Women In the Priesthood

[katherine2]

WBB:

The roles you listed [pope, cardinal, bishop, priest] are ordained ministerial roles so they can not be filled by women. For other leadership roles, I suggest you see the above posts.

Actually, cardinal is not an ordained ministerial role by its nature. We have had lay cardinals in the past (and it was the liberals who put an end to lay cardinals!). The Church could choose to have women cardinals. (I’m not a candidate, myself)

 

[Bob_Baran]

mlchance:

Actually, what some feminists scream for isn’t equality. It is “identical-ness”. Men and women are equal. What we are not is the same.

– Mark L. Chance.

Amen!

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

WBB:

The Church see men and women differently in that there are certain roles that men can fill that women cannot and vice versa. Men can be two things that women cannot…a husband and father. Likewise, women have 3 roles that men cannot fill…wife, mother, and suckling an infant at her breast. By virtue of this fact it can be seen that women cannot be priests because the priest is “Father” of his parish, and as he functions in persona Christi he is the “husband” of his Church parish. This is the simplest explanation I have ever come across, and the one that makes the most sense. Simply put, a woman cannot be a priest any more than she can be a father or a husband.

I don’t get it.

Surely the portrayal of the Church as the Bride of Christ, and Jesus as the bridegroom, is metaphorical—the Church is not a literal woman that one single man could consummate the marriage with. And a priest is not a literal father of his parish, since he did not beget all its members, nor a literal husband of the parish, since he is one man and the parish is many men and women. Are you agreed this is all metaphor? If the talk of father, husband, wife and bride is all metaphorical, how can you let it intrude into the real, literal situation? Yes, a woman can’t be husband to her parish; but then, neither can a man! And if a priest is metaphorical husband to his parish, why can’t a woman priest be the same? Or, instead, switch metaphors, and have the woman be the wife to her husband the parish.

I don’t care either way—it’s your internal issue. But it seems the Catholic stance against the ordination of women is based on a less than solid foundation. My 2¢, anyway.

 

[katherine2]

I agree Heather. The conclusion might be valid, but the particular metaphor doesn’t work. If the Church is feminine - the Bride – well, we have a lot of laymen around.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

katherine2:

I agree Heather.

Heathen, with an N. I’m a straight male.

 

[chb03c]

i dont know if anyone has made this point yet but the mass is suppose to imitate a Jewish Sader(spelling?). in a Sader the head of the house hold(the father) is suppose to lead the Sader blessing. This is one reason why priests should be male so that they can represent the head of house hold(father) tradition, since our beliefs come from Jewish origin.

 

[Evan]

Here is an article from first things

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0304/articles/ferrarawilson.html

It is written by two women. Both of them Lutheran Pastors, One converted to Catholicism the other had not.

For a theological article concerning the difficulty see

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9304/articles/novak.html

 

[katherine2]

Heathen Dawn:

Heathen, with an N. I’m a straight male.

oh, dear! sorry.

 

[mercygate]

chb03c:

i dont know if anyone has made this point yet but the mass is suppose to imitate a Jewish Sader(spelling?). in a Sader the head of the house hold(the father) is suppose to lead the Sader blessing. This is one reason why priests should be male so that they can represent the head of house hold(father) tradition, since our beliefs come from Jewish origin.

Duh. How is it that I never heard that before? Never thought of it myself? It’s so obvious. I give myself the dunce o’ the day award!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Heathen Dawn, the position of the church doesn’t rest on the flawed metaphor you gave.

It isn’t a question of “role” in the sense that we have today. Today, men and women are seen as being “equal” in that both women and men can physically do most of the same “things”. . .i.e., bake, cook, hunt, lead others, lift weights, fly planes. Individuals do these things in an INadequate manner, an ADEQUATE manner, or a SUPERIOR manner. Some people just cannot cook. Some can’t lift weights. Some can’t lead. Most people can cook well enough to feed themselves, lift enough weight required to function, or be able, when called upon, to raise a child who won’t dash into the street on a regular basis. And a FEW people are Julia Childs or Emerils, Charles Atlases or Zena warrior princesses, or Donald Trumps or Margaret Thatchers.

