I just received seven arguments for the ordination of women in a mailing called: "Why women can and should be ordained". The reasons were taken from WWW.WOMENPRIESTS.ORG, a major group pushing for the ordination of women.

These arguments seem to be the best available -- but all of them seem basically worthless. Each argument is given verbatim; I then give the reasons why it does not work.

1. Cultural bias: The Church's practice of not ordaining women as priests was based on a prejudice against women. This affected the judgment of Church leaders.

Self-defeating, irrelevant argument. An assertion charging cultural bias is worthless since it cuts both ways. E.g., modern people have a cultural bias that all distinctions between the sexes should be erased. Therefore, since those arguing for women priests are culturally biased, women should not be ordained.

2. One priesthood in Christ: Through baptism women and men share equally in the new priesthood of Christ. This includes openness to Holy Orders.

No, it does not. The fullness and reality of Christ's priesthood is reflected in the Church as a whole, not in any individual member. The above view of the priesthood of Christ represents a blurring of the distinction between the ministerial priesthood and that of all the faithful. Shared Baptism no more requires that everyone be should be ordained than it requires that everyone should be married.

3. Women have been deacons: Until at least the ninth century the Church gave women the full sacramental ordination of deacons. This proves women can be ordained.

Yes, but only as deaconesses. Previous to the 1100s the word "ordination" was used for all sorts of offices-- including abbots, kings, and door-keepers--so it is not clear that deaconess even received a sacrament. Even if deaconesses (NOT female "deacons") were actually sacramentally ordained, their office only gave them authority to baptize (women) at the Easter Vigil and to take communion to sick women. Both can be done by the non-ordained, neither is a distinctively priestly function.

4. Women too are, in fact, called to be priests: The fact that many responsible Catholic women discern in themselves a vocation to the priesthood is a sign of the Holy Spirit we may not ignore.

Nonsense. Anyone who has had anything to do with seminary education knows that "feeling called" to be a priest is no sign of a "vocation." Indeed, the men most convinced that they have been "called by God to be a priest" are often the most psychologically unfit.

5. The ability for women to be ordained has been present in the Church's latent tradition: One example is the age-long devotion to Mary as Priest. It shows that, according to the 'sense of the faithful', in Mary the ban against women has already been overcome.

Just the opposite. The devotion to "Mary the Priest" is a product of the far-right Marian fringe. The idea comes from the same background as the belief that she never died, that she ever go sick, that she was equally Co-Redemptrix with Jesus, that no graces are ever given without her intercession, etc. Is crazed Mariolatry the best support they have for women priests?

6. The wider Church accepts women priests: After serious study and prayer other Christian Churches now ordain women as priests. Though not everything other Churches do can be accepted by the Catholic Church, this converging consensus by believing Christians confirms that ordaining women is according to the mind of Christ.

Bogus. This "converging consensus" represents merely the ideology of dying Liberal Protestant denominations. The Eastern Orthodox, Biblically-based Protestants, Luther, and Calvin, all bar women from public ministry. There is no sign that the minority opinion of modern secularized liberal Protestants is growing. And in historical terms it seems a mere aberration.

7. The loss of truly Catholic values: The male-only priesthood is part of a set of skewed values on body, sex and marriage that need to be reformed.

Just the opposite. Denying that our enbodiedness as male and female has spiritual implications resembles nothing more than the ancient heresy of Gnosticism (which considered the body evil and so irrelevant to religious realities). At the same time, it smacks of the modern secularist view that the body is a instrument distinct from our personhood. Modernist views represent an anti-incarnational and anti-historical understanding of Jesus Christ, and so they should be reformed.

PERHAPS I CAN HELP THOSE WHO FAVOR ORDAINING WOMEN BY MAKING CLEAR WHAT KIND OF ARGUMENT WOULD ACTUALLY CARRY SOME WEIGHT!

So here goes:

1. It must not use assertions about "cultural bias," especially when evaluating Biblical and magisterial documents, since such arguments discredit ALL theological positions. They are self-negating.

