Why women cant be Catholic Priests

[Thom18]

Nothing biblically, that is. But don’t take that too seriously; I am not a big fan of the Bible.

People have given Biblical answers- the fact that Jesus had twelve apostles to pick, and they were all men, for example. That Jesus was no stranger to bucking social norms, and He still didn’t open up the priesthood to women. And here’s another: the Levitical priesthood was composed only of men.

But you expect us to believe (based on what?) that Jesus really would have liked to have female priests, but He just didn’t want to rock the boat.

 

[MCH1]

What is perverted about the Church’s teaching?

 

[Fauken]

If a priest and deacon are supposed to be in persona Christi when reading the Gospel at Mass, how could a woman do that? The same going for communion.

 

[Arkansan]

AFAIK only priests act in persona Christi.

Laypeople are already allowed to distribute communion so that’s a done deal.

 

[Fauken]

There’s also a degree of fullness involved. For example, the true fullness of Holy Orders is that of a bishop. As for the laity, they’re extraordinary ministers, not ordinary. If women are deacons, then how can they be ordinary ministers?

 

[Thom18]

What is perverted about the Church’s teaching?

Well, since the Church teaches that sex is reserved for marriage and contraception is sinful, possibly that.

Very perverted indeed to suggest that sex is about more than just pleasure

 

[Gorgias]

AFAIK only priests act in persona Christi.

In Sacrosanctum concilium #33, we find “in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel.” If we’re talking about proclamation of the Gospel, and it’s Christ who proclaims, can we really say that a deacon who proclaims is not proclaiming ‘in the person of Christ the Head’ of the Church?

In Christus dominus #15, we read, “Bishops enjoy the fullness of the sacrament of orders and both presbyters and deacons are dependent upon them in the exercise of their authority. For the presbyters are the prudent fellow workers of the episcopal order and are themselves consecrated as true priests of the New Testament, just as deacons are ordained for the ministry and serve the people of God in communion with the bishop and his presbytery.”

So, if the exercise of authority of deacons depends on the bishop, and deacons serve in communion with the bishop, doesn’t this imply that their service is service “in persona Christi”?

Laypeople are already allowed to distribute communion so that’s a done deal.

Right, but that’s not what’s in play here. From Lumen gentium, #28:

1. At a lower level of the hierarchy are deacons, upon whom hands are imposed “not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service.”(74*) For strengthened by sacramental grace, in communion with the bishop and his group of priests they serve in the diaconate of the liturgy, of the word, and of charity to the people of God. It is the duty of the deacon, according as it shall have been assigned to him by competent authority, to administer baptism solemnly, to be custodian and dispenser of the Eucharist, to assist at and bless marriages in the name of the Church, to bring Viaticum to the dying, to read the Sacred Scripture to the faithful, to instruct and exhort the people, to preside over the worship and prayer of the faithful, to administer sacramentals, to officiate at funeral and burial services.

I’ve highlighted the ones that are not exercised by laity. (Baptism by laity is only permissible “in danger of death”, btw…)

I’m taking “read Sacred Scripture” to mean proclaiming the Gospel in the context of Liturgy, and “instruct and exhort” to mean preach at Liturgy.

(p.s., I don’t have these quotes memorized or post-it-noted to my PC. I just followed the citations found in the Catechism at #1548.

 

[Sugabee43]

You’ve probably already removed yourself, but for what it’s worth: I am female. I consider myself a libertarian who believes in equal civil rights for women- something that is happening currently in the US. I am outspoken and no one who knows me would consider me to be a wallflower or a “follower”.
The Church teaches what she does because she’s guided by the Holy Spirit and founded by Jesus Christ.
Women and men are not equal; they’re complimentary. They’re made to help each other in their strengths and weaknesses. Just because a woman is not able to be a priest doesn’t mean she doesn’t have immeasurable value because of her womanhood. Stop comparing.

 

[edwest211]

There is an attempt being made to change people’s thinking. Being a priest is not just work like being a carpenter or plumber, it is a spiritual and physical commitment but the message is: “Men run everything. Men have power. Men are using that power to prevent women from doing whatever they want.” That does not apply here. But the more that message is spread, without women knowing what the Church teaches, it creates an adversary situation. ‘I am a victim of men.’ No, not in this case.

