Women in the Priesthood

[stanley123]

My personal opinion is that St. Paul would be opposed to having women priests, and that he would also be opposed to having women give the Communion Service at the altar of a Catholic Church. However, at the present time, we have women teaching in the Catholic Church and also conducting the Communion Service, with I guess the approval of the hierarchy. In any event, this is not something that I would favor, but for reference for those who are brushing up on arguments to counter the opposing view on it, the following site lists seven reasons why women can and should become Catholic priests, and they also have an in depth course on the topic in other parts of the site.
womenpriests.org/preasons.asp

 

[Mark_Marilyn]

“Feminist theologian Rosemary Reuther wrote:
“ ‘Precisely because it is the central symbol of Christianity, it [the saviour figure] is also the symbol most distorted by the patriarchy. All efforts to marginalize women in the Church and Christian society, to deprive them of a voice, leadership and authority, take the form of proclaiming Christ was a male and so only the male can ‘image’ Christ. Woman, while the passive object of his redeeming work, con never actively represent him as mediator of God’s word and deed. If feminist theology and spirituality decide that Christianity is irredeemable for women, its primary reason is likely to be this insurmountable block of a male Christ who fails to represent women.’”
– Rosemary Radfrod Reuther; Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology, Beacon Press, Boston, 1985, p. 105.
Using ultra-conservative logic strictly literally, the priesthood could be restricted only to bearded Jewish fisherman. Of course it isn’t.

 

[LittleDeb]

I’m sorry but I will have to disagree strongly with this woman (Ruether). I have seen some of her writings before. I take deep offense at having Jesus referred to as “the savior figure.” I also take deep offense at being called a “passive object” simply because I am a woman.

To understand the depths of my dislike for this particular feminist writer please understand that it is nearly impossible to offend me, and she does.

She understands nothing of the true Sacrifice of The Christ, nor even the definition of the term in the first place. She belittles and demeans women through her horrible definitions of what a woman is. She has zero concept of the true dignity of women. If it were up to her she would have us all neutered, men and women alike.

If Jesus had set it up that way, the priesthood would be limited to only bearded fishermen. He didn’t, so it’s not. BTW I have a thing for bearded fishermen anyway. I married one!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Gerry Hunter:

Evidently not. I even got a private message from them, telling me of this thread, and encouraging “debate”. But since the original post, silence here.

I feel left out – I didn’t get a private message … http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/forum/fffmain/smilies/nothingtogive.gif

 

[Melissa]

LittleDeb,
I completely agree w/ you–the quoted writer understands the realities of which she’s writing to about the same extent that a spoon can critique the flavor of the food on it.

Although, I am struck by the

deprive them of a voice, leadership, and authority

which seems to go directly to the unaddressed point I made in my earlier post in this thread–I have never heard anyone arguing for women as priests who doesn’t misunderstand the priesthood in the same manner.

 

[Gnosis]

The bottom line is this: The Church has no reason to deny women the priesthood besides ambiguous, unclear, metaphysical obstacles. What is the difference between the female and male soul? No one seems ready to say. They can only assert that there is a difference, based on nothing but “tradition”.

Is God a man? Did Christ not die for ALL of humanity? If he could take the place of a woman on the cross, I don’t understand why she can’t represent him on the altar.

 

[Brendan]

“Feminist theologian Rosemary Reuther wrote:
“ – Rosemary Radfrod Reuther; Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology, Beacon Press, Boston, 1985, p. 105.
Using ultra-conservative logic strictly literally, the priesthood could be restricted only to bearded Jewish fisherman. Of course it isn’t.

M&M,

Why should we accept the theology of a Methodist turned Unitarian. Heck she doesn’t even acknowledge something as critical to our faith as the Eucharist.

If her theology fails on such a basic Catholic point, why should we trust her opionion on other matters.

 

[MrS]

Brendan:

If her theology fails on such a basic Catholic point, why should we trust her opionion on other matters.

Because arguments like that are all they have … it makes me wonder if the “opinion” of MM is based on anger, based on a misguided agenda, based on following some “non-Catholic” leadership, or what.

Regardless of the reason, they all seem to have at least one thing in common… a problem with authority - from both a male priesthood, and a male magisterium… IMHO

 

[Sir_Knight]

Gnosis:

The bottom line is this: The Church has no reason to deny women the priesthood besides ambiguous, unclear, metaphysical obstacles. What is the difference between the female and male soul? No one seems ready to say. They can only assert that there is a difference, based on nothing but “tradition”.

