Women in the Priesthood

[JSmitty2005]

mercygate:

Men have beards, whether they shave them or not. (Actually most Orthodox priests do wear beards.) Wearing a beard is not essential to “maleness.”

As strange as this sounds, I think that that’s debateable. I know quite a few that believe that a beard is an intricate part of being a male and is linked with male spirituality. The Orthodox of course are one group, but then there’s also the Eastern Catholics (obviously), some Anabaptists (Amish and Mennonite), and some Catholic orders like the Franciscans. It is consistent throughout Scripture that men are to be bearded, and it wasn’t until about 500 years into the Church that you see an unbearded pope. When shaving was allowed in Christendom, this was the first break with the East. Shaving is a pagan custom that found it’s way into the Church, but it’s no big deal since it’s not faith or morals…even though I think we should return to it. And I think that many others feel the same way. I’ve noticed that many Catholic apologists are now sporting beards.

 

[maryalene]

Mark & Marilyn:

e.g.-- The alleged fact that certain Great Abbesses and even a saint had “bishop’s mitre in her [their] possession” gives one the impression that some abbesses had clerical authority or powers and gives one “reasons” to suspect that some lines may have been erased from history.

Or it could just be that she was charged with storing it for the bishop for whatever reason. You are right though; people see what they want to see.

 

[mercygate]

JSmitty2005:

As strange as this sounds, I think that that’s debateable. I know quite a few that believe that a beard is an intricate part of being a male and is linked with male spirituality. The Orthodox of course are one group, but then there’s also the Eastern Catholics (obviously), some Anabaptists (Amish and Mennonite), and some Catholic orders like the Franciscans. It is consistent throughout Scripture that men are to be bearded, and it wasn’t until about 500 years into the Church that you see an unbearded pope. When shaving was allowed in Christendom, this was the first break with the East. Shaving is a pagan custom that found it’s way into the Church, but it’s no big deal since it’s not faith or morals…even though I think we should return to it. And I think that many others feel the same way. I’ve noticed that many Catholic apologists are now sporting beards.

My confessor is bearded.

But the WEARING of a beard, however important it may be as a symbol, is not, in the natural law, an attribute of maleness. The ability to grow a beard (even if it is not a lush beard) is a secondary sex characteristic of maleness. So the answer to the original challenge that priests should all be bearded because the apostles were is that they ARE bearded, although not necessarily making a show of it.

 

[monina]

mercygate:

. So the answer to the original challenge that priests should all be bearded because the apostles were is that they ARE bearded, although not necessarily making a show of it.

My question is this: why choose the fact that Christ chose males as an example of whom to ordain? Why not follow other characteristics/permutations of the original apostles:

example: Let’s say that Christ chose 3 left handed, 2 only-children, 1 diabetic, 3 married, and 2 bilingual men for his apostles. Why does the Church not follow this example?
Or even, why does the Church not insist that priests GROW their beards, since the apostles all grew beards?

I’m not trying to be silly or argumentative. I’m just trying to understand the Church’s argument that Christ chose only men, so men only can be priests. I have faith that the Church is true and correct. I just want to understand!

 

[mlchance]

monina:

I’m not trying to be silly or argumentative.

You might not be trying, but…

monina:

I’m just trying to understand the Church’s argument that Christ chose only men, so men only can be priests. I have faith that the Church is true and correct. I just want to understand!

That isn’t the Church’s argument. The priest stands in persona Christi. Jesus Christ was a man. A woman cannot stand* in persona Christi*.

The Church doesn’t ordain only men because Christ chose only men to be his apostles. The Church ordains only men because Jesus Christ is a man.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mikew262]

mlchance:

You might not be trying, but…

The Church doesn’t ordain only men because Christ chose only men to be his apostles. The Church ordains only men because Jesus Christ is a man.

– Mark L. Chance.

Correction. Jesus Christ is God, who came to us in human form. This human form happened to be male. Whether Jesus being male or not was supposed to carry any underlying meaning, is certainly open to discussion. Whether this is a strong argument on whether to have female priests or not, is also open to discussion.

