Women in the Priesthood

[Charlemagne_II]

*So if there are not enough male priests Catholics should remain without the Sacraments - even if it is for the rest of their lives - on the pretext that a woman cannot adequately represent Jesus. *

I doubt that Catholics will remain without the sacraments. Another resolution to this problem of scarcity might be, and I think it inevitably will be sooner or later if vocations continue to decline, that married men will be accepted into the priesthood, as they were in the early Church. Even now we already have some here and there. I think that is being studied as a possibility and earnestly considered by the bishops as a final solution to the scarcity of vocations. In the meantime, deacons are taking up the slack, and I know of at least one bishop who believes that married deacons might someday, after so many years of service and the rearing of their children to adulthood, begin to study for the priesthood.

 

[KingTheoden]

You are implying that symbolism is more important than the reenactment of the Last Supper, i.e. that if a physical aspect of the symbolism is absent the sacrifice should not be offered at all. So if there are not enough male priests Catholics should remain without the Sacraments - even if it is for the rest of their lives - on the pretext that a woman cannot adequately represent Jesus.

You are assuming that A) we will be in a circumstance such that Sacraments are not celebrated due to too few priests B) and that such a circumstance would necessarily be a result of the male-only priesthood.

Both are assumptions that I personally am not willing to make. Yes, in America the average age of our priests is rather high. Yes, it is embarassing that we are effectively missionary country (my parish is very thankful for our Pastor from another country).

However, blaming the decline in the priesthood on not ordaining women is even more silly an accusation than contending Vatican II is the sole reason for this.

Cultural revolutions of the 60s and 70s (and frankly 80s and 90s) have scrambled basic fundamental principals of natural law. Lest anyone think I am poking sticks at everyone, I accuse MYSELF of this; I have been very selfish in the past. Only recently have I truly began listening to the Holy Spirit and performed actions truly for others (and not because I wanted something in return).

I am FAR from perfect. I have a lot to work on.

But our culture needs a lot of work too. We are hypersexualized, money-driven, and too quick to expect instant pleasures. Perhaps this is because in America we have had a relatively easy go for the past few decades. The media telling us that drugs and wanton sex has not helped either to say nothing of the millions of abortions and birth control. Or how young people are misled by ‘counselors’ telling them they are gay.

If I were to make a judgement, I would say that God will not allow a situation such that parishes would close due to lack of vocations; indeed it might get tissue paper thin.

What we need to do is foster a culture of moderation and do what we can to shield ourselves (and especially children) from hyper-sexualization and greed. I am sure such a culture will produce more men for the priesthood.

 

[dmar198]

Why Can’t Women Be Priests?
By Jason Evert
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201sbs.asp

Women and the Priesthood
http://www.catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

**WOMEN PRIESTS: NO CHANCE **
By JOANNA BOGLE
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710fea2.asp

**WHY NO WOMEN’S ORDINATION **
By MICHAEL J. TORTOLANI
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp

Thank you for those articles, they are very informative. They are presented in a rather ‘question/answer’ format, though, rather than as a treatise, which is what I was looking for. (Beggars can’t be choosers, though, so I thank you very much for your help.)

God bless!

 

[jean8]

I know the Scripture references about the male-only priesthood, and I have resources to point me to the Tradition of the Church that agrees –

but I would like a resource that gives a good philosophical base upon which to build those things. Could someone point me to an article, or a two-to-three page essay, or something like that, which clearly explains the male-only priesthood? I imagine it would take into account the Catholic understanding of maleness and femaleness as two complimentary expressions of human nature, etc.

Thanks in advance.
God bless!

dmar,
Are you open to what God has said about this subject? if so, please read 1Tim.2:11-15
Give your mind a rest. If things go wrong, they get the male gets blame.

jean

 

[dmar198]

It’s not a question of timidity but realism. The fact that two thousand years later there is opposition to the very idea of women priests demonstrates the deeply ingrained conservatism and prejudice of many people.

Who says? What evidence do you have that the male-only priesthood is based in prejudice? The real problem, I think, is that you do not know the reason why we have a male-only priesthood, and so you have projected that reason onto it – and your reason is senseless. If any Church teaching was based in sexism, you would be essentially saying that the Church’s teaching was inherently sinful and contrary to the will of the Church’s Head, which is Christ. You are implying a disjunct between the Body of Christ and it’s Head – a spiritual decapitation! You try to justify your position (that women could be admitted to the priesthood) by nothing that “Many women have a vocation to the contemplative life. Many have been canonised as saints because they have been martyrs for their faith.” But these are essentially different from priesthood – authentic Christianity requires sanctity and faithfulness, but to say that those who excel at these should be admitted to the priesthood on that basis, is to make the priesthood into the office of “Christian par excellence” rather than to recognize its true role as “servants of Christians, excellent or not.”

The problem, as I said, is that you do not know why we have a male-only priesthood. Because you do not know why it exists, you want it overthrown. But how bewildering is this reasoning! Does a man who comes across a fence in the forest say, “I do not know it’s purpose, therefore I will tear it down”? Let us hope not – instead he should ask why it is there. If you have not yet received an answer to that question, that is one thing. But to tear down what the Body of Christ has built up is quite another.