Each person has immeasurable value, but the current trend among some is ‘get power,’ or ‘be a part of the hierarchy.’ Jesus did not come to be served but to serve. Being a priest is not about power, it is about service to God and others.

 

[JimG]

Half the human population is prohibited from ever being mothers. The other half is prohibited from ever being fathers.

To quote a French saying, “Vive la difference.”

 

[BlackFriar]

The fact of the matter is that God decided to come to us here on Earth as a man.

Would you also accept he was not exactly free in this somewhat binary matter? Unless of course you would find it acceptable for God to have come as a hermaphrodite.
So one side, according to this argument, is bound to be disappointed by definition.

It seems more important to me, and most of the human race I suggest, that God cam to earth as Man, not “a man”. His Incarnation saved everybody didn’t it…not just Jewish males?

Your argument does seem to have speed wobbles.

 

[BlackFriar]

I personally don’t argue for or against women’s ordination.
I simply disagree that it is not “not on the table” in the first place.

How many types of argument are there for this approach in your filing cabinet?
Please advise for both sides.

As a start I suggest:

(A) It is not on the table:
(i) Jesus was a man approach
(ii) The Church has spoken infallibly against it approach
(iii) Tradition has answered unanimously approach

(B) Its still on the table approach:
(i) Jesus was a Man (both men and women are representative of Man) approach
(ii) No Magisterial statements to date are confidently infallible approach
(iii) Tradition cannot be considered unanimous if in fact the question was never actually asked approach
(iv) …

 

[JimG]

Women’s ordination is of the table. It will never happen because it can’t happen.

 

[Sugabee43]

No it doesn’t. God could have come to earth as a woman, or a horse, or a potato. But He came as a Man. And if, in our feeble minds we cannot understand why, that’s okay. Why do we insist on second guessing God? His plans are perfect even if we don’t know why.

 

[BlackFriar]

You are suggesting that if God came to earth as a woman then only women would be allowed to be priests?

And if God came to earth as a potato only potatoes could become priests?

BTW why are non Jews allowed to become priests but not women?

 

[BlackFriar]

I think its fairly clear why God came as a male - humanity provides only two choices, he couldn’t come as both. There is no compelling logic to suggest that merely by coming as a male means women cannot be Catholic priests. It would be just as illogical to suggest men couldn’t be priests if he came as a woman.

 

[JimG]

You are suggesting that if God came to earth as a woman then only women would be allowed to be priests?

if God had become incarnate as a woman, then absolutely, men could never be priests.

But it didn’t happen that way.

 

[Sugabee43]

I am suggesting that He knows why He chose to become Man, and we can guess, using Church teaching and Tradition and the Bible; but ultimately that is the choice He made. Period.
The theology suggests the choice was deliberate and pointed.

 

[Elizabeth3]

if God had become incarnate as a woman, then absolutely, men could never be priests.

But it didn’t happen that way.

Absolutely. Because then women would be able to stand in persona Christi instead of men.

But if that had happened, I would think the male sex would feel rather left out of the Incarnation if Christ would have been a woman, born of a woman, who knew no man.

Instead, in the Incarnation of Christ as a man, born of a woman, who knew no man, we have a representation of both. Christ received His flesh from a woman, Our Blessed Mother.

You are suggesting that if God came to earth as a woman then only women would be allowed to be priests?

Why would that be wrong?

And if God came to earth as a potato only potatoes could become priests?

Women don’t give birth to potatoes. The Messiah was to be born of a virgin.

BTW why are non Jews allowed to become priests but not women?

Because male and female are found in all peoples regardless of race. Christ came to save everyone. Not just the Jews.

 

[Wingz]

But Jesus was Jewish and all of the twelve apostles were Jewish as well.

So if God wanted both men and women to be priests then He would have to have been born as both?

I think it would be easier for Jesus to have been a mix of different races or to have chosen a diverse group of apostles then for Jesus to have been born as both man and woman.

The question was not why are non-Jews saved as we already know that Jesus came to save everyone.
The question was why are non-Jews allowed to be priests.