Why Can't Women Be Priests?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Why can't women be priests? I would like reasons please, not 'because the bible says so'. Thank you.

anon.

-- anon (anon@ymous.com), January 11, 2005

Answers

Here's my reflection on it from a while ago. Still pretty valid, I think.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 11, 2005.

simple reason really, priests act in personae Christi and act in the range of their powers of ordination. women lack the ability to act in personae Christi and are possessed of different powers through the Holy Spirit. a female priest would not be able to enact any sacraments that require powers of ordination to dispense and as such cannot be appointed to the position.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 12, 2005.

Thank you anon and paul. I'm a bit shaky on this. If I've understood you correctly:

Due to the nature of the sacraments which take their form from historical sources like the bible, a person has to physically resemble Christ, at least in terms of gender, in order to symbolise Christ and enact the sacraments.

What about in the higher echelons of the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. all the various committees and councils etc. both in and outside the Vatican. Is there a female presence there, laity or otherwise, or is it made up of priests, bishops and cardinals?

-- anon (anon@ymous.com), January 12, 2005.


Yes there are a large number of women on diocesan and parish bodies, including many in leadership positions. It is true that there are relatively few women members of the committees and congregations of the Holy See, but there are likely to be more in future.

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

Actually, anon,

The Bible doesn't "say so". But the Bible does reveal the teaching of Jesus Christ, including His will for His Church. Jesus taught both by word and by example. His example in selecting 12 men for the first 12 priests of His Church speak clearly regarding His divine will on the matter. If He intended His Church to be served by priestesses, surely He would have instituted that aspect of the priesthood when he instituted the priesthood, by selecting at least one from among the many holy women of the time.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 12, 2005.



The important thing to remember about the Bible is that the Church does not restrict its meaning to the words of Jesus, but also his actions, which are absolutely binding for her in teaching and practice. "Christ established the kingdom of God on earth, manifested His Father and Himself by deeds and words, and completed His work by His death, resurrection and glorious Ascension and by the sending of the Holy Spirit." -Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitutin on Divine Revelation, emphasis mine.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 12, 2005.

Also, what Steve said is correct. There are women who have a powerful voice in the governance and teaching of the Church.

A good expression of this can be found in sections III and IV of the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the collaboration of men and women in the Church and in the World. I strongly recommend a good once-over.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 12, 2005.


To answer the question you need to first know what a priest is...

It may also help knowing that every non-jewish religion had priestesses... that the early Christians were surrounded by religions that had priestesses, that Greco-Roman culture was totally OK with the idea of priestesses...so that from a cultural perspective it wouldn't have been a big deal had Christians wanted to ordain women.

HOWEVER...in Judaeism, only SOME men were priests.

It starts with Adam... the Human race didn't fall when Eve ate the fruit...it only fell when Adam ate it...thus the sacrifice demanded by all true worship (which begins with expiation for sin) had to be made by a human that was like Adam.

Adam and Eve had lots of children (duh) but only the men offered worship to the Lord in the form of sacrifices. Able's sacrifice of lambs (the shedding of blood) was accepted by God.

Now remember...Adam's sin wasn't just to eat the fruit. He failed in two ways: he failed to protect Eve from the serpent, and he failed God by not sacrificing his life rather than sin. So in a sense, women can't be priestesses, because insofar as they are all daughters of Eve, they're not ultimately responsible for the mess we are in, whereas the sons of Adam are.

I know, all this time you thought that men being priests was some sort of power play and blessing huh?

Priests offer sacrifice - indeed worship isn't sitting around holding hands, singing hymns and giving a sermon. To be worship, you have to sacrifice something. That's why the Catholic Mass is true worship whereas Protestant services aren't except metaphorically ("I offer you a sacrifice of praise").

Since Adam failed to offer HIMSELF to God, all men from him to Jesus offered animals that they highly valued (*pure, healthy lambs or cattle which otherwise would have been used for breeding more healthy animals).

But the blood of goats and sheep and cows could never expiate for the sins of humanity. Abraham saw this when about to offer his own son, Isaac...

What could pay for the sin of Adam's disobedience and cowardice except some human being on par with Adam, the father of the living, yet was also greater than he?

