A Reason For No Women Priests


#1

I'm starting a new thread to ask this question because mainly I don't want to read through 40 pages or however many to find an answer to my question.

My question is: Have any of you involved in apologetics considered this: that the reason women cannot be priests is that it would essentially be a lesbian marriage. The priest is an icon of Christ who is the Groom, and the Church to whom he is married is the Bride, as per Scripture. Only a man and a woman should be married; men should not lay with men, nor should women lay with women.

If a woman were ordained a priest, the Church would essentially be performing a marriage between two women, which would simply not be valid. Therefore the Church does not have the power to ordain women.

If you have already thought of this, then ignore this thread, I guess.:)


#2

I haven't thought of it; I just realize that people can "ordain" women all they want, it won't make them priests. Just because someone says they are a priest, or married, or an alien, it doesn't make it so.


#3

Half of all women with unintended pregnancies in the U.S. will kill their inconvenient children.

guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf

It's also about who should be trusted with the deposit of the faith.


#4

When religion was in the hands of women, that society was a happier place and everything tended to be more equitable. A male hierarchy makes for patristic, adversarial religions. Just look at the OT. Rape, incest, genocide, slavery are rampant. As some say, the rise of civilization has been a battle against testosterone. So why not female priests? We have female nuns, yes? I've seen some women way outperform men in similar jobs from pilot to priestess. I think it is time to reconsider.


#5

Tuno,

What is your opinion about chastity, contraception, abortion, marriage only between one man and one women, and noncelibate sex between same sex attracted people?

Those are issues, important to the Catholic Church.


#6

Let's stay on topic and keep the tone light and non-insulting please.


#7

My opinion about those topics, bkayw, is that they belong on the many threads that are already dealing with them. I'm just looking at the sort of things one might consider in questioning the usefulness of women in the role of interceders with the Divine. Would they do any worse than the currently diminishing crop of priests and the accolades they earned and the charges leveled at them? Probably not. And women seem to have a greater propensity in the realms of connectivity and community than the male brain tends to allow for. I think, for instance that such women as Catherine of Sienna, and Teresa of Avila are superb examples of spiritual leaders, and they are not alone in their gender. Generally speaking the influence of women has been a great civilizing factor. I can hardly wait for the time when this silly question is behind us and hope that the women who are in favor of their priestesshood are treated far better than the women who suffered so terribly for the vote. This whole denial of women as competent and worthy is like cutting off half our brain. I'm fed up with it.


#8

Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of Avila, Mother Theresa and Edith Stein were great spiritual leaders, but they never wanted to be priestesses.

Why is that, Tuno?


#9

Resources:

Women in the Priesthood

Catholic Women Priests? (Resources)

Gender Roles, Male Priests, Equality, and Feminism


#10

[quote="absitinvidia, post:1, topic:212394"]
I'm starting a new thread to ask this question because mainly I don't want to read through 40 pages or however many to find an answer to my question.

My question is: Have any of you involved in apologetics considered this: that the reason women cannot be priests is that it would essentially be a lesbian marriage. The priest is an icon of Christ who is the Groom, and the Church to whom he is married is the Bride, as per Scripture. Only a man and a woman should be married; men should not lay with men, nor should women lay with women.

If a woman were ordained a priest, the Church would essentially be performing a marriage between two women, which would simply not be valid. Therefore the Church does not have the power to ordain women.

If you have already thought of this, then ignore this thread, I guess.:)

[/quote]

Frankly, you are fantasizing. It has nothing to do with ordination of women being a lesbian marriage. What you are suggesting is just ridiculous.

The Church teaching is very simple and easy to understand and has nothing to do with lesbians!

CCC 1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.


#11

[quote="Tuno, post:7, topic:212394"]
My opinion about those topics, bkayw, is that they belong on the many threads that are already dealing with them. I'm just looking at the sort of things one might consider in questioning the usefulness of women in the role of interceders with the Divine. Would they do any worse than the currently diminishing crop of priests and the accolades they earned and the charges leveled at them? Probably not. And women seem to have a greater propensity in the realms of connectivity and community than the male brain tends to allow for. I think, for instance that such women as Catherine of Sienna, and Teresa of Avila are superb examples of spiritual leaders, and they are not alone in their gender. Generally speaking the influence of women has been a great civilizing factor. I can hardly wait for the time when this silly question is behind us and hope that the women who are in favor of their priestesshood are treated far better than the women who suffered so terribly for the vote. This whole denial of women as competent and worthy is like cutting off half our brain. I'm fed up with it.