Personally, I’m torn on the subject, however current catholic doctrine is pretty clear on the subject. No women priests.

 

[fix]

mikew262:

Correction. Jesus Christ is God, who came to us in human form. This human form happened to be male. Whether Jesus being male or not was supposed to carry any underlying meaning, is certainly open to discussion. Whether this is a strong argument on whether to have female priests or not, is also open to discussion.

Personally, I’m torn on the subject, however current catholic doctrine is pretty clear on the subject. No women priests.

When does Catholic doctrine ever reverse itself?

 

[mikew262]

fix:

When does Catholic doctrine ever reverse itself?

When the Pope says so.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

mikew262:

When the Pope says so.

Not so!

George Weigel recorded that, when the final documents from the Second Vatican Council were being prepared, Pope Paul VI indicated that he wanted a statement in one of them concerning Papal authority, and proposed some text. Vatican theologians, on reviewing the text, advised His Holiness that, as written, it could be construed as denying the fact that the Pope is himself bound by the past teachings proclaimed by the Magisterium, either by previous Popes, or Councils of the Church. Pope Paul VI modified the text to make sure that it could not be so construed.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Crumpy]

I haven’t gone through all the posts, but I saw a lot of head butting in the ones I read.

I just read about half of the book of Ezekiel. I came across the verse which referred to Zadok the high priest.

Not only were not all the Jewish males eligible for temple service as priests, but just the Levites. And, apparently, for some reason, only the descendents of Zadok were eligible, for even the other Levites made themselves unworthy. Then, even those became ineligible for priestly service.

Loosely, that is the historical setting. At the spiritual sense of scripture, this was pointing to Jesus alone as the only Priest who would be eligible for priestly service.

Today, surely not all men are eligible for priestly service, but only a few. And, those do not have the right to be priests either. It’s good that we see priests dispossessed of their priestly faculties to remind us of that.

Women have had opportunities for service in the Church, and Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica prove that their is no glass ceiling through which women cannot penetrate. EWTN is surely a model for showing how women can influence the Church.

Perhaps the role of women, par excellence, is to keep the male priests in line.

When St. Paul says that women should be silent in the assembly, but ask their husbands questions when they get home, it makes think of how women can make sure that their husbands “got it” in church that day. Surely Paul is saying that the married couple should discuss the scripture and homily at home, and that advice is just as timely today as it was in days of yore.

 

[mikew262]

Gerry Hunter:

Not so!

George Weigel recorded that, when the final documents from the Second Vatican Council were being prepared, Pope Paul VI indicated that he wanted a statement in one of them concerning Papal authority, and proposed some text. Vatican theologians, on reviewing the text, advised His Holiness that, as written, it could be construed as denying the fact that the Pope is himself bound by the past teachings proclaimed by the Magisterium, either by previous Popes, or Councils of the Church. Pope Paul VI modified the text to make sure that it could not be so construed.

Blessings,

Gerry

I stand corrected. I was making a snap answer.

 

[mikew262]

fix:

When does Catholic doctrine ever reverse itself?

I don’t know if it ever has; I’m not a catholic historian. However, “never has” doesn’t equate to “never will”.

 

[mlchance]

mikew262:

Correction. Jesus Christ is God, who came to us in human form. This human form happened to be male.

That’s not a correction. It is, at worst, a distortion; at best, a dodge.

Jesus Christ is a man. Period. He is also God. Period. He didn’t merely have a human form. Jesus Christ is really, truly human at the same exact time he is really, truly God. He didn’t just happen to be male. He chose to be a man.

The priest stands in persona Christi. Those aren’t just Latin words. They are doctrine, an expression of a theological fact that is a mystery of the faith. A woman cannot stand in persona Christi.

There is no room for debate on this subject. The Church has spoken. The case for women’s ordination has been made, found wanting, and authoritatively rejected for all time.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[monina]

monina:

“I’m not trying to be silly or argumentative.”

You might not be trying, but…
– Mark L. Chance.

So you do indeed think I am being silly and argumentative. Well! I just want to have some “ammo” when pro-women’s ordination folk bring up these kinds of arguments.