2. It must not be an argument based on "popularity polls" or on "heartfelt desires." These are not theological arguments but rhetorical gimmicks with no theological probative power.

3. It must not be an argument from silence ("Jesus never forbad it"): ex silentio is the most worthless of all arguments. Any "proof" worth its name must be supported by convincing positive arguments.

4. It must be more than a bald assertion that "such and such an argument against women's ordination is not convincing." A rebuttal of "not x"--even if the rebuttal were cogent--would not be a "proof" of x.

As far as I an tell, all the arguments presented by the proponents of women priests are crippled by at least one and often several of these four fatal defects--perhaps because no valid argument of this sort exists.

-- John W. Smith (jwsmith@oregon.edu), March 17, 2004

Answers

John W. Smith,

Thanks for sharing these arguments. If these are the best they can come up with, then surely it is a bad idea. These arguments are clearly flawed. I have never agreed with the ordination of women, even as a Protestant, because the Bible forbids it. But also, if the priest is to be a representative of Christ, women cannot possibly fill this role. If God had meant it to be for women, then Christ would have been female. Clearly this was not the way God intended it.

Instead, women can imitate our Mother Mary in a special way - either as mothers themselves or by dedicating their lives to serving God's kingdom in the sisterhood. As nuns, women can imitate Mary by serving as a "mother" to those in need.

Thanks for sharing this information and taking a stand for God's Truth. God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 17, 2004.

To me, the best argument, if any, for women priests is that there is a shortage of priests.

As long as the Church frowns on married priests, women can continue to argue that they are ready and willing to take up the burden that men won't. In one area we lived, a nun was in essence assigned to be the pastor (head of the parish for everything else), but they had various "rent-a-priests" (many of them call themselves that, and are very welcome wherever they visit!) say Mass--there was no priest assigned to that parish from the beginning....

I don't know which is worse from a logistical standpoint, married priests (since of course they will want housing and family benefits included as part of the job), or single women priests.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 17, 2004.

there is an infallible teaching on this point. women will never be priests in the Church.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 17, 2004.

John W. Smith, You made one statement that is interesting to me. Please elaborate on what you mean when you say:

"Anyone who has had anything to do with seminary education knows that "feeling called" to be a priest is no sign of a "vocation." Indeed, the men most convinced that they have been "called by God to be a priest" are often the most psychologically unfit".

If a priest does not feel called by God, how can he have a vocation?

Thanks,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 17, 2004.

GT wrote:

"I don't know which is worse from a logistical standpoint, married priests (since of course they will want housing and family benefits included as part of the job), or single women priests."

The fact that we would have to pay married priests more is not really an argument against married priests, it is more than an indictment on how little we Catholics give. There is a baptist church down the road that brings in $40,000+ each week and has 4 married pastors. I think both the clergy and the laity need to change our approach to giving. If our churches brought in that kind of money just think of the lives that we would touch. Plus, we would probably see a rise in vocations, because a family that throws in $100 into the collection basket is going to be serious about its faith and this seriousness will foster vocations.

Sorry for getting off track a bit.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), March 17, 2004.

Hi James,

I guess my issue is, why does one give to the Church (or any church, for that matter)? What do you expect them to do with the money? Men are not supposed to be going into the priesthood to make money, otherwise, it's just a job. Look at the televangelists, for example--yes, they take in tons of money--but most of that money goes into running the big business in the background. To me, that is not what any chuch should be about.

Maybe the church should allow married priests, but with the understanding that there would be no "extra" support for the family--after all, you work anywhere else, and your salary isn't any higher because you have a wife and children.... It could be a perfect vocation for a retired man, whose children are grown.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 17, 2004.

james,

you asked: If a priest does not feel called by God, how can he have a vocation?

but that is not what john stated. John said those who feel most like God called them are often psycologically unqualified. Just as those who REALLY want to fight wars are often turned away from being officers in the military.