[/quote]

Why, then, didn't Jesus choose any women in the Twelve?


#12

"This whole denial of women as competent and worthy is like cutting off half our brain. I'm fed up with it."

Women are competent and worthy, and so are men. Each have roles to fill in the domestic church (family life) and within the Catholic Church.

The single most important factor in whether or not children will faithfully attend religious services is their father's regular attendance at Mass.

It's unfornuteate that you won't answer my question concerning your opinion on moral issues. No matter. I grew up in the 70s-80s and I lived the radical feminism experiment.

Radical feminism treated woman to unchastity, contraception, lack of faith in the (male) God, abortion, an unfounded disrespect & distrust of men and fatherhood, living together outside of marriage, unblessed marriage, divorce, approval of gay marriage and the approval of noncelibate sex between same sex attracted people.

Radical feminism is a trap.

If woman in the Catholic Church wish to be priestessess, they have the choice of joining any number of the 30,000 protestant denominations in which they could easily join and share with those worshippers their tremendous personal gifts of worthiness and competence.

But of course, these women don't do that. They rediculously continue to express their prejudiced hated of men and fatherhood.


#13

The Priest stands In Persona Christi, and Christ is the groom and the Church is the bride. While it’s not an actual marriage it’s an icon of one. I’m using a metaphor. Let me explain.

I’m talking about the REASON Christ only chose men. I’m talking about the REASON the sacrament is only valid if it is a man. * If* the priest, the icon of Christ is male, and the Church is the bride, female, then there can simply be no ordination of women because same sex marriage is not valid. Scripture describes the relationship between Christ and his Church as a relationship between a groom and a bride. There cannot be two brides because that is not valid. At the same time Scripture describes the relationship of Christ and his Church as the relationship between the head and the body. Paul also says that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. All the sacraments are linked together, and Marriage and Holy Orders have an intimate tie through these metaphors.

In 1 Corinthians 6:18, Paul says, “Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body.” This is in reference to sexual immorality. But remember that the Church is the body. The Church, one with Christ, is not capable of sin as Christ is not capable of sin. Just the people are. Therefore, just as the Church is not capable of bestowing the sacrament of Marriage on two people of the same sex, the Church is not capable of bestowing the sacrament of Holy Orders on a woman.

The Church has always simply stated that she cannot ordain women, that it’s not within her authority, that Jesus ordained only men so we do the same, that it’s a Tradition to be kept, etc. Basically, while it is enough for me to accept the word of the Church, many people get frustrated over what they think is a baseless or evasive answer, and in trying to provide them something more than, “because,” this is what I have come up with

I’m not sure the Church has had to answer this question before. While the Church’s explanation for why they do not do this is of course valid, many people who ask, “why,” want to know the basis for the choice that Christ made, the reason why ordination is only valid for a man. Truthfully, I don’t think Christ chose between ordaining women or not ordaining them. The way I see it, it was the will of God for only men to be ordained, so that’s who got ordained by Christ. But there must be an underlying reason, and the absolute best I can come up with is the tie between Marriage and Holy Orders, between Christ as the groom and the Church as the bride, and the prohibition against homosexual union.

Marriage and Holy Orders are parallel vocations. In the case of these two, a man either becomes a husband and father with a wife and children, or he becomes an icon of the husband with the Church as “wife” and a spiritual father to the congregation.

Maybe the metaphor is not valid, maybe it is. I just asked a question. But I’m founding the metaphor on a metaphor already made in Scripture by St. Paul. Maybe my choice in wording in the original post was not quite right.


#14

[quote="Tuno, post:7, topic:212394"]
I think, for instance that such women as Catherine of Sienna, and Teresa of Avila are superb examples of spiritual leaders..............

...........This whole denial of women as competent and worthy is like cutting off half our brain. I'm fed up with it.

[/quote]

Neither of these women ever challenged the church or attempted to become priest. They were content with their roles as women in the church.

Nobody said that women were incompetent or unworthy. The fact is, the church, as JP2 proclaimed, doesn't have authority to ordain women.


#15

[quote="absitinvidia, post:13, topic:212394"]
because same sex marriage is not valid.

[/quote]

Sorry.
That should read, "because of the same reason why same sex marriage is not valid."


#16

[quote="absitinvidia, post:13, topic:212394"]
The Priest stands In Persona Christi, and Christ is the groom and the Church is the bride. While it's not an actual marriage it's an icon of one. I'm using a metaphor. Let me explain.