First off, tradition should not be discounted so quickly and easily because the Word of God commands us to hold the traditions which as passed down to us. (see 2 Thessalonians 2:14)

Secondly, the Catholic faith is based on the teaching of Christ and the church looks to either what Christ said or did. Jesus had many followers. Scripture records “thousands” of people, both male & female, believing in Him. Yet, out of all of those people, how many women did Christ pick to shepard His flock? Not even one! Why? We can speculate all we want but we can never be sure. But the one thing that we CAN be certain of is that Christ did not pick any women to shepard His flock. The Catholic church follows His example in this regard and also does not permit female priests.

Gnosis:

Is God a man?

Yes.

Jesus is God and Jesus was born a male. Additionally, both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have manifested themselves as males whenever they reveiled themselves to mankind. Not once in all of scripture did God manifeste themselves as a female. It is highly unlikely that happened by accident.

 

[Brendan]

Gnosis:

The bottom line is this: The Church has no reason to deny women the priesthood besides ambiguous, unclear, metaphysical obstacles. What is the difference between the female and male soul? No one seems ready to say. They can only assert that there is a difference, based on nothing but “tradition”.

Is God a man? Did Christ not die for ALL of humanity? If he could take the place of a woman on the cross, I don’t understand why she can’t represent him on the altar.

First of all, “Tradition” is just as much the Word of God as Scripture is. It is all part of the Divine Revelation that Christ entrusted to his Church.

The Church is only the Caretaker of this Divine Revelation, not it’s source.

It therefore cannot change what it has recieved, only proclaim it.

What you, and M&M, are asking, is for the Church to proclaim something that it did not recieve. To change a Sacrament the Church did not institute.

You made the comment that Christ died for ALL humanity, that is correct. Could you please point out exactly where the Church is denying Salvation to women? That is the reason Christ died, is it not?

And yes, the Church bases this on Ontological reasons. Since it is entirely unknown if a woman’s soul can be changed in the same way as a man, who is willing to take the chance?

Every Ordination of a woman would therefore have an element of doubt. If a priestess gives an absoltion, there is a very real chance that the Absolution would be invalid, that the sins remain.

There would be the very real chance that the host elevated at a woman presided Mass would be just plain bread and we would all be adoring starch, not the Flesh of our Savior.

So why should the Church subject the faithful to that risk? To teach something that might be false Just to satisfy someone false understanding what God’s plan for Life is??

As a side note, it seems really arrogant to hold that the Church has Authority only when one personally believes it to be so, and only when the Church agrees with one’s own personal opinion on the matter.

The ‘Progressives’ are fully willing to accept as valid the ordination of a woman, with no other authority than the Church’s ‘say so’, but are unwilling to accept the Church’s ‘say so’ when it says it cannot ordain women.

Either the Church speaks Truth on matters of Faith and Morals or it does not, and one’s personal position on the matter is totally irrevelant to the Truth of the Church.

 

[Northwind]

There is most definately a pattern here and one that has been instituted by God from the begining. The Levitical priesthood was established by God for the Levites, not Judah or Dan or any other tribe. The males from Levi were the priests. So, the same arguments could have arisen then as today. What if some Godly man from Rueben wanted to be a priest? Or someone from any other tribe? The fact was that they could not. No matter how devoted they were or how great of a priest they thought they’d make or even if they felt ‘led’ to be a priest. The fact is God said this is how it is. Plus, only those Levites whose lineage was through Aaron could be high priest. So, within the Levitical priesthood you could have people who might have wanted to be high priest but God still says no. It’s never just been a man vs woman issue.

Jesus should always be our model. He humbled himself and subjected Himself to the Father. He was in no way less than equal to the Father, He simply submitted to His authority. Stepping down or letting someone else take the lead is not a sign of weakness or inferiority. Women are not the only ones asked to submit, men are too. The ultimate purpose is that God’s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven.

 

[777]

Here’s one more:

1. The only function for women is house keeping, cooking, and giving birth.

NO FEMALE PRIESTS!! BLOODY 'NUFF SAID!!!