Truely called preists (at least most that i met) said that God didnt speak to them to call them, so much as everything they did pointed them to the priesthood, as though some enexplicable force was in their life to push events into place for their entrance to the seminary.

If you need an example, look at elpidio. his view that God has spoken to him personally has led to his falling into anathema and heresy.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 17, 2004.

Paul h, I think you got me and james crossed.

I asked the question about the God's call.

You are right, in that if one believes that God has spoken directly to him, there may be problem.

If one believes that providence has opened doors and is leading the person toward a life's vocation than God may indeed be "calling".

God bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 18, 2004.

The first argument is this: Jesus Christ is God and he choose only men to be his apostles. Only men - even though virtuous women where available.

Now Jesus Christ was THE priest, prophet, and king fulfilling scripture (OT). His ordination (order of melchizadek) of the apostles at the Last Supper (do this in memory of me), was for all time, all cultures, all peoples (cf. MT 29).

Secondly, as Messiah he fulfilled the pattern set down by God from the beginning: Adam's sin (not Eve's) was the turning point that made the HUMAN RACE fall...thus male priests' sacrificial worship is part of the antidote. All priests in the OT were male, even though EVERY pagan religion had priestesses.

Thus, since God always chose men and Jesus Christ only chose men, "priesthood" like marriage has a definition that is gender specific - only men can possibly stand in place of Adam or Christ in the act of sacrificial worship. Just as only a man and a woman can enter into the marital covenant of marriage.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 19, 2004.

God created both men and women as his equals. According to the Bible, man and woman were made of one flesh: therefore, they must both be capable of the same tasks. Why should women be banned from being equal to her fellow man? One must remember that the Bible was written at a time when women were thought of as less superior to man, yet over the years, this has been proved most definitely not so. Why are the religious leaders of this time so backward in their ideas on God< a supposingly wonderful being who sees all as his children?

-- kiki (NOMAILPLZ@noaddress.com), April 21, 2004.

God created both men and women as his equals. According to the Bible, man and woman were made of one flesh: therefore, they must both be capable of the same tasks.

{oNE FLESH WAS SPEAKIG OF CONJUGATION, THE TWO MADE A WHOLE. iN SOME JEWISH CULTURES, A PERSON IS A MAN AND HIS WIFE, NOT A MAN OR A WOMAN.

Also note: we where NOT Created to be God's equel, and we are NOT God's equel.}-zarove

Why should women be banned from being equal to her fellow man?

{She's not, however Catholic Preisthood is designed ot represent Jesus, who was male.}-Zarove

One must remember that the Bible was written at a time when women were thought of as less superior to man, yet over the years, this has been proved most definitely not so.

{So you are saying that the Bible is wrong? I woudl be careful inthis line of reasoning. I t was also written before Gay rights too, thus Homosexuality was not understood by its auhtorts. By the way, tGod didnt paly a part in its composition...

Or else maybe God didnt know any better either? see the danger yet?

Now, that said, women are actually treated better in the Bible than any other ancient text. Women where not allowed to perform public services in anceitngreece, the Bible llowed them and spoke highly of woemn. Do not asume the Bible was moudled form its time.}- Zarove

Why are the religious leaders of this time so backward in their ideas on God<

{Their not. Howevef, they do not think God sort of grew up and chnaged over timde. Also, many Chruches prdain women pastors. Cahtolic Prisests hpwever represent Christ on Earth, theirfore have to be male.}-Zarove

a supposingly wonderful being who sees all as his children?