I don’t think my telling them, "You’re just being silly and argumentative! Women can’t be priests because the Church says so!" will persuade anyone to join the Catholic Church.

But if I address their arguments with rational rebuttals–which I am desperately looking for in this thread–then perhaps we stand a chance of making them realize that the Church indeed is correct in stating men only can be ordained.

 

[LittleDeb]

monina:

So you do indeed think I am being silly and argumentative. Well! I just want to have some “ammo” when pro-women’s ordination folk bring up these kinds of arguments.

I don’t think my telling them, "You’re just being silly and argumentative! Women can’t be priests because the Church says so!" will persuade anyone to join the Catholic Church.

But if I address their arguments with rational rebuttals–which I am desperately looking for in this thread–then perhaps we stand a chance of making them realize that the Church indeed is correct in stating men only can be ordained.

I am hoping you would be willing to start another thread on your specific topic so we could put this one to rest. A topic called “women in the priesthood” with so many responses has led a few misguided folks to believe there is room for debate within the Church. I too have spoken with folks outside the Church about this and would be happy to share some of the ideas that have worked well.

Please feel free to PM me if you need ideas for a thread title. The thing that has worked best for me is truly knowing and believing the Church is right helps in finding lots of things to discuss with outsiders.

 

[monina]

LittleDeb:

I am hoping you would be willing to start another thread on your specific topic so we could put this one to rest. .

I am fine with starting another thread. I will title it: "How to Defend the Church’s Position on Women’s Ordination" in the Apologetics thread.

Perhaps this will lead the discussion into an apologetics mode–that is, what to say to those who oppose Church teaching in the hopes of influencing them towards an acceptance and understanding of the wisdom of Mother Church.

monina

 

[Fiat_Lumen]

Mark & Marilyn:

The Conservatives allege (or imply):

1. The difference between men and women is absolute!
2. a.) Women simply have NO place in the clergy.
   In such a vital role in the Church, they have nothing to contribute. (not in the clergy, anyway)

2 b.) It may be that God made woman to be the servant of man.

1. Those women who feel they have a “calling,” or seriously believe that women have a right to become priests, are simply being mislead.

…But many progressives deny all of the above, and insist:

1. Men and women are essentially made of the same material, spirit, basic human nature, etc., but have differences determined by DNA and hormones, etc. This was not well understood in ancient times. Fact: women have souls, too.
2. In many modern, “progressive,” philosophies and policies, equal rights, and equal treatment under the law, are desirable.
   Our Lord treated women with more respect than was usually customary for rabbis and religious leaders (and most men) in ancient Palestine region.
3. There is no sound or convincing reason for excluding women from religion altogether, or from high respectable ranks, or from the priesthood. Our Lord has never been on record ordering women specifically out of any position of high responsibility.
   Women have made considerable contributions to the Church, religion and religious culture thoughout history.

The Vatican is not the US Senate nor the Church is a Democracy.

FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA

 

[mercygate]

I just re-read Inter Insigniores by Paul VI on this subject. Everyone discussing this subject should go back and read it again. It says it all.

 

[mikew262]

mlchance:

That’s not a correction. It is, at worst, a distortion; at best, a dodge.

Jesus Christ is a man. Period. He is also God. Period. He didn’t merely have a human form. Jesus Christ is really, truly human at the same exact time he is really, truly God. He didn’t just happen to be male. He chose to be a man.

The priest stands in persona Christi. Those aren’t just Latin words. They are doctrine, an expression of a theological fact that is a mystery of the faith. A woman cannot stand in persona Christi.

There is no room for debate on this subject. The Church has spoken. The case for women’s ordination has been made, found wanting, and authoritatively rejected for all time.

– Mark L. Chance.

I accept your correction of me on Jesus being man and God. I didn’t state my position on that very well. You did it better. Now on to the main topic of the thread.