 

[Breton]

“Feminist theologian Rosemary Reuther wrote:
“ ‘Precisely because it is the central symbol of Christianity, it [the saviour figure] is also the symbol most distorted by the patriarchy. All efforts to marginalize women in the Church and Christian society, to deprive them of a voice, leadership and authority, take the form of proclaiming Christ was a male and so only the male can ‘image’ Christ. Woman, while the passive object of his redeeming work, con never actively represent him as mediator of God’s word and deed. If feminist theology and spirituality decide that Christianity is irredeemable for women, its primary reason is likely to be this insurmountable block of a male Christ who fails to represent women.’”
– Rosemary Radfrod Reuther; Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology, Beacon Press, Boston, 1985, p. 105.
Using ultra-conservative logic strictly literally, the priesthood could be restricted only to bearded Jewish fisherman. Of course it isn’t.

B]Luke 6:43-45
43 "A good tree does not bear rotten fruit, nor does a rotten tree bear good fruit.
44 For every tree is known by its own fruit. For people do not pick figs from thornbushes, nor do they gather grapes from brambles.
45 A good person out of the store of goodness in his heart produces good, but an evil person out of a store of evil produces evil; for from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.

I suggest before buying into this “enlightened” tripe, Mark & Marilyn take some time to examine the fruits of so-called “feminist theology” (FT). Through the promotion of artificial birth control, FT has “freed” women to become mere sex toys. Through the promotion of a women’s right to choose, FT has “freed” society to murder millions of innocent children through legalized abortion. Through the promotion of the gay/lesbian agenda, FT has “freed” women to build “families” without men and to selectively breed their children.

Sounds like an excellent track record to follow.

 

[LatinCat]

777:

Here’s one more:

1. The only function for women is house keeping, cooking, and giving birth.

NO FEMALE PRIESTS!! BLOODY 'NUFF SAID!!!

Wow. Do women even talk to you anymore? Look just cause women cannot be priests, does not mean they cannot be alot of other things. Women can be doctors, lawyers, politicians, engineers, scientists, teachers, etc… You must remember that the Queen of heaven, the most exalted created being, the Blessed Virgin Mary, is a woman. And the Church, is called the BRIDE or Christ and Holy MOTHER Church. You must remember that even though women should never be priests, women are still equal to men in dignity. They may be different but share in the dignity of humanity.

 

[Gnosis]

I think I recall an interesting Orwellian quote:

“All animals are equal, some animals are just more equal than others”

To say that, because in the Bibilical tradition, God has only revealled himself in the male form, and that this is deliberate on his part, is to suggest that somehow God favors males…that there is something inherent in the nature of a male that is worthy of divine expression more so than a female.

The Bible was written in a patriarchial society, it was *male dominated *. God speaks to us in ways in which it is easiest for us to comprehend him. Did God reveal the ten commandments in sanskrit? No, he revealled it in Hebrew, for that is the language under which the Israelittes would understand it. Isn’t this part of the reason why Christ came? So that God could be revealled in the flesh and bridge the gap between humanity and God? So that we could understand him better? Likewise, God manifested himself as male for in a patriarchial society, that is what would have made the most significant connection. If Christ had come as a female, she wouldn’t have been able to even enter the most sacred places in the Temple. However, our society is no longer male dominated, there is no need to project the flaws of ancient cultures onto the divine face, so as to carry on these flaws into modern times.

Christ only chose male disciples. It is so beyond me that this is a point still being used to defend the patriarchial tendencies of the Church. Why do you stop at his selection according to sex? He also chose Jews. Not one of his followers were gentiles. He also chose according to ethnicity, these were a semetic people. Yet the Church ordains people of many ethnicities. Nothing is impossible for God, surely he could have gathered followers from all around the world to be his disciples, yet he did not. He chose only semetic disciples.

There is validity in tradition, but the fact that something has been tradition is not what merits its worth. Just because something has always been done that way does not suggest that it is the right way to have done it.

No one has answered my basic question. Christ died as a substitute for us on the cross. If Christ died in the place of females, why can females not represent the place of Christ?

But perhaps Christ only died for twenty-something, poor, illiterate, semetic, aramaic speaking males.