{Their is a differencebetween beign a chold of God abnd confusing the roles of Men ad women.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

I had meant this as a personal email, but the address did not work, so I recpourse to psot it here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I woudl liek to address soemthign offlist, if you are so inlcined, as to what you posted on the MB. Especially the comment about sexism. Below reprodiced ---------------------------------------------- I think women have the full right to be ordained priests. Why? you might ask (if your sexist of course). Well, all you sexist men out there (including the pope), I have some retorical questions for you to think about: Exactly where in the Bible does it specifically state women cannot be ordained priests? Where exactly in the Bible does it say women are less important than men? Is that what Jesus said? Sorry Charley, but if Jesus is the GREAT CHRIST of whom I beleieve is perfect and all- loving, then He does ot believe that women are just baby-making machines who belong in the kitchen and do all the house-work. In the BIG PICTURE, women are actually much stronger than the average male. One reason: we give birth to your children. We are equally as smart, if not smarter than the average male. ------------------------------------------- It is not sexism to have nly male preists in the Catholic Chruch. ( And I am not Catholci, by the way). Indeed, many women like it that way as well. You see, Catholic's beleive the Preist represents Chrst on Earth, and Jesus was a man, not a woman. It is not so much about the rights of women, it is rather about the order in which peopel se ehtings as. as to yor queatsions, well, expect a nonCatholic Answer. Exactly where in the Bible does it specifically state women cannot be ordained priests?: The Bible does not speak of Preists in the New testement at all. Where exactly in the Bible does it say women are less important than men?: Their is a difference between defining differences between the genders and claimign one is more important than the other. Women can be equelly important and denied the peisthood, just like men cannot become Nuns. It is also a known fact that mn and women aren't identicle. Several physical and neurological traits seperate the two. This si not to claim equel rights is wring, merely that some things are done for a reaosn that is not sexist or discriminatory, but is nonetheless done tot he consternation of some people. Also, you do two things that rather upset me. FOr starters, you complain abitu sexism, then show that tyou are sexist. You say that on average women are stronger than men. Certainly this sin true Physically. Likewise, mentally ist is not true. Physically men on average are stornger. This fact has been demonstrated many times over. Mentally, they are about the same, and it will depend on the spacific person. Emotionally, men and women fair roiughtly equelly on all major tests. How exactly are women stronger than men? Or is it that you now wish to make men into second class citesens? Also, no one suggested women wher eonly Baby making machines. Tjis is a leap, and it appears you are arguing form emotion. Neither the Bible, nor the Catholic Church, actually veiw women as such. This does not alrter the fact that Jesus was a man, and the preisthood is thus for men alone. Nor does saying this automaticlaly man we beleive women to be so. ( It is spurious to conclude that) Now, why do you yourself compalin of sexism when you are guilty of it? Why shoudl we beelive men ar einferior to women, and yet take offenceif the reverse is said?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

I think I'm right in saying that there is no church which has continued to grow in vitality or numbers, after beginning to ordain women priests or ministers. This in itself may not be proof that women can't be priests, but it does show that the further a church strays from the truth of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic faith, the fewer good fruits are produced.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.

"More women leaders in US church than in general workforce

The percentage of women in diocesan leadership positions compares favourably with the US workforce, according to a church study released by the US Bishops' Committee on Women in Society and in the Church last Friday.

According to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, in 2002 women made up 51 percent of the executive, administrative, managerial and professional workforce. In that same year, women held 48.9 percent of diocesan administrative positions.

The study: "Women in Diocesan Leadership Positions: Progress Report, 2003," was conducted by The National Association of Church Personnel Administrators.

It is the second follow-up to a 1998 Women's Committee document From Words to Deeds, which encouraged the appointment of women to church leadership positions.

"The results of this survey are indeed encouraging," said Bishop Edward P Cullen, of Allentown (PA), chairman of the Women's Committee. "Now that women hold nearly 50 percent of diocesan leadership positions, there is an even greater need for the document that the Women's Committee is developing to promote collaboration between women and clergy."

Other key findings from the 2003 report note that:

* Over the five-year period between 1999 and 2003, the percentage of women in diocesan leadership rose slightly, to just under 48.4 percent. This compares to 46.6 percent during the 1995-1998 period.

* During the 1999-2003 period, women held on average 26.8 percent of the top (Level One) positions. These include the chiefs of pastoral services, finance, personnel, education, and community services. This compares to 25.5 percent during the 1995-1998 period.