That said, “priesthood” is not equivalent to any of the above. We can have male and female bakers, weight lifters, and bosses. . .but we can’t have male MOTHERS and female FATHERS biologically speaking. Men don’t carry babies in their non-existent wombs; women don’t manufacture sperm.

And God is not male or female. We use the male pronoun, and the majority of the functions we dimly perceive Him doing are or were predominantly “male” … .but, hmmm, here comes Jesus. Definitely human, definitely male. It is HIS word and HIS tradition that, starting with the Jewish (and even pre-Jewish tradition–consider that Melchizedek is NOT JEWISH), relied on MEN as priests.

There were plenty of opportunities for God to have “female priests” if he had WANTED to. After all, if He was radical enough to have a VIRGIN give birth to His Son, changing the entire religious hierarchical structure would have been child’s play. He didn’t.

The mistake many make is assuming that, because in 21st century civilization men and women’s roles have become “equalized”, that the PRIESTHOOD is something that can or should be “equalized” as well.

But men and women were never meant to be interchangeable; if they were, why bother to have two different sexes?

And God’s annointed ones (priests), in the SACRAMENT of Holy Orders, are quite distinct from lay ministers, or any other “role” or “profession”.

BTW, I’m female.

 

[sweetchuck]

DavidFilmer:

To those who say, “women can be priests,” I say, “prove it.” What Biblical doctrine, or Ecumenical Council, or Papal Decree can you cite to justify your position? Or is this just your own personal opinion based on your own private interpretation of “fairness?”

Do you realize the consequences if we “ordain” women, but women actually do not have Sacramental capacity for Holy Orders? Remember, it is not up to Church or Pope or Bishop to define what a Sacrament is – the Sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ and no person on earth may change them – now or ever!

What are the consequences of invalid ordination of women? Every single “Mass” she said would be invalid. Those who came to her for “Confession” would leave with their sins fully intact. Those whose marriages she blessed could not be joined in Sacramental marital union (and would be essentially living in adultery). Were she elevated to “bishop,” every “Ordination” she performed would be invalid (whether the Candidate were male or female) – and the corruption would spread.

So what authority do you cite to prove BEYOND ALL DOUBT that ordination of women is valid? Because, if it isn’t, the consequences are horrific.

Without a CLEAR mandate from Jesus Christ or Holy Mother Church, we dare not tamper with something as fundamentally important as Holy Orders!

That’s a very profound explanation. But it makes a lot of sense. If women are ordained ministers but that is not what Christ intended, it would be a systematic Church-sanctioned schism from within, despite whatever positive intentions people would have. So the real question is: What does Jesus want?

Jesus didn’t have any women among the 12 Apostles, but women played a prominent role in his ministry. It is no different today. I like the explanation from the Web site cited early in this thread. The claim dissenters make is that Jesus didn’t appoint women because he knew they wouldn’t be accepted by the Jews at the time. Quoting Dave Armstrong:

It is sheer speculation and nothing more, with no biblical support. Since when did Jesus care a whit about what the Jews would think of His actions and teaching, anyway? No one can observe His constant battles with (and rebukes of) the Pharisees and conclude that He had any thought of conforming His ideas (i.e., Truth) to their pet beliefs and “golden cows.” Furthermore, why would Jesus forgive an adulteress publicly (Jn 8:1-11), speak to the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:4-29), accept financial support from several women (Mk 15:40-41), let women anoint His feet with their hair (Jn 12:1-8; Mt 26:6-13) and first see Him resurrected, etc., if He was at all worried about the “acceptance” of women among the Jews?

 

[sweetchuck]

Another profundity is seen in John 14. Jesus says the Father is greater than he. Jesus submits wholly to the Father’s will. Yet they are equal in divinity. This is directly analogous to the relationship between husband and wife. Obedience is not the same as inequality.

And the all-male priesthood is not an “internal issue” with “less than solid foundation.” It’s rooted in the Bible, I mean, unless you consider the Bible a “less than solid foundation.”

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Tantum ergo:

Heathen Dawn, the position of the church doesn’t rest on the flawed metaphor you gave.