No one has given a sound reason why women should not be priests. What are the qualities they lack?

The lack the quality of being a male, which is essential for priestly service because of the significance of Jesus’ maleness. God is the Bridegroom and His people are (collectively) His bride – we are unfaithful, but He goes in search of us. Priesthood is about bringing God to us, representing His quest for His bride – but a woman cannot represent this quest of a bridegroom for His bride without ignoring the masculine-feminine complementarity between God and His Church, which is the most significant teaching in Scripture about our relationship to God. That is why there is a male-only priesthood.

Nowhere in the New Testament is there any evidence that Jesus regarded women as unworthy of the priesthood.

Jesus regards no one as worthy of the priesthood until He makes them worthy, not even men. Priesthood is not a right – it is a calling to serve God in a special way, therefore no one can be worthy until God makes them worthy. And there is no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus made any woman worthy to serve Him as a priestess. In fact, there is explicit evidence to the contrary: Scripture informs us that women lack the capacity to serve as official teachers in the Church – “I do not permit a woman to exercise teaching authority over a man.” (1 Tim. 2:12) What is this teaching based in? Sexism? Please. Paul was no sexist, and if He was, then this teaching would be sinful, and certainly not Scripture, because “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

God is omnipotent but He is not capricious. He knew women were regarded as inferior to men in Jewish society and to appoint women as His apostles would have confused and alienated the people unnecessarily.

If women were regarded as inferior to men, it was a sinful prejudice. To appoint women as His apostles would have been necessary to correct this prejudice, rather than to stand by and let ages of Church history continue the prejudice on the basis that He did nothing. You say in your next breath that Jesus “conformed with the Law - whenever it did not conflict with His teaching.” Well, if the male-only priesthood conflicted with His teaching, then by your own standard He would have done away with it. But He did not – therefore the male-only priesthood has a place in the teaching of Christ, and you have no grounds for rejecting it.

 

[tonyrey]

Maleness.

You can’t use natural, physical, or secular yardsticks in a supernatural matter.

Are you suggesting that “maleness” is supernatural? Perhaps you think God is a male as well!

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming that A) we will be in a circumstance such that Sacraments are not celebrated due to too few priests

Many parishes in Europe are already without priests.

B) and that such a circumstance would necessarily be a result of the male-only priesthood.

I do not believe that, nor have I stated or implied anything of the kind…

However, blaming the decline in the priesthood on not ordaining women is even more silly an accusation than contending Vatican II is the sole reason for this.

It is even sillier to suggest that I have blamed the decline in the priesthood on not ordaining women!!!

If I were to make a judgement, I would say that God will not allow a situation such that parishes would close due to lack of vocations; indeed it might get tissue paper thin.

Then you are sadly mistaken. Many parishes in Europe are already without priests…

 

[tonyrey]

*(So if there are not enough male priests Catholics should remain without the Sacraments - even if it is for the rest of their lives - on the pretext that a woman cannot adequately represent Jesus.)

• I doubt that Catholics will remain without the sacraments.

In Europe there are already many parishes without priests.

 

[tonyrey]

What evidence do you have that the male-only priesthood is based in prejudice?

You are a man, an excellent example of the fact that two thousand years later in a society still dominated by men there is opposition to the very idea of women priests due to the deeply ingrained conservatism and prejudice of many people, especially men.

The real problem, I think, is that you do not know the reason why we have a male-only priesthood, and so you have projected that reason onto it – and your reason is senseless.

I don’t claim to be infallible but your dogmatic statements suggests that you do.

You try to justify your position (that women could be admitted to the priesthood) by nothing that(?) “Many women have a vocation to the contemplative life. Many have been canonised as saints because they have been martyrs for their faith.”

It is false to state that it is the only reason why I believe women should be admitted to the priesthood. The main reason is because I believe human sexuality is irrelevant to the consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ.

They lack the quality of being a male, which is essential for priestly service because of the significance of Jesus’ maleness.

You are implying that God could not have chosen to come on earth as a women! You are also implying that maleness is a supernatural quality. Do you regard God or the angels as male and female?

a woman cannot represent this quest of a bridegroom for His bride without ignoring the masculine-feminine complementarity between God and His Church, which is the most significant teaching in Scripture about our relationship to God.

The most significant teaching in Scripture about our relationship to God is that we are all His children regardless of our sex. The masculine-feminine complementarity between God and His Church is symbolic not factual.

And there is no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus made any woman worthy to serve Him as a priestess.

The very tone of that statement reveals male condescension.

In fact, there is explicit evidence to the contrary: Scripture informs us that women lack the capacity to serve as official teachers in the Church – “I do not permit a woman to exercise teaching authority over a man.” (1 Tim. 2:12)

The Church has not only permitted but authorized women to exercise teaching authority.

If women were regarded as inferior to men, it was a sinful prejudice. To appoint women as His apostles would have been necessary to correct this prejudice, rather than to stand by and let ages of Church history continue the prejudice on the basis that He did nothing.