* Large dioceses (over 350,000 Catholics) are less likely to employ women administrative staff. They averaged 45 percent between 1999- 2003. Medium-sized dioceses averaged just under 50 percent while small dioceses (fewer than 150,000 Catholics) averaged 52 percent.

* The South and West are the strongest employers of women administrators, averaging 53 percent, up slightly from the earlier period. The Central and Midwest showed substantial increases over the previous period, averaging 47 percent and 46 percent respectively. The Northeast had the smallest percentage -- 42 percent -- but this was a significant increase over the 38.2 percent of the 1995-98 period.

The NACPA survey included over 50 executive, management, administrative, and professional positions in arch/dioceses around the country.

Examples of women in top-level church positions can be found throughout the country. The position of chancellor, for example, in the Diocese of Dallas is held by Mary Edlund, and in the Archdiocese of Washington by Jane Belford.

The Director of Personnel Services in the Archdiocese of Chicago is Carol Fowler. In the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Maureen Huntington is Superintendent of Schools; in the Diocese of Mobile (AL), Gwen Byrd.

Source: USBC

© Independent Catholic News 2004"

Looks like some of the feminists are aiming at the wrong target!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 02, 2004.

50% of married couples who concieve are female -the other 50% male; yet, males & females are not quite the same? hmmm... can man legislate sameness?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 06, 2004.

Steve,

You seem confused here as well?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 28, 2004.

No confusion here, Danny boy. If it’s alright with you, I’ll choose to believe the US Bishops Conference rather than your self-serving prattlings. But then seeing my only post in this thread consisted entirely of a quote from the USBC, obviously you think that the bishops too are “errant” from your maverick ideas which you claim are “Catholic teaching”. LOL! But in all seriousness, I really think you should consider that those whom Christ entrusted to lead and guide His Church might be blessed with a little bit more judgment and knowledge than you do, so try to have a bit of humility for God's sake.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 28, 2004.

Steve, Women do not lead our Church and never will -administrative function is just that and all it is. I don't think this -I know this.

Additionally, the USCCB have NO authority -this I know as well.

Please correct me with something authentic -I tire of moral relative and modernistic errant arguments of 'equality' and 'social justice'.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 29, 2004.

Danny boy, if you’re not even willing to respect the authority of your own bishops there’s no point talking to you about what the Church teaches. But if so, just be honest and quit claiming to be a Catholic, let alone more Catholic than the rest of us.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 29, 2004.

actually, steve, in the area of female ordination the USCCB has no jurisdiction because the magisterium of the vatican is responsible for ensuring the proper ordination of clergy... a decision which was made long ago and is unchangeable, that only men can be priests.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 29, 2004.

Paul the USCCB statement I quoted makes no mention of female ordination, but is about women in diocesan leadership positions.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 29, 2004.

Steve,

I will convey this again. The USCCB have NO authority -this I know clearly.

Please correct me with something authentic (Which by the way I know does not exist) :) --Do you understand the hierarchical structure of our Church?

-suggesting I am not Catholic is a new technique to mask your ignorance in matters you profess understanding. Do you understand you possibly lead astray -subordinated to your ego? --you may once again extract foot from mouth -better now than later....

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 31, 2004.

Paul the USCCB statement I quoted makes no mention of female ordination, but is about women in diocesan leadership positions.

didnt read far enough back in the thread, i guess. my humble appologies, steve.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 31, 2004.

Thanks Paul. Danny boy, it seems to be you who does not understand the hierarchical structure of the Church. I didn’t say you are not a Catholic; I asked you to consider whether you should continue claiming to be a better Catholic than others given your cavalier disregard of the bishops Christ entrusted to guide His Church.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 11, 2005.

Steve,

Your errors are self-evident -your denial inconsequential.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 12, 2005.

Sorry to offend your massive ego Danny boy, but it doesn't bother me in the least that YOU think I have made "errors" when all I have done is repeat the words of our bishops. I'll rely on THEM to tell me if I've made errors thanks very much!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 12, 2005.