Eep! I didn’t give it, I quoted it. WBB gave it.

but, hmmm, here comes Jesus. Definitely human, definitely male. It is HIS word and HIS tradition that, starting with the Jewish (and even pre-Jewish tradition–consider that Melchizedek is NOT JEWISH), relied on MEN as priests.

There were plenty of opportunities for God to have “female priests” if he had WANTED to. After all, if He was radical enough to have a VIRGIN give birth to His Son, changing the entire religious hierarchical structure would have been child’s play. He didn’t.

But He had no trouble with a prophetess like Deborah or Huldah. What is so special about the priesthood that it can only be male?

The mistake many make is assuming that, because in 21st century civilization men and women’s roles have become “equalized”, that the PRIESTHOOD is something that can or should be “equalized” as well.

Divine right of kings, slavery and burning at the stake were once acceptable, yet the change of society forced the church to change its stance on those. No, I’m not going so far as to say homosexuality should be accepted by the church; but equality of the sexes is on a par with racial issues. If there’s a will there’s a way. But I know there isn’t a will.

But men and women were never meant to be interchangeable; if they were, why bother to have two different sexes?

This is irrelevant. Only their sexual roles are not interchangeable. But men can cook and women can fix a tyre. And women can function as priests just as well as men can. I learnt all the basics of my religion from my High Priestess. Apart from tradition, I fail to find any convincing argument why women can’t be in the priesthood.

BTW, I’m female.

The irony here is astounding: a female defends the barring of women from priesthood, while a male advocates the right of women to be in it.

 

[sweetchuck]

Heathen Dawn:

But He had no trouble with a prophetess like Deborah or Huldah. What is so special about the priesthood that it can only be male?

Um. Find me an Old Testament priestess. Oh, that’s right, there were none. There WERE married priests, but the priesthood was familial in ancient days. It was a different time, though. Plus, it was the Old Covenant. But our spiritual ancestors have not discounted the vital role women play in the faith, which is why we revere figures such as Ruth, Judith, Mary Magdalene, our Virgin Mother, etc.
Heathen Dawn:

Divine right of kings, slavery and burning at the stake were once acceptable, yet the change of society forced the church to change its stance on those. No, I’m not going so far as to say homosexuality should be accepted by the church; but equality of the sexes is on a par with racial issues. If there’s a will there’s a way. But I know there isn’t a will.

But the church never indoctrinated the practice of witch burnings, etc. So, there never was a reversal of Church doctrine. Doctrine is inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is God. And God does not change. So neither should doctrine. God hasn’t come out with an anti-Bible to change some of the Bible’s teachings. Why would Church doctrine change?
Heathen Dawn:

This is irrelevant. Only their sexual roles are not interchangeable. But men can cook and women can fix a tyre. And women can function as priests just as well as men can. I learnt all the basics of my religion from my High Priestess. Apart from tradition, I fail to find any convincing argument why women can’t be in the priesthood.

Sure, in Wiccan, women can probably function just as well as men. But I think it’s a fair observation that the Catholic Church is not a pagan religion. Perhaps you should read the first website referenced in this thread if you want a convincing argument.
Heathen Dawn:

The irony here is astounding: a female defends the barring of women from priesthood, while a male advocates the right of women to be in it.

There’s nothing ironic in it. People who are right argue against people who are wrong all the time. The very fact that there are women here who are in defense of the all-married priesthood should suggest a great deal of substance in this argument. I doubt any of them would say women shouldn’t get equal pay or forfeit the right to vote. Perhaps you can see that there is something substantial for them to support and you should look into it.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

sweetchuck:

Um. Find me an Old Testament priestess. Oh, that’s right, there were none.

I know, I know. I’m familiar with the OT in its original language. But my question still stands: prophetesses yes, priestesses no—WHY? What’s so special about the priesthood that only men can be members of it? Is there any reason behind this, or is it plain arbitrary?

But the church never indoctrinated the practice of witch burnings, etc. So, there never was a reversal of Church doctrine. Doctrine is inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is God. And God does not change. So neither should doctrine. God hasn’t come out with an anti-Bible to change some of the Bible’s teachings. Why would Church doctrine change?

It is not doctrine, in the Bible, saying women can’t be priests, but mere omission: from the fact that you don’t find Israelite priestesses in the OT, you gather only men can be priests. In like manner, we could deduce slavery were God-sanctioned, since it’s widely attested to in the OT (conditions of slaves ameliorated, yes, but slavery not prohibited). If the ordination of women is a change of doctrine, then so is the abolition of slavery. But society has forced its hand upon the church to change on the issue of slavery, as of divine right of kings, stake-burning and geocentrism. Find me a clear “a woman shall not be a priest” in the Bible, just as we have a clear “thou shalt not” against homosexuality, and then I’ll be convinced.

Sure, in Wiccan women can probably function just as well as men. But I think it’s a fair observation that the Catholic Church is not a pagan religion.

I think this is one of the main things that’s stopping the ordination of women: the fear that such a step would paganise the Christian church. How unfortunate (for women).

There’s nothing ironic in it. People who are right argue against people who are wrong all the time. The very fact that there are women here who are in defense of the all-married priesthood should suggest a great deal of substance in this argument. I doubt any of them would say women shouldn’t get equal pay or forfeit the right to vote. Perhaps you can see that there is something substantial for them to support and you should look into it.

I truly, honestly fail to comprehend the willingness of women to be content with staying out of the heart of spiritual life.

 

[mercygate]

Heathen Dawn:

I truly, honestly fail to comprehend the willingness of women to be content with staying out of the heart of spiritual life.

Heathen (I’m still reeling from the revelation that you are a man),

I am a woman educated as an Episcopal Priest. Nobody in the history of Christendom ever coveted Priesthood more than I. But when I honestly asked myself, what I really wanted, the answer was that the only priesthood I was interested in was the Priesthood of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And that was in the Catholic Church.

I have that now as a lay Catholic in a way I never could have had it functioning at the altar as an Episcopalian.

The ordained Priesthood is a priesthood of the altar. Mine is the priesthood of the flesh. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of the Lord than to dwell in the tents of Kedar.

 

[JamesS]

Heathendawn requested proof from the Bible where it says specifically women 'can’t be priests.

1 Corinthians, Ch 14 V 34-39

"As in all the churches of the Saints, the women should keep **silence **in the churches. For they should not be permitted to speak. But should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them asks their husbans at home. For it is **shameful **for a woman to speak in Church. What did the word of God originate from you, or are you the only ones it has reached.

If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what i am saying to you is a command of the Lord. If **anyone **who does not recognise this, he is not recognised. So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbit speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order"

 

[caroljm36]

Not theological grounds, but women priests would drive out men. In 100 years all priests would be priestesses. But we NEED men–due to their frail phychological makeup, they could do the Church a lot of damage from without. The exclusive privilege of priesthood gives them a reason to stay in and keep it all together.

And no, I have NO substantiation for these assertions!

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

JimG:

Yes, I believe it would be characterized as an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. But this might be better answered by one of the staff apologists on the “Ask an Apologist” forum.

CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 28, 1995

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

 

[legeorge]

Heathen Dawn:

I truly, honestly fail to comprehend the willingness of women to be content with staying out of the heart of spiritual life.

Who says being a priest is the heart of spiritual life for Catholics? The source, center and summit of Catholic life is the **Eucharist. **

I think Mother Theresa was a pretty good leader. Oh yeah, she wasn’t a priest.

Pride goeth before a fall. Radical feminists who want to be priests are, unfortunately, usually full of pride. They think they know more than the collected wisdom handed down for 2,000years in the Catholic Church. The same Church began by Jesus himself!

Jesus loved women, and had a great respect them. The first person who was told of Christ’s Ressurection was a woman. He loved and obeyed his Mother. He encouraged women to listen to His teaching. He protected women from stoning. He cured women. He did not, however, have any women apostles. Don’t you think there might have been a reason for this? Maybe Jesus, the Word made Flesh, just didn’t think about it? Maybe he made a mistake? I don’t think so.

Besides, if women were allowed to be priests, who would do the mountain of work women do now?!