see if it was possible to have deaconesses again but to serve in the same role that male deacons have today.

 

[Fauken]

That would still be out of the question. It is an ordained role, and only men can be ordained. The priesthood contains within it the order of Deacon.

 

[Gorgias]

If you are a man, you have never been told you can’t participate in the hierarchy of the church.

That’s not true. Many men, seeking ordination to the priesthood, have been told precisely that!

You have never been told to blindly follow the rules established by a bunch of men while knowing you will never be able to have an opportunity to carry as much weight as they do in the church.

Again… no – you realize that 99.999% of the Church is not part of the ministerial priesthood, and therefore, knows exactly the dynamic that you’ve outlined!

What matters is they aren’t given the opportunity. It is hurtful. Quite painful, particularly if you are a person who thinks for yourself and doesn’t blindly follow anybody (or any organization).

Here’s the thing: there’s a nuptial dimension to the presbyterate. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to be a priest. So, when a person is ordained, it is not because they demanded the opportunity: it’s because they and the Church both agreed that this was their vocation.

What you’re saying is that, if I decide that it’s my destiny to marry you, @QwertyGirl, but that you don’t give me that opportunity, you’ve demeaned my personhood. And that just doesn’t hold up.

And if you are a 12 year old kid in a devout family, you are held hostage to this for at least the next 6 years.

If I were a betting man, then I’d say – despite your objections to the contrary – that any 12-year-old girl who feels marginalized at not being able to be a priest, feels that way because she equates the priesthood with any other job opportunity out there. And, moreover, that she’s beginning to realize that, when her parents told her, “you can be whatever you want, honey”, they weren’t telling the truth. It’s not just “Catholic priest” that she can’t be; there are other things out there, as well. But, it still hurts to learn that your parents and teachers were just selling you a feel-good dose of pablum.

I am going to remove myself from posting on this particular thread any longer, because I believe the people who are responding really are not coming from a place of wanting to put themselves in the shoes of others. It is unusual, because most threads have offered great dialogue and debate.

I don’t think that’s true. I can understand why it would be jarring to hear “you can’t be a priest.” In this case, however, telling truth seems more pastoral than arguing a moot point.

 

[Arkansan]

If deaconesses were reintroduced (which I do not think would be a good idea), they would not be ordained, but there is nothing in particular that is reserved by divine law to the order of deacon, so they could in practice be equivalent.

 

[Gorgias]

there is nothing in particular that is reserved by divine law to the order of deacon

In order to reach that decision, however, the Church would have to decide that the sacrament of Holy Orders isn’t reserved to men. That’s a non-trivial point to be reached…

 

[Arkansan]

I meant that there is no function in particular that deacons can do but laypeople can’t (by divine law). So unordained deaconesses could be given the same functions as actual deacons (to be clear, I’m not saying this would be a good idea, just that it’s possible).

 

[Fauken]

Not only what @Gorgias is saying, but I’d like to mention that two roles of a Deacon is to read the Gospel at Mass and they’re ordinary ministers of communion. Those are unique to ordination, so women can’t do them. So then they would not be Deacons, but something else. They’d be practically pretending to be Deacons, but not really be Deacons. Why do it then?

 

[Arkansan]

I don’t believe that those are matters of divine law, so in theory the Church could change them.

I think it would be a terrible idea though.

 

[Fauken]

And what would you define as divine law?

 

[Arkansan]

Something that the Church cannot change.