In a way, I admire your complete unbending “nothing should ever change” devotion to Catholic Doctrine. I suppose I should be that way too. However, I’m concerned the Catholic Church is very slowly starting to falter (churches closing, decreased attendence, no priests, etc.). This is reality. Sometime in the future, some enlightened clergy better come up with some ideas to reverse this trend, otherwise it’s going to get worse.

I don’t know if reconsidering women priests is part of the answer, perhaps not. As I mentioned earlier, I have some concerns, but I’m not completely close minded to it. I’ve heard some Prot. female ministers speak, and they do a fine job; I doubt they are going to Hell for preaching God’s word. Yes, yes, I heard the argument, it’s not possible, a priest is persona in Christ, and all that other stuff. If the Holy Spririt ever guides a future Pope to want to discuss it, it will be discussed. This goes with any other Catholic doctrine. God is willing to guide the Church in the right direction, however we (and the church leadership) have to be willing to listen and accept that guidance. Female priests may or may not be part of that guidance. I don’t know, and neither do you.

I’m not interested in turning the Catholic Faith into just another Prot. denomination anymore than you. However, something had better be done to gets “butts in the seats” and our priest numbers up, otherwise 50 yrs down the road, the Catholic Church may be in crisis. You and I may not see it, but the next generation might. I’m not smart enough to have the answer on what can reverse this downward trend; prayer is of course part of the answer. God also gave us free will, and intelligence to seek out these answers, and if a little tweakiing of doctrine is necessary, then maybe that is the Holy Spirit guided answer.

If the Catholic hierachy ever do want to change any part of Catholic doctrine (I’m not holding my breath.), I hope folks like you are open-minded enough to accept it.

Now, I fully expect some of the hardliners on this forum to respond with venom, anger, and insults (this seems to be the technique of some), but that’s my opinion. You may not agree with it, but I hope you respect it. It has good intentions.

 

[Fiat_Lumen]

mikew262:

I accept your correction of me on Jesus being man and God. I didn’t state my position on that very well. You did it better. Now on to the main topic of the thread.

In a way, I admire your complete unbending “nothing should ever change” devotion to Catholic Doctrine. I suppose I should be that way too. However, I’m concerned the Catholic Church is very slowly starting to falter (churches closing, decreased attendence, no priests, etc.). This is reality. Sometime in the future, some enlightened clergy better come up with some ideas to reverse this trend, otherwise it’s going to get worse.

I don’t know if reconsidering women priests is part of the answer, perhaps not. As I mentioned earlier, I have some concerns, but I’m not completely close minded to it. I’ve heard some Prot. female ministers speak, and they do a fine job; I doubt they are going to Hell for preaching God’s word. Yes, yes, I heard the argument, it’s not possible, a priest is persona in Christ, and all that other stuff. If the Holy Spririt ever guides a future Pope to want to discuss it, it will be discussed. This goes with any other Catholic doctrine. God is willing to guide the Church in the right direction, however we (and the church leadership) have to be willing to listen and accept that guidance. Female priests may or may not be part of that guidance. I don’t know, and neither do you.

I’m not interested in turning the Catholic Faith into just another Prot. denomination anymore than you. However, something had better be done to gets “butts in the seats” and our priest numbers up, otherwise 50 yrs down the road, the Catholic Church may be in crisis. You and I may not see it, but the next generation might. I’m not smart enough to have the answer on what can reverse this downward trend; prayer is of course part of the answer. God also gave us free will, and intelligence to seek out these answers, and if a little tweakiing of doctrine is necessary, then maybe that is the Holy Spirit guided answer.

If the Catholic hierachy ever do want to change any part of Catholic doctrine (I’m not holding my breath.), I hope folks like you are open-minded enough to accept it.

Now, I fully expect some of the hardliners on this forum to respond with venom, anger, and insults (this seems to be the technique of some), but that’s my opinion. You may not agree with it, but I hope you respect it. It has good intentions.

Good intentions are not enough, but walking on solid grounds. If you proposed that married Deacons be ordained Priests, which will not happen for the time being, that would present a reasonable proposal. But the ordination of women in the Catholic Church is so out of context that goes beyond the scope of reason and does not even leave ground for discussion.

FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA