Women in the Priesthood

[tonyrey]

No where in the Scriptures or in the Catechism do we read that conscience is the ultimate authority. .

“In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.” VATICAN II, Gaudium et spes §16.52

Catechism, 1782: Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, **especially in religious matters.
**
“To replace the authority of the conscience as the ultimate voice of authority, **even if it be the pope or bishops, **would open up a huge number of problems… To relinquish one’s obligation to follow one’s conscience in favor of following the voice of an external authority would be making that authority into a false god.”

books.google.co.uk/books?id=o…um=4#PPA112,M1

“A Morally Complex World” by Fr James T. Bretzke, SJ, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious studies at the University of San Francisco, one of whose books has won an award from the Catholic Press Association.

N.B. The magisterium has held opinions which were “ill-suited to their historical context and forgetful of the fact of progressive revelation”. Remember Galileo?

 

[lesto]

hello
sthg always bugs =me here
remember niether do i condemn you ok right
now remember behold this is your mother right
remember he called peter and men apostles right despite mary magdalene is also depicted in last supper ???
remember now holy of holies
temple in israel high priest alone
and jesus death this veil broke ok so it s open
despite all this
what is the problem for ordained women i can only see ne must be impecable pure to consecrate the body and blood
so is it that womens cycle prohibit this if so please let ppl know as this is my concern here
can or will women in their cycle consecrate hosts ???

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Let us look back to the OT. Out of all the 12 tribes of Israel, God chose one (and only ONE) to be the “clerical” tribe - the Levites - in what was already a people that would be a priestly people to the world. Is that fair? Why only the Levites? What were they more than the other tribes? This is a mystery to me (and perhaps to many others), but the fact is that God only chose the Levites at that time and when there was an uprising in the tribes (because they considered it “unfair”) God smote them.
Then, out of the tribe of Levi, God chose specific people for even more specific tasks, like the high priesthood. Was that fair? Why was God so unjust as to differentiate people that way? Why couldn’t ANY of the Levites perform these actions?

Not that I think that women are less capable or worthy of priestly service, but the fact is that God willed what He willed to His own “needs” (though God really doesn’t need anything), not to our pleasure. I think I’ll stick with what He chose, even if He is no respecter of equality (As we nowadays understand it).

 

[tonyrey]

You need more? The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary.

So you believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all male? That man is created in the image of a male Trinity - and woman is subsidiary? It is understandable why you are opposed to women priests. You should consult the Catechism:

**239 ****…We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. **He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.
In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. **God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes. **But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother (Isaiah 49:14-15; 66:13; Psalm 131:2-3) and those of a father (Job 31:18; Jer. 3:4-20) and husband (Jer. 3:6-19)."
[CCC 239]

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1598.htm

**1598 The Church confers the sacrament of Holy Orders only on baptized men (viri), whose suitability for the exercise of the ministry has been duly recognized. Church authority alone has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.
**

​

 

[Eddie_Mac]

“In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.” VATICAN II, Gaudium et spes §16.52

Catechism, 1782: Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, **especially in religious matters.
**
“To replace the authority of the conscience as the ultimate voice of authority, **even if it be the pope or bishops, **would open up a huge number of problems… To relinquish one’s obligation to follow one’s conscience in favor of following the voice of an external authority would be making that authority into a false god.”

books.google.co.uk/books?id=o…um=4#PPA112,M1

“A Morally Complex World” by Fr James T. Bretzke, SJ, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious studies at the University of San Francisco, one of whose books has won an award from the Catholic Press Association.

N.B. The magisterium has held opinions which were “ill-suited to their historical context and forgetful of the fact of progressive revelation”. Remember Galileo?

You have a skewed sense of what conscience, rather a conscience formed in the teaching of the Catholic Church actually is.

I suppose now since you have nothing but a canned response you are going to stomp your feet and hold your breath until God ordains you a priestess of the catholic church?

Eddie Mac

 

[Handsome_Danger]

“In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.” VATICAN II, Gaudium et spes §16.52

If one keeps reading the section you quote, they would see this:
In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin. -Gaudium et Spes 16
So, ignoring the blindingly obvious paradox of two morally-opposite consciences being equally valid (which other posters have pointed out), we have The Church saying that you must order your conscience properly, lest it grow “sightless”…in the same paragraph which you use to bolster your argument. So, this particular argument is logically invalid.

Catechism, 1782: Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

Where to even being with this…Probably with CCC 1783 (DIRECTLY following the verse you gave):
Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
Again, The Church is teaching, as she always has, that in order to follow one’s conscience, it must be well-formed. She also warns against people sinning, by preferring their own judgment and rejection of authoritative teachings. Further on, we see CCC 1786:
Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
So The Church is saying here that every decision that one’s conscience makes can either be right or wrong. It never says that, as long as you’re following your conscience, you’re right. Still continuing our reading, we see CCC 1790:
A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
Again, people can think they’re conscience is right, and it can still be wrong. If you keep on reading, the Catechism continues talking about rejection of the authority of The Church is a source of evil acts. These acts remain intrinsically evil, regardless of what one believes or wants, and it must be worked at to be corrected.

One of the reasons there are 30k+ Protestant denominations today is because people do exactly what you are doing…picking out portions that suite their beliefs or needs, and ignoring everything else. If you do that, you lose all context. The Church is saying that one must follow their conscience, HOWEVER, one must orient their conscience by using the authoritative teaching of The Church. If you just read the one verse you give and stop there, then it logically follows that the verses I provide prove that The Church contradicts herself (doctrinally speaking)…which would make her not The Catholic Church.

N.B. The magisterium has held opinions which were “ill-suited to their historical context and forgetful of the fact of progressive revelation”. Remember Galileo?

What doctrinally defined “opinions” would you be talking about? It seems you are confusing the infallibility of the Magisterium, in union with the Pope with something it’s not. You would be well served to learn what it really means, because statements like the above betray an ignorance of BASIC Catholic Theology.

HD

 

[tonyrey]

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1598.htm
​

I do not dispute the fact that the Church authority alone has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. What I do dispute is the belief that the Church will never allow women to receive that sacrament.

The Church has often modified its teaching on moral issues. As recently as 1866 the Holy Office in Rome declared “It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”

In many ways the Church is now more understanding and more compassionate. In 1985 the present Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger) stated:

“In the process of assimilating what is really rational and rejecting what only seems to be rational, the whole Church has to play a part. This process cannot be carried out in every detail by an isolated Magisterium, with oracular infallibility. The life and suffering of Christians who profess their faith in the midst of their times has just as important a part to play as the thinking and questioning of the learned, which would have a very hollow ring without the backing of Christian existence, which learns to discern spirits in the travail of everyday life.”

 

[tonyrey]

Again, people can think they’re (sic) conscience is right, and it can still be wrong. If you keep on reading, the Catechism continues talking about rejection of the authority of The Church is a source of evil acts. These acts remain intrinsically evil, regardless of what one believes or wants, and it must be worked at to be corrected.

Have I stated that our conscience is infallible? Obviously people can think their conscience is right, and it can still be wrong. I do not claim to be infallible. Nor do I reject the authority of the Church but my informed conscience tells me that ordination to the priesthood should not exclude women.

 

[lesto]

remember eccliastes
i time for everything
creator decides bro
who are we to question
you may ask why david
why solomon
why moses why so many
why ruth too
and noami
and mary
why peter
go back high priest melchisedec
why abraham
who are we bro sthing s just go with faith
ay yes to lord s call and we move on
the faith is such a big picture we can hardly ever imagine
but great discussions
eye openers too so peace and blessings all
i still need to know can or
is it pure for a woman in cycle to consecrate host
remember high priest without even a scar on his skin etc
so bro and sis
i do not know

 

[Handsome_Danger]

Have I stated that our conscience is infallible? Obviously people can think their conscience is right, and it can still be wrong. I do not claim to be infallible. Nor do I reject the authority of the Church but my informed conscience tells me that ordination to the priesthood should not exclude women.

And the authority of The Church tells you that ordination to the priesthood does not and more importantly CANNOT extend to women. This is doctrine. It cannot change, lest The Church cease to be The Church. The Church simply does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood. If we must form our consciences with the help of the authority of The Church, yet your “informed conscience” is against The Church, concerning a doctrinally defined subject, then how informed can it truly be?