You are implying that Jesus set out to correct every single Jewish prejudice in His institution of the Church - which is clearly impossible. If you were faced with the prospect of crucifixion, and the persecution and crucifixion of your followers, would you appoint a mixed bunch of men and women as the foundation of your Church?

You say in your next breath that Jesus “conformed with the Law - whenever it did not conflict with His teaching.” Well, if the male-only priesthood conflicted with His teaching, then by your own standard He would have done away with it. But He did not – therefore the male-only priesthood has a place in the teaching of Christ, and you have no grounds for rejecting it.

The male priesthood conflicted with His teaching only when it was linked with belief in the inferiority of women. The vast majority of Jews would have accepted the male-only priesthood without even considering its implications, just as the vast majority of Christians have accepted the male priesthood without considering its implications for the moral and spiritual status of women. It is absurd to deduce from Christ’s appointment of men as Apostles during his lifetime that He intended to exclude women from the priesthood for all eternity. It reveals a very parochial view of God and extraordinary insight into divine intentions.

 

[eichenb2]

Apologies that this does not much speak to the OP.

Respectfully, I disagree.

By my understanding, Judaism (and its successor, Christianity) was radical (among other ways) because it did *not *employ priestesses. Every Tom, Dick and Harry’s Pagan fertility religion had priestesses, but not Judaism nor Christianity.

:twocents:
tee

 

[eichenb2]

Woman as priestessess??? Can we bring back Moloch too? Oh yea, he is back. See the infanticide (er…abortion industry)! If woman were ordained, it would just perpetuate the effeminization of Christianity and the exodus of men from church. Masculinity and femininity are the yin/yang of creation. When a society proceeds on a path of social engineering, as post-Christian, western culture has done; it is doomed to destruction. History tells us that it is usually destroyed by its own decadence. Masculinity is seen as pathology in our culture. So, the last bastion of manhood is sports.
Christina Hoffer’s book, “The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men” is a good discussion about this issue.

 

[tee_eff_em]

It is false to state that it is the only reason why I believe women should be admitted to the priesthood. The main reason is because I believe human sexuality is irrelevant to the consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Why do you believe this? Who has taught you this?

tee

 

[eichenb2]

Why do you believe this? Who has taught you this?

tee

The Catholic Church, certainly, does not look at sexuality as irrelevant. For that matter, neither did Judaism. Come to think of it, neither does Islam. In fact, the only societies that saw sexuality as irrelevant to religious hierarchy were pagan societies that descended into debauchery like temple prostitution, infanticide, fornication, and adultery. This is because that of the order of creation. Scientific research seems to indicate that men and woman are different. Even the cones of the eye are different in men and women. Theistic, and more specifically Monotheistic revealed religions tend to understand and teach that men and women are equal, but different.

 

[eichenb2]

If women were ordained, I would not attend a Catholic church.

 

[Spirithound]

Are you suggesting that “maleness” is supernatural? Perhaps you think God is a male as well!

Sex has natural qualities and supernatural qualities. Ability to receive ordination is one of masculinity’s supernatural qualities.

BTW, God has revealed Himself in male terms.

 

[tonyrey]

Sex has natural qualities and supernatural qualities. Ability to receive ordination is one of masculinity’s supernatural qualities.

BTW, God has revealed Himself in male terms.

How do you know sex has supernatural qualities?
Does the fact that God has revealed Himself in male terms mean He is male and/or cannot reveal Himself in female terms?
.

 

[tonyrey]

If women were ordained, I would not attend a Catholic church.

That statement is irrelevant to the question of whether women should be ordained.

 

[Spirithound]

How do you know sex has supernatural qualities?
Does the fact that God has revealed Himself in male terms mean He is male and/or cannot reveal Himself in female terms?
.

Faith. Like I said,

You can’t use natural, physical, or secular yardsticks in a supernatural matter.

I always hesitate to say that God “can’t” do something, but the fact remains that He hasn’t.

 

[tonyrey]

The Catholic Church, certainly, does not look at sexuality as irrelevant. For that matter, neither did Judaism. Come to think of it, neither does Islam.

The traditional customs of the Catholic Church, Judaism and Islam do not prove that women should not be ordained.

In fact, the only societies that saw sexuality as irrelevant to religious hierarchy were pagan societies that descended into debauchery like temple prostitution, infanticide, fornication, and adultery.

Are you implying that the ordination of women would lead to sexual immorality?!

This is because that of the order of creation.

Are you implying that men were created before women? That men are superior to women?

Scientific research seems to indicate that men and woman are different. Even the cones of the eye are different in men and women. Theistic, and more specifically Monotheistic revealed religions tend to understand and teach that men and women are equal, but different.

We don’t need scientific research or religion to know men and woman are different!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tonyrey

*In Europe there are already many parishes without priests. *

That doesn’t mean Catholics are denied the sacraments. We have priests in our diocese who pastor two parishes, and have deacons to help them distribute the sacraments and preach.

Again, permission for married male priests, as there were in the early Church, would solve that problem.