Why women cant be Catholic Priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those who argue for women’s ordination usually do so using three forms of argumentation: 1. Utilitarianism 2. Sentimentalism 3. Civil Rights. The utilitarian argument goes like this: “Jane can do the job just as well–and better than a man. She has a degree in theology. She’s a great preacher. She is a sensitive pastor and a good servant of the Lord. Women have shown that they can do any job as well as a man. We need good priests. These women would be great priests.
 
A man, therefore is most fully a man when he is a husband and father. A woman is most fully a woman when she is a wife and mother.

What a bizarre statement.
 
Correct. This is such an old, tired subject for me. I grew up in the Episcopal Church, and have heard ALL the arguments for decades.
The fact of the matter is that God decided to come to us here on Earth as a man. The priest in the capacity of celebrant at the Holy Mass is in persona Christi. Jesus is the BrideGROOM of the Church. He spiritually marries His Bride.
If women in the Catholic Church want to be “priests”, they can trot on over to the Episcopal church and have at it. They even have all the seven “sacraments”.
 
simpleas said:
What a bizarre statement.
Click to expand...
I know. How weird, huh? What in the world do they think they’re doing – holding up men and women for praise in the context of a sacrificial, life-giving covenant of life-long love? Silly theologians… :roll_eyes:
 
simpleas said:
A man, therefore is most fully a man when he is a husband and father. A woman is most fully a woman when she is a wife and mother.

What a bizarre statement.
Click to expand...
I second that. There are more than a few people in the world, even very holy people, who shouldn’t be parents.
 
Last edited:
Jesus didn’t have a wife or kids. Was He not “most fully” a man?
 
Last edited:
simpleas said:
A man, therefore is most fully a man when he is a husband and father. A woman is most fully a woman when she is a wife and mother.

What a bizarre statement.
Click to expand...
Interesting. There are those on CAF who would argue that a celibate and chaste life (i.e. consecrated, ordained, etc.) is the ultimate in holiness.
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
Jesus didn’t have a wife or kids. Was He not “most fully” a man?
Click to expand...
Would it have been appropriate for God to take a human wife? To have borne human children with her? Wouldn’t that give the lie to His statements about who his family is (see Luke 8:21)?

In any case, if you want to revise the statement to “a man other than Jesus is most fully a man when he is a husband and father”, then have at it. 😉
 
on_the_hill said:
There are those on CAF who would argue that a celibate and chaste life (i.e. consecrated, ordained, etc.) is the ultimate in holiness.
Click to expand...
Actually, Jesus argues for it. And, in that case, since their vocation looks forward to the eschaton, the implication is that they are fathers and mothers – to us, and in a spiritual sense. 😉
 
Gorgias said:
Would it have been appropriate for God to take a human wife? To have borne human children with her? Wouldn’t that give the lie to His statements about who his family is (see Luke 8:21)?
Click to expand...
He had a human mom, so why not? Point is, the good padre didn’t specify that his absolute statement applied to everyone but Jesus.
 
Last edited:
TheAmazingGrace said:
He had a human mom, so why not?
Click to expand...
Because “having a human mom” makes you human; on the other hand, “having a human spouse” makes you committed in a covenant relationship to that one person above all others for the rest of your life.
 
ratio1 said:
I guess your answer is yes then. (Once a intersex person has been assigned the gender male)
Click to expand...
An interesting point.

Although, regardless of medical condition, God created humans as male and female, not male, female and those in between. A person will either be born male or female, regardless of any apparent physical ambiguity.

However I would guess that the Church would have to be absolutely certain that a person is genetically male before ordaining him. Any doubt could lead to an invalid Eucharist, invalid Confessions, invalid marriages, invalid Sacrament of the Sick etc. Quite a scary prospect.
 
Another situation is testicular feminisation where the person is phenotypically female ie looks like a woman with female genitalia but has XY. That’s because the Y chromosome can’t express the male genes properly.
Is this person male or female?
If I have to pick, I’d say female.
 
So if it is difficult to define, then there is doubt as to whether or not the person is male. I would expect that doubt as to the certainty of the person being male would mean the Church would not ordain that person. The consequences of ordaining someone who is not actually male would be dreadful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top