So the priesthood of Jesus and the sacrifice of himself was and is the logical needed offering for humanity to truly pay for its sin and render worship to God.

Since Adam was a man, it follows that only men could be priests.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 21, 2005.


-additionally women are limited:

Women are not to teach in the area of creative theology because they are more likely to be deceived than men as per I Tim. below.

Yes, there are and there were women Doctors of the Church -- certainly... and their works and writings were and are certainly checked by men clergy above them even during their writing and after --regardless, everything has to comply with or be taught as through the Magisterium -the filter of the Vatican male curia.

I Tim. 2

11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 22, 2005.


Your highfalutin phrasing fails to hide your ignorance again Daniel. There are women in the Curia, and will likely soon be a lot more. Also note that Paul specifically says “I” (not “God” or “the Apostles” or “the Church”) “do not permit women to teach or have authority over a man”. This is clearly St Paul’s PERSONAL opinion only. Thank God no-one {except you} agrees with it today, or most of the Church’s works would collapse. Please don't dress up your personal misogyny as if it was Catholic doctrine.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 22, 2005.


I was taught by nuns, women have played a strong role in Catholic education throughout history.

Could the status of women within society during the time of Christ have affected his choice of the 12? While being fully God and fully human, could he have been affected by the human conventions of the day? (thus passing that convention to us in our times?)

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 22, 2005.


You mean did Jesus try to be politically correct, rather than doing the will of God? Don't think so.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 22, 2005.

The above was just a thought.

But wouldn't the human nature of Christ affect is action in any way? How are the human and devine natures reconsiled?

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 22, 2005.


Ask any Orthodox Jew if a woman can be a Rabbi. Catholicism is a Judeo-Christian religion with Sacred Traditions.

-- tim berwick (tberwick@yahoo.com), January 22, 2005.

Steve,

Why do you attempt to cloak your feminist modernism by declaring misogyny on my part? You suggest a cafeteria style approach to divine revelation is obedience?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 22, 2005.



Hey you’re the one with the cafeteria attitude Mr Daniel Hwkenberry. Unfortunately your misogyny flows from your own keyboard. Don’t confuse your personal opinions with “divine revelation”. And I fail to see how it is “feminist modernism” simply to state the fact that there are many women in the Church who teach and have authority over men, contrary to your crazy idea that this must not happen.

Jim, as Joe mentioned, the “human conventions” of the day endorsed and embraced priestesses. By ordaining only male priests, Our Lord WAS going against the conventions of the times.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 23, 2005.


'Could the status of women within society during the time of Christ have affected his choice of the 12? While being fully God and fully human, could he have been affected by the human conventions of the day? (thus passing that convention to us in our times?) '

well there are some theories that mary magdalene(or something like that?) was a disciple of jesus but that it's only not mentioned in the bible that way

men have always been seen as superior over women throughout history ,women couldn't vote till 1920 or something?,or just look at the position of the woman in the fundamentalist islam or jewish religion or china during the time when it was only allowed to have one child,if it was a girl they'd just leave her behind somewhere...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 23, 2005.


Of course Mary Magdalene was a disciple of Jesus. But she was not a priest.

It is as the result of the Fall of Man into sin and error that many men through most of history have sinfully seen themselves as superior to women and have tried to oppress them. But Jesus pointed out the evil of this. He treated men and women as equals and so does His Church, which has always fought against such evils as infanticide of girls. Btw this is not a bygone thing in China, it is still ruthlessly enforced government policy that only one child per family is allowed.

Thank God in recent times women’s equality with men has been much more widely recognized. This is authentic feminism as Christ taught us. Not to be confused with the so-called “feminism” which claims that all men are intent on raping women (at least metaphorically) and that women must oppress men in their turn and that women and men are identical except for incidental minor bodily functions.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 23, 2005.


Daniel,

I think you would be well-advised to read the above-linked "Letter to Bishops." Nobody wants a "cafeteria" approach to the Bible; but we must be docile and receptive of the Church's pastors, apart from whom the Bible ceases to be a unifying source of truth.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 23, 2005.


anon,

I have already read it. If you have a specific point contravening what I state -state it.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 24, 2005.


And I fail to see how it is “feminist modernism” simply to state the fact that there are many women in the Church who teach and have authority over men, contrary to your crazy idea that this must not happen.

Steve,

Specifically, your feminist propoganda does not on point answer the question: "Why Can't Women Be Priests?" -so why continue to offer this trivial nugget -do you suggest women are equal to Priests just under a different name?

It is “feminist modernism” to suggest or imply that man and woman are equal in all respects. As the Church teaches, man and woman are equal in dignity and respect individually. Additionally, though the vocation(s) of man and woman are different the vocations are to be respected equally.

Any 'authority' or 'leadership' a woman may have over a man in the Church is that granted her by a man in accordance with Church teaching as authoritatively interpreted by a man -THIS is but administrative function...

Any 'teaching' a woman may do in the Church is that which is obedient with and in accordance with Church teaching as authoritatively interpreted by a man...

Finally, as you repeatedly have stated you choose to subordinate leadership in your home -stating you are not the head of your wife and or family --why do you attempt to be the head of teaching in discussion -why not subordinate yourself here as well?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 24, 2005.


it's now allowed for couples to have 2 kids in china...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 24, 2005.

Wow that’s incredibly nice of the Chinese government to allow as many as TWO kids, sqda. Actually as I understand it, they have merely made a few exceptions in some places (when the first baby is “only” a girl) but “one only” is still the general rule.

Daniel, I hesitate to respond to your ad hominem “arguments” as I know you are not listening, but for the sake of anyone else who’s interested:

It is not “feminist propaganda” or “feminist modernism” but the teaching of the Church, that men and women are equal. I certainly have NOT stated that women and men are “equal in all respects” in fact I have specifically refuted as absurd this idea that women are identical or interchangeable with men.

“Any 'authority' or 'leadership' a woman may have over a man in the Church is that granted her by a man in accordance with Church teaching as authoritatively interpreted by a man -THIS is but administrative function...Any 'teaching' a woman may do in the Church is that which is obedient with and in accordance with Church teaching as authoritatively interpreted by a man”

Technically correct. But the "man" in this case is not just a man. He does not have that authority BECAUSE he is a man but because he is a bishop or a Pope. 99.999% of men have no such authority.

“you repeatedly have stated you choose to subordinate leadership in your home” I’m sorry but I am unable in all charity to see this as anything other than a deliberate lie intended to damage me. I have repeatedly stated that I choose to exercise my authority as one of two leaders in my home. But then it’s not just women you have a problem with. You have a real problem with sharing, don’t you, vigorously objecting to the US Bishops Conference. No doubt you think the bishops are “subordinating themselves” because they choose to exercise their authority jointly with their brother bishops. I don't claim any superiority over anyone here, but I'm certainly not going to "subordinate" myself to someone who arrogantly presents his personal opinions as divinely revealed Truth and behaves with such rudeness to those who disagree.

And I think anon was referring to your habit of preferring your personal interpretation of Bible verses and superseded Church documents over the teaching of the Pope and bishops.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 24, 2005.


[NOTE & DISCLAIMER: All emphases are mine and for the purpose of relevance only. No emphasis of mine is enlarged to the marginalization of any other Church teaching, and I scoff at all accusations thereof.]

Daniel,

What Steve says is correct. I would first suggest that your posts in this thread have been crassly and abruptly worded; if you were truly interested in conveying your point of view convincingly (particularly to someone with legitimate questions from a culture where orthodoxy may be strange and new), you should have exercised at least some prudence. Otherwise, you come off as a mere fire-starter.

Moreover, your opinions do not fully reflect the teaching of our Church, which always emphatically teaches the radically equality of the sexes, and the ability of women to teach and to preach. It is not enough to proof-text your posts as free from "contraventions"; distortions of Catholic faith occur as often through omission as through positive heresy.

To whit...

The Letter to Bishops advocates the presence of women in active roles in shaping society (notwithstanding that you did not contradict this, it bears mentioning):

"It means also that women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems."

Moreover, the Scripture passage your quoted from Paul should not be read without reference to other Scripture affirming the role of women as preachers and prophets (e.g., St. Hildegarde).

From Inter Insigniores--

"However, the Apostle's forbidding of women "to speak" in the assemblies (cf. 1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2: 12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognizes as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (cf. 1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (cf. Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate."

Moreover, John Paul II wrote in his "Letter to Women" (#11) that the purpose of ordaining men alone is sacramental, relating to divinely instituted signs; not functional, as you have implied, relating to inherency deficiencies.

"If Christ-by his free and sovereign choice, clearly attested to by the Gospel and by the Church's constant Tradition-entrusted only to men the task of being an "icon" of his countenance as "shepherd" and "bridegroom" of the Church through the exercise of the ministerial priesthood, this in no way detracts from the role of women, or for that matter from the role of the other members of the Church who are not ordained to the sacred ministry, since all share equally in the dignity proper to the "common priesthood" based on Baptism. These role distinctions should not be viewed in accordance with the criteria of functionality typical in human societies. Rather they must be understood according to the particular criteria of the sacramental economy, i.e. the economy of "signs" which God freely chooses in order to become present in the midst of humanity."

~~~~~~~~~~

There is nothing in Canon Law or Church discipline restricting women from any field of theology. There is no such thing as "creative theology", but women can and do participate fruitfully as professors in moral, scriptural, soteriological, christological, and pastoral theology--whether teaching at universities or researching and writing books.

As far as being "filtered by men," this is truly a chauvanist distortion of magisterial procedures. All theology, regardless of source, must be subjected to the judgement of the Pope and the entire college of bishops. As Steve said, their authority is rooted in the Sacrament and the Spirit, not their sex.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 24, 2005.


anon, I will digest your thoughtful and lengthy post. At first glance it appears faulty... Meanwhile I would suggest you are in error with your innovative interpretation of authority rooted in the Sacrament and the Spirit, not the sex. If this equal authority were possible it would only be possible once in the supernatural realm where authority once required would not be necessary. Authority as such is only required for the very reason you would dimiss -the temporal! Heaven on earth is what you imply with this innovation...

The temporal reality you would dismiss is very real. It is reality that Jesus was Man -it is reality that man and woman wre created not equal -man was formed out of the clay of the ground and woman created from man's rib -there is reason that after the fall the relationship between man and woman was altered beyond what it was - changed forever temporally -there is reason women can never be clergy...

The reason(s) for the reality may not be understood but they are authentic reality to be obediently observed as revealed in divine scripture -they are not dismissed as tradition or culture based - they are neither dismissed in moral relative argument based cries of misogyny or chauvanist distortion as some suggest...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 26, 2005.


Steve, You are incorrect! LOL -however, first my apologies -there is no reason for my whatever you want to call it!

Man and woman are not equal. They are different in more regards than sexual -do you not understand this reality? There is a reason only men can be clergy this will never change and it is not based in tradition, etcetera -find this reason and you will possibly understand your error regarding equality...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 26, 2005.


Steve,

I would also suggest that since my postings appear more masculine than yours that you should subordinate yourself to me immediately...

;)

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 26, 2005.


anon,

Let me add that your statement regarding authority rooted in "Sacrament and the Spirit, not their sex" is faulty as it is in reality that authority is rested divinely in Sacrament and the Spirit upon man only...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 26, 2005.


Any more posts you would like to add there, Daniel?

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 26, 2005.

Any more posts you would like to add there, Daniel?

anon,

I will add as appropriate either as solicited or as result of further questions or further understanding from others or other sources... I still study this issue with many others...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 27, 2005.


-a little more to add:

Moreover, the Scripture passage your quoted from Paul should not be read without reference to other Scripture affirming the role of women as preachers and prophets (e.g., St. Hildegarde).

anon,

First, would it be chauvinist distortion on my part to claim women can not officially function as teachers within the Church?

Additionally, I do not completely understand what relevant meanings specifically you infer by the terms "preachers and prophets"? My understanding is that charisms of the Holy Spirit e.g. the prophetic visions of Saint Hildegard do not come under the purview of this topic as the 'role' is exclusively supernaturally gifted...

Finally, I do not know if I agree or disagree with the "preacher" term -I might agree if the role involved no contradiction regarding women not possessing official function as teachers within the Church. Can you provide example(s) of this "preacher" role?

From Inter Insigniores - The Role Of Women In Modern Society And The Church

-- emphasis added

"However, the Apostle's forbidding of women "to speak" in the assemblies (cf. 1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2: 12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognizes as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (cf. 1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (cf. Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate."

This passage defends both Paul and Truth as the Church teaches. I would suggest it in no way conflicts with my statements on the matter and is in agreement... am I now accused of prejudices against women?

Moreover, John Paul II wrote in his "Letter to Women" (#11) that the purpose of ordaining men alone is sacramental, relating to divinely instituted signs; not functional, as you have implied, relating to inherent deficiencies.

I think you are confusing some terms? -Functional as referenced, only refers to temporal cultural aspects that can change over time and differ geographically and culturally. What John Paul II states with this functional reference is that the different roles as instituted divinely will NEVER change -as I have stated. Note: This reality does not suggest a "deficiency" in woman -simply a real unchanging difference between women and men...

From John Paul II - Letter to Women

Now, -- emphasis added

"If Christ-by his free and sovereign choice, clearly attested to by the Gospel and by the Church's constant Tradition-entrusted only to men the task of being an "icon" of his countenance as "shepherd" and "bridegroom" of the Church through the exercise of the ministerial priesthood, this in no way detracts from the role of women, or for that matter from the role of the other members of the Church who are not ordained to the sacred ministry, since all share equally in the dignity proper to the "common priesthood" based on Baptism. These role distinctions should not be viewed in accordance with the criteria of functionality typical in human societies. Rather they must be understood according to the particular criteria of the sacramental economy, i.e. the economy of "signs" which God freely chooses in order to become present in the midst of humanity."

hmmm -this too does not conflict and does agree with my statements regarding only men. Additionally, in no way does this even suggest that dignity and respect for women; e.g. -not detracting from the role of women; equates the role of women to the role of men as is suggested or implied by interlocutors promoting feminist modernism.

Again, as stated -I did not speak to "criteria of functionality typical in human societies" on this issue as I did not speak regarding the role of women in society -I spoke specific regarding the role of women within the Church as not one possessing an official authoritative function of teaching...

So -again my statement -- emphasis added:

It is “feminist modernism” to suggest or imply that man and woman are equal in all respects. As the Church teaches, man and woman are equal in dignity and respect individually. Additionally, though the vocation(s) of man and woman are different the vocations are to be respected equally.

Any 'authority' or 'leadership' a woman may have over a man in the Church is that granted her by a man in accordance with Church teaching as authoritatively interpreted by a man -THIS is but administrative function.

Any 'teaching' a woman may do in the Church is that which is obedient with and in accordance with Church teaching as authoritatively interpreted by a man....

I still study this issue with many others -commentary and feedback always -solicited or unsolicited...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 29, 2005.


“Steve, You are incorrect! LOL -however, first my apologies -there is no reason for my whatever you want to call it!” If you told me what it is you’re apologizing for I would be able to accept your apology. I can’t see what if anything you have retracted.

“would it be chauvinist distortion on my part to claim women can not officially function as teachers within the Church?” If you mean “male chauvinist”, then in a word, yes. I’m sorry you can’t accept that women are your equals, but this is what the Church teaches. And no it doesn't make you more "masculine" in fact less so. I see no point in responding further to your mere repetitions of the same unsupportable statements.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 29, 2005.


I see no point in responding further to your mere repetitions of the same unsupportable statements.

Steve,

LOL -good for me! The majority of your responses to me have almost exclusively been but errant opinion or interpretation OR self defense of ego -as you provide nothing substantiated by Sacred Scripture and or Church teaching when you are errant I will lose nothing and some others may gain much!

I suggest that if you reconsider -you address issues squarely with adequate reference to your view...

You post much here -the portion I disagree with is but the portion I disagree with in posting and as such oppose in posting -that which you can not adequately prove authentic as is the case on this thread!

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 29, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