Can anyone refute these arguments?


This website dedicates itself to the heresy of the ordination of women, and many people often cite its contents when arguing the topic. I know the arguments are wrong, and know how to argue them tolerably well, but can anyone provide me with greater insight on tackling these erroneous claims?

Some of the things they claim are simply outright lies, such as the statistic that “8 out of every 10 Catholic theologians think women should be ordained.” I should that it must be closer to 1 in 100!


I can’t do the refuting, but I look forward to the answers - I have struggled with a fairly militant woman in my parish who is in quite a lather over the role of women in the church. I know her well enough to know that she is a good person, but very misguided. I would love to be able to speak effectively in response to her arguments for women priests.


I am bumping this up in hopes that someone can respond to some of these points.

In my opinion, we need to look to the Church for guidance in this. This is a tradition from the beginning. I seem to remember reading that the ordination of women as deacons was not the same as the ordination of men as deacons, as they imply.

I will also see what else I can come up with on this. I am curious about what the arguements might be.


Hi all. I love women. I respect women. My mom is a very devout and pious woman. My fiancee is a incredible woman who is holier than I will ever be. I have learned more from women throughout the course of my life than men about holiness, love of God, Church, Sacraments, and just general right and wrong.


Can you please tell me how Paul can be anymore clear than (drum roll)

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

This is the way God has willed it to be.

Now, we also see very important women in the Sacred Scripture that do incredible works. It is always, however, a man that becomes a spiritual leader (Noah, David, Moses, Abraham, Peter, Paul, etc.)

An argument could be raised that Paul was just speaking about the Church in those days and wasn’t intending for the invalidity of a woman’s ordination as Priest(ess?). If we look at the history of the Church, we see that this is not the case.

There are places for women in religious roles, but the Church doesn’t teach that it is appropriate for them to act as priests.


I agree with Jabel. I think that some things we don’t necessarily understand, but it is God’s will.

Here is a link with many quotes from the early church.

I think it is quite clear, and we just need to accept it. We cannot pretend to know better than God.




I will look at the link.

But are we forgetting women in the church called nuns?

These have been some of the very most important women in my life.

They taught me a schoolboy and lead me as an altar boy.

They befriended my family, which was poor, as if we were royalty.

They stayed friends–which is what friends do–through the most difficult times.

The most beautiful examples of nuns I now know are the Sisters of Life.

In the progressive (and angry) argument ‘for women,’ we seem to slight perhaps the most important women in the church.

God bless them all.


dr. kreeft gives some of the best logical arguments why only daddies can be priest’s.:smiley:


I want to add a link to some extraordinary Felicians:

Some of the sisters are celebrating anniversaries well beyond the diamond!

And hey, if you have any money to spare, donate it to these nuns: they need it.

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

Where’s that in scripture? Baptism makes part of the Body of Christ, all of that is injection with no proof.

  1. Empowered to preside
    At the Last Supper Jesus empowered both women and men. Both can be ordained to preside at the Eucharist.

Not biblical in the slightest. Women may have been present, but there’s no indication Jesus referenced them as well as the apostles. There wasn’t even a female apostle.

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

So let me get this straight:

The apostles, those chosen by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit into all truth were misogynist pigs? Somehow I find that hard to believe.

  1. 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.

Funny how the ECF’s are silent on the issue. You’d think if this was normal, someone, somewhere would have written at least a small blurb about it. Equally funny that every source that supports their argument happens to be another article they wrote.

  1. 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.

Mary as Priest?! Where’s that doctrine written? And if it’s written in tradition why don’t teh ECF’s mention it?

  1. 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.

Well hell, if they accept women priests just because protestants do, why only that and nothing else? It’s a good doctrine because everyone else does it? So if women priests are of the mind of Christ since the consensus says so, why isn’t sola scriptura according to the mind of Christ? Truth is not determined by a majority vote.

  1. 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.

Why then aren’t men called to be nuns?