So, for as many spelling mistakes my post may have (it was 1 AM in my timezone, after all ), in this forum, I’d have to consider your obvious logical errors to be the more important ones.

HD

 

[tonyrey]

And the authority of The Church tells you that ordination to the priesthood does not and more importantly CANNOT extend to women. This is doctrine. It cannot change, lest The Church cease to be The Church. The Church simply does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood. If we must form our consciences with the help of the authority of The Church, yet your “informed conscience” is against The Church, concerning a doctrinally defined subject, then how informed can it truly be?

How do you know “it cannot change, lest The Church cease to be The Church”?
You are presuming that my conscience cannot be fully informed because I disagree with a particular teaching of the Church. A non sequitur. An informed conscience means you are aware of the issues at stake, not that you are compelled to accept a particular teaching.

So, for as many spelling mistakes my post may have (it was 1 AM in my timezone, after all ), in this forum, I’d have to consider your obvious logical errors to be the more important ones.

I am interested to know what my **logical **errors are.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’ve got to try this one more time before the thread scrolls past 100 posts.
I’ll even drop it down to a single question.

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?

Please…? It is not a trick question, I really want to understand?
tee

 

[Handsome_Danger]

How do you know “it cannot change, lest The Church cease to be The Church”?
You are presuming that my conscience cannot be fully informed because I disagree with a particular teaching of the Church. A non sequitur. An informed conscience means you are aware of the issues at stake, not that you are compelled to accept a particular teaching.

I am interested to know what my **logical **errors are.

The Church does not have the authority to change doctrine. Therefore, for it to teach contrary to doctrine, it would be teaching a heresy…Which it cannot do. Certain things you can disagree with The Church on, like priests being able to be married. But that is because these things are not doctrine, they are discipline, and COULD be changed. However, male-only priesthood IS doctrine, and therefore cannot change…So one is not free to disagree with The Church, but is instead bound to believe…if they are to be a faithful Catholic.

If you do disagree with The Church on a matter of doctrine (which this is, and which you are not free to do, as a Catholic) then you would be separating yourself from The Church, in that you no longer believe what The Church believes…It would logically follow that someone who has this belief would have an improperly formed conscience…as they are completely disregarding The Church’s authority.

The only reason you see a non sequitur where there is none is because you are ignoring the fact that this is church doctrine and is, by definition, unchangeable. The Church EVER saying that women can be ordained as priests is doctrinally equivalent to The Church starting to teach that Jesus was not actually God. The Church has never changed doctrine and never will because it simply cannot.

HD

 

[Cristiano]

How do you know “it cannot change, lest The Church cease to be The Church”?
You are presuming that my conscience cannot be fully informed because I disagree with a particular teaching of the Church. A non sequitur. An informed conscience means you are aware of the issues at stake, not that you are compelled to accept a particular teaching.

I am interested to know what my **logical **errors are.

I think that you do not see the poster point of view because he used a term that might not be the most appropriate. He used the wording “informed conscience” while I think that if he were to use “formed conscience” then things would have been more clear. A formed conscience is something that has been forged through information, prayer, faith and acceptance of the graces of God. An informed conscience does not imply a well formed one.

From a secular point of view you can look at the example that is the difference between a good citizen and a lawyer that commit crimes. The good citizen understand that he needs to follow the law for the good of the community while the layer even knowing the law perfectly well still chooses to break it.

 

[Handsome_Danger]

I think that you do not see the poster point of view because he used a term that might not the most appropriate. He used the wording “informed conscience” while I think that if he were to used “formed conscience” things would have been more clear. A formed conscience is something that has been forged through information, prayer, faith and acceptance of the graces of God. An informed conscience does not imply a well formed one.

From a secular point of view you can look at the example that is the difference between a good citizen and a lawyer that commit crimes. The good citizen understand that he needs to follow the law for the good of the community while the layer even knowing the law perfectly well still chooses to break it.

Excellent point. I was merely quoting tonyrey and didn’t stop to think about the difference. It is, however, an important distinction.

HD

 

[simmslaw]

How do you know “it cannot change, lest The Church cease to be The Church”?
You are presuming that my conscience cannot be fully informed because I disagree with a particular teaching of the Church. A non sequitur. An informed conscience means you are aware of the issues at stake, not that you are compelled to accept a particular teaching.