 

[mercygate]

“Feminist theologian Rosemary Reuther wrote:
“ ‘Precisely because it is the central symbol of Christianity, it [the saviour figure] is also the symbol most distorted by the patriarchy. All efforts to marginalize women in the Church and Christian society, to deprive them of a voice, leadership and authority, take the form of proclaiming Christ was a male and so only the male can ‘image’ Christ. Woman, while the passive object of his redeeming work, con never actively represent him as mediator of God’s word and deed. If feminist theology and spirituality decide that Christianity is irredeemable for women, its primary reason is likely to be this insurmountable block of a male Christ who fails to represent women.’”
– Rosemary Radfrod Reuther; Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology, Beacon Press, Boston, 1985, p. 105.
Using ultra-conservative logic strictly literally, the priesthood could be restricted only to bearded Jewish fisherman. Of course it isn’t.

As a card-carrying female hardball player, I can’t believe anybody ever took the likes of Rosmary Reuther seriously. From the position of 20-year hindsight, I find it incredible that anybody can look at these bizarre constructions and give them credit. What an adolescent rant. I thought the whole litany had died that Western civilization is the excremental residue of dead, White, European, male, patriarchal, phallocentric, linear-thinking, female- oppressing, goddess haters. :yawn:

 

[fix]

**

Many argue that Jesus’ choice of men only was conditioned by the historical context: people of the time simply could not accept women as leaders. But this argument is unsound. Jesus was very quick to re-figure or even dispense with Jewish customs (as opposed to essential truths of Judaism, such as monotheism, or the moral law as found in the Ten Commandments). Why not dispense with the Jewish custom of a male priesthood?..

** In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time. Consequently, the assumption that he called men to be apostles in order to conform with the widespread mentality of his times, does not at all correspond to Christ’s way of acting…**

** Although Jewish society may not have welcomed a female priesthood, the Gentiles to whom Paul and others preached would certainly have been open to it. The Greek mystery cults, for instance, included priestesses. Hence, if the male priesthood was only a custom, conditioned by the historical setting of Jesus, then it seems likely that the early Church would have abandoned this custom among Gentile Christians (especially since the Council of Jerusalem made the momentous decision that Jewish customs need not be embraced by Gentiles converting to Christianity). That she did not again suggests that there is more behind the male priesthood than mere custom…**

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0506-96/article4.html**

 

[emsvetich]

“Feminist theologian Rosemary Reuther wrote:
“ ‘Precisely because it is the central symbol of Christianity, it [the saviour figure] is also the symbol most distorted by the patriarchy. All efforts to marginalize women in the Church and Christian society, to deprive them of a voice, leadership and authority, take the form of proclaiming Christ was a male and so only the male can ‘image’ Christ. Woman, while the passive object of his redeeming work, con never actively represent him as mediator of God’s word and deed. If feminist theology and spirituality decide that Christianity is irredeemable for women, its primary reason is likely to be this insurmountable block of a male Christ who fails to represent women.’”
– Rosemary Radfrod Reuther; Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology, Beacon Press, Boston, 1985, p. 105.
Using ultra-conservative logic strictly literally, the priesthood could be restricted only to bearded Jewish fisherman. Of course it isn’t.

M and M–

Quite honestly, I am disappointed in your long awaited response to the replies to your thread. Your reply using a feminist theologian is irrelevant. The feminist theological argument ( or any genders theological influence for that matter) on clearly defined and proclaimed doctrinal issues is a non-starter in my opinion.

When the following statement by Pope John Paul the Great is insufficient, we don’t have a mere difference of opinion, we have refusal to abide by a clear doctrinal issue of the Catholic Church. In that case, Ms. Ruether is a weak resource. She and her advocates can debate disciplines all day with my blessing. Doctrine is sacred. Try again.

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful."

 

[mlchance]

Gnosis:

The Church has no reason to deny women the priesthood besides ambiguous, unclear, metaphysical obstacles.

Says you, who has absolutely no authority to decide what any Church’s reasons are or aren’t.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MrS]

mercygate:

As a card-carrying female hardball player, I can’t believe anybody ever took the likes of Rosmary Reuther seriously. From the position of 20-year hindsight, I find it incredible that anybody can look at these bizarre constructions and give them credit. What an adolescent rant. I thought the whole litany had died that Western civilization is the excremental residue of dead, White, European, male, patriarchal, phallocentric, linear-thinking, female- oppressing, goddess haters. :yawn:

her work, the “offspring” of her mind and writing talent might aptly be called “Rosemary’s Baby”… and we know what that was…