The most obvious rebuttal to this is they obviously take the Catholic Church, at least somewhat, as the truth. The truth is that Roma locuta est. Rome has spoken. The Catholic Church has no authoirty to ordain women as priests. It couldn’t do it even if it wanted to.

What’s next? Women priests go on strike because male priests make more money than they do? Sheesh.


The website is simply grasping at straws. Women will not be ordained.


As JimG says, they are grasping at straws.

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

This is a prime example of such grasping. They hijack St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians and try to fit it into their agenda. St. Paul teaches that Baptism incorporates the individual person, male or female, into the paschal Mystery and into the Body of Christ. He does not mean that the distinction between male and female established within Creation is obliterated on the natural level (and therefore on the level of natural symbol!), but that this distinction does not exclude any man or woman from salvation. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, however, is not established for everyone, but only for some, and is for the purpose of bringing to the Bride of Christ, the Church, a continuation of the definite God-Man Jesus’ sacrificial offering, forgiveness of sins, ruling the people, teaching them.

Therefore the passage from Galatians, which refers to Baptism, can not be transferred to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and so there is no contradiction, for what is intended for all is by necessity different from what is intended for some.

Their approach in essence undermines the very historicity of Jesus Who was a man and not a woman; but it also (within the realm of Catholic Christology) implies that the risen and eternal Christ either a) no longer possesses the male human nature He did on earth or b) The human nature that He possesses now is no longer an exclusively male human nature, but is an ultra-sexual human nature that is distinct and different from the male human nature that redeemed us on the Cross. Very scary area, that.

The Church is teaching that the difference between being a man or a woman goes to the heart of the Divinely-revealed Mystery of the Incarnation of God as a Man, or to put it in reverse, that the BASIC Mystery of the Incarnation is necessarily connected in fact with Our Lord choosing only men to be Apostles (as opposed to the ethnic difference of Jew/non-Jew) since the Twelve are to be icons or living images of this Man Jesus in being His priests. That distinction is not important for Baptism or Confirmation, but it is for Holy Orders.

In Baptism the question is incorporation into the Body of Christ affecting mainly the soul; in Confirmation, the strengthening of that grace of the Holy Spirit. (Galatians highlights the difference between the former Covenant with the Jews wherein the introductory and outward expression – circumcision – was available only for men; now in Christ the new circumcision, baptism, is available for all.) But the specific difference in Holy Orders is to be a visible sign of the Groom to the Bride, the Head to His Body, the Son to the Father, the Father to His children; and the Author of the world to come. That involves not just the soul but the body before the visible communion.


Sandra, a search of the Forum will bring you to other threads that have discussed this topic at length; I think you’ll find lots of help. It’s not easy speaking to the self-anointed would-be “reformers” within one’s parish. God bless your efforts!


Spot ON! I, didn’t care much for Nuns when I was a school boy … mainly because I was kinda ornery:D

Now, I see how wonderful they were and are. What wonderful lives they live:thumbsup:

They played a great role in my spiritual life as I insinuated in my previous post.

I do, however, believe that they understand their role as devout women better than I ever could.

Again, I just wish to reiterate that there are strong teachings in the Church specifically about the formal priestly ordination of women. This in no way takes away from their necessity.


Was it Mark Twain (?) who said “There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics”

Also, from Scotty Bowman (hockey legend and genius of Pens and Wings fame), “Stats are for losers”

Heh :wink:


as-a-child hit the nail right on the head. The lecture given by Peter Kreeft is extremely informative on not only that women are not allowed to be priests, but that they will never be allowed to be priests. You can download this talk for free.
There are many other incredible talks on this site, also for free.


You know, this sort of seems to me analagous to some guy, deciding he wants to be a priest. Then he walks up to the bishop and grabs him by the collar, and demands he be made a priest - OR ELSE.

Would you go to a church with a pastor who got to be a priest under these conditions?

If they are Catholic, and they want to be a Catholic, then they should submit to the Catholic Church, period. Anything else is just pure personal demands.


In *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *, Pope John Paul II infallibly declared that women could not be ordained. The Vicar of Christ has spoken - case closed. Let everyone fall silent.


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