I'm talking about the REASON Christ only chose men. I'm talking about the REASON the sacrament is only valid if it is a man. * If* the priest, the icon of Christ is male, and the Church is the bride, female, then there can simply be no ordination of women because same sex marriage is not valid. Scripture describes the relationship between Christ and his Church as a relationship between a groom and a bride. There cannot be two brides because that is not valid. At the same time Scripture describes the relationship of Christ and his Church as the relationship between the head and the body. Paul also says that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. All the sacraments are linked together, and Marriage and Holy Orders have an intimate tie through these metaphors.

In 1 Corinthians 6:18, Paul says, "Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body." This is in reference to sexual immorality. But remember that the Church is the body. The Church, one with Christ, is not capable of sin as Christ is not capable of sin. Just the people are. Therefore, just as the Church is not capable of bestowing the sacrament of Marriage on two people of the same sex, the Church is not capable of bestowing the sacrament of Holy Orders on a woman.

The Church has always simply stated that she cannot ordain women, that it's not within her authority, that Jesus ordained only men so we do the same, that it's a Tradition to be kept, etc. Basically, while it is enough for me to accept the word of the Church, many people get frustrated over what they think is a baseless or evasive answer, and in trying to provide them something more than, "because," this is what I have come up with

I'm not sure the Church has had to answer this question before. While the Church's explanation for why they do not do this is of course valid, many people who ask, "why," want to know the basis for the choice that Christ made, the reason why ordination is only valid for a man. Truthfully, I don't think Christ chose between ordaining women or not ordaining them. The way I see it, it was the will of God for only men to be ordained, so that's who got ordained by Christ. But there must be an underlying reason, and the absolute best I can come up with is the tie between Marriage and Holy Orders, between Christ as the groom and the Church as the bride, and the prohibition against homosexual union.

Marriage and Holy Orders are parallel vocations. In the case of these two, a man either becomes a husband and father with a wife and children, or he becomes an icon of the husband with the Church as "wife" and a spiritual father to the congregation.

Maybe the metaphor is not valid, maybe it is. I just asked a question. But I'm founding the metaphor on a metaphor already made in Scripture by St. Paul. Maybe my choice in wording in the original post was not quite right.

[/quote]

I have heard this explanation before, but while I am not for women priests, It seems to be lacking in one thing. if the priest is to be taking the role of Christ as man, and the Church is to be the bride of Christ, then why can men be part of the Church in the first place if the Church is a she?

i do think it has to do more with the distinctions between men and women themselves, and that the imagery between Christ and the Church is compared to a marriage rather than the other way around (although our marriages are deepened by looking at Christ and the Church)...

When religion was in the hands of women, that society was a happier place and everything tended to be more equitable. A male hierarchy makes for patristic, adversarial religions. Just look at the OT. Rape, incest, genocide, slavery are rampant. As some say, the rise of civilization has been a battle against testosterone. So why not female priests? We have female nuns, yes? I've seen some women way outperform men in similar jobs from pilot to priestess. I think it is time to reconsider.

Tuno, when religion was in the hands of women as i believe you are percieving (correct me if im wrong), a few of the so called "priestesses" were virgins, but many were moreso prostitutes. These societies also tended to still have within them patristic values... do you think that that would be considered equitable?

on the other hand, one could look at the church itself as in the hands of women in the sesne that more often than not, they are the ones who have handed on the faith to their children. enter a Catholic Church, and youre more likely to see many women and their children than men.


#17

Tuno, when religion was in the hands of women as i believe you are percieving (correct me if im wrong), a few of the so called "priestesses" were virgins, but many were moreso prostitutes. These societies also tended to still have within them patristic values... do you think that that would be considered equitable?

Considering that "nunnery" used to be, with very good reason, a synonym for "brothel," and considering the shenanigans of clergy from the Popes down to deacons as is evident even in the news today, yes, of course I would.


#18

[quote="una_ecclesia, post:16, topic:212394"]
I have heard this explanation before, but while I am not for women priests, It seems to be lacking in one thing. if the priest is to be taking the role of Christ as man, and the Church is to be the bride of Christ, then why can men be part of the Church in the first place if the Church is a she?

i do think it has to do more with the distinctions between men and women themselves, and that the imagery between Christ and the Church is compared to a marriage rather than the other way around (although our marriages are deepened by looking at Christ and the Church)...

[/quote]

The imagery Paul uses compares the relationship between husband and wife to Christ, but Revelation compares Christ and the Church to a bride and groom.

I think it has to do with the Church being more than just the mother/wife. We're talking about imagery within imagery, multiple layers of meaning and symbol. When Jesus was conceived, for instance, Mary was betrothed to Joseph. God knew that in including Mary in the plan for Salvation, Joseph would be there also. A marriage between man and woman is more than the sum of its parts. The love between them can give rise to something* more*, a child, new life, another eternal being made in the image of God, a miracle because God has given man the ability to do this.

The Church, also, is more than the sum of its parts. The Church is where we receive the Sacraments. Baptism, for instance, brings us to new life, and Reconciliation brings us back to it when we die to eternal life through mortal sin. Like a mother who gives birth and then nurses us back to health when sick. I would posit that just as the husband is the head in a marriage, so the mother is the body, as Christ is the Head and the Church is the Body, with the Church containing us of both sexes as adopted children of the Father. So then the role of mother as the "body" in the marriage relationship could be seen to include children, since the mother bears the child in her womb and gives birth (baptism) and nurses us back to health if sick (reconciliation). A mother can of course, bear either female or male children, having received the seed of a male. Therefore, there can be seen a male element within the female, if she is pregnant, and yet she is still female.

So, with that said, let me also say that we begin at conception in our mother's womb, and are born to life. The Church, then could also be seen as our spiritual womb, where we will develop until, in the words of St. Francis, "it is in dying that we are born to eternal life."

There is an element of mystery, though. And I don't pretend to understand it completely.


#19

[quote="Tuno, post:7, topic:212394"]
My opinion about those topics, bkayw, is that they belong on the many threads that are already dealing with them. I'm just looking at the sort of things one might consider in questioning the usefulness of women in the role of interceders with the Divine. Would they do any worse than the currently diminishing crop of priests and the accolades they earned and the charges leveled at them? Probably not. And women seem to have a greater propensity in the realms of connectivity and community than the male brain tends to allow for. I think, for instance that such women as Catherine of Sienna, and Teresa of Avila are superb examples of spiritual leaders, and they are not alone in their gender. Generally speaking the influence of women has been a great civilizing factor. I can hardly wait for the time when this silly question is behind us and hope that the women who are in favor of their priestesshood are treated far better than the women who suffered so terribly for the vote. This whole denial of women as competent and worthy is like cutting off half our brain. I'm fed up with it.

[/quote]

What I think:

  1. I think women are highly competent.

  2. I don't think they're unworthy.

  3. I think they're equal in human dignity to men.

BUT...

I also think Christ established a male priesthood that His Church has infallibly confirmed.

I don't know why. But I trust that Christ has His reasons.

It is for this reason I am against woman Priests.


#20

I also think Christ established a male priesthood that His Church has infallibly confirmed.

Well, it might seem that way if you are looking to develop an organization in a society that didn't think as you you do about women; however Jesus, if the Gospels are actually history, did have a respectful and elevated attitude toward women. And we have no idea that he was creating either a priesthood or a papacy from the "proof" texts used by the Church. He did, in a time of military occupation, of turmoil in a society that had low regard for women in general, send men on the road. An act of kindness at least, given what might befall women alone on the road, if that even happened under those circumstances when people traveled in caravan for safety.

You see, if the meaning which is attached to Christ's words by the Roman Church is the obvious and correct one, it is strange that the writers of the early centuries knew nothing of it. This is common knowledge to all who have read anything of the controversy with Rome; the following extracts give a summary of the facts. In the book, The Pope and the Council, bearing the pen-name of Janus, but written it is said by two of the most capable historians of the Church of Rome, Acton and Dollinger, at the time of the Council which declared the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, occurs the following:

"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. 16: 18; John 21:17) not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess - Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas - has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter ! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build his Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the Twelve being together the foundation-stones of the Church (Rev. 21:14). The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as - what is obvious to any one at first sight - they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing."

It is far more likely that the non dualist interpretation of this scenario and of the totality of the Identity statements in both the OT and NT are closer to the actual intent of those verses. Simon Bar-jona had the interior recognition of both his Master's and his own at-onement with the Father, and Jesus felt the confidence to say that such a solid foundational recognition as Simon's was what would in fact draw men and women to the esoteric understanding of His work. We need only read Mark 4:33,34 to see a wide doorway to that possibility.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.