The exercise of the conscience, well-formed, informed, ignorant, weak, absent or otherwise, is the means by which individuals make moral decisions. There is ultimately no role for the conscience in factually ascertaining what the Church teaches as doctrine, which we are bound to accept whether we understand it, like it, agree with it or not. You may indeed be confusing your disagreement with the Church’s defined doctinal teaching on the admission of women to Holy Orders with an exercise of your conscience, but acknowledging a defined doctrine and disagreeing with it nonetheless is not a moral decision, but a cause for self-examination, study and prayer to bring your heart into conformity with the Church. Declining to believe what the Church has defined as doctrine is to separate yourself from the Church, plain and simple. Hoping that the Church will redefine doctrinal teaching to state the opposite of what it has defined is both futile and pointless. Persisting in such a belief or hope is an exercise of pride, not intellectual rigor. Accepting the teaching in humble obedience to the Church is an act of faith and charity. I offer your my prayers to that end.

Please also understand that not every declaration of the Pope, bishop or Council is a definition of doctrine. Your citation of Galileo and the 1866 statement on slavery did not involve doctrinal matters, and only serves to confuse, not illuminate the discussion. We are bound to accept doctrine as defined by the Church. We are equally bound to follow our conscience on moral matters. But, there cannot be an inconsistency between defined doctrine and moral decisions. The Church cannot err when it defines a matter of doctrine since such declarations are blessed and inspired by the Holy Spirit, who, equally, cannot err. Not all issues are of equal weight or even comparable weight.

 

[tonyrey]

I think that you do not see the poster point of view because he used a term that might not be the most appropriate. He used the wording “informed conscience” while I think that if he were to use “formed conscience” then things would have been more clear. A formed conscience is something that has been forged through information, prayer, faith and acceptance of the graces of God. An informed conscience does not imply a well formed one.

I used the term “informed conscience” in response to Handsome Danger’s presumption that my conscience cannot be fully informed because I disagree with a particular teaching of the Church. Of course he also implies that my conscience is not well formed. Regardless of whether it is well formed he is reluctant to acknowledge the fact that everyone’s conscience is fallible yet it remains the ultimate authority.

 

[foundthelight]

I used the term “informed conscience” in response to Handsome Danger’s presumption that my conscience cannot be fully informed because I disagree with a particular teaching of the Church. Of course he also implies that my conscience is not well formed. Regardless of whether it is well formed he is reluctant to acknowledge the fact that everyone’s conscience is fallible yet it remains the ultimate authority.

Hogwash!

Ones conscience is not the ultimate authority. That is the road trod by the Protestants claiming the Holy spirit as their guide supposedly forming their conscience.

If one disagrees with the teachings of the Church then one’s conscience is, by definition, not fully informed. It is the successors to Peter that have the power to bind and loose. We, laity, do not have that power. To say that one’s conscience is greater than the teaching of the Church is to usurp that power and is a grave sin.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[Roy5]

WOMEN PRIESTS AND MARRIED CLERGY

 I believe the church needs to move to be relevant to a changing society. To me, that may mean having women priests and certainly a married clergy. But as a Protestant, I know my views won't impress many.

  What impresses me is that nearly every Catholic I know (and they are many, many) believes in a married priesthood and well over half favor women clergy. A married priesthood would attract a large number of healthy new priests, and apparently there were married priests for the first hundreds of years of the church. I've read that this came to an end because of simony as well as the wish of the church to better control its priests and their assets???

   Women clergy? If women can become nuns why not priests? The only practical reason I can think of - and it might be important - is that the church already is regarded as somewhat feminine with all of its vestments and such. This is one reason, especially in Latin countries, that women outnumber practicing male Christians by such a large margin.

I recall the joke about the Baptist child who attended his first mass and saw a priest swinging an incenser. At the end of the mass he said: “M’am, I love your dress, but did you know that your pocketbook was on fire?” Forgive this if it offends anyone, but some from 'lower churches (speaking liturgically) regard the Catholic Church in that way.
God loves us all, and may God bless the whole world - no exceptions.