Explaining female ordination

a classmate today asked me about the all male hierarchy in our church

this is the explanation i gave: that Jesus was born as a man, chose male apostles to fulfill that particular ministry and they needed to be as close as possible to his nature in order ot act persona cristi. also, it is a position fo service and sacrifice, not of power and control. and there are different parts of the body of christ, with different roles. did i miss anything?

relating to that though, does being a woman just automatically make her unfit to be a priest, is there anything else besides gender? i do still struggle with this sometimes. it does make it feel like we’re not good enough sometimes or somehow inferior. i know it’s about physical life and spiritual life but men do participate in physical life as well. if there were no women, there could still be a church.

also another questions, couldn’t this logic exclude women from work outside the home? in fact, hasn’t it in the past, peopole deemed that it was men’s god-given task to work and women’s to stay home. how is that different?

:popcorn:

Is it fair that a woman can get pregnant and enjoy the bond that they have with their babies? I spend more time looking after our children than my wife does but they always want mummy. I will never experience the love they have for her.

All priests in the Catholic church act in persona Christi, therefore as Jesus was a man it needs a man to do this.

Jesus chose 12 men as apostles so that is the tradition we continue.

Employment is a secular thing, I have worked in factories where the women refuse to do certain jobs as they are unable to do them and don’t forget they get pregnant and it is easier for the woman to look after the children she has just given birth to.

If you look back through history, since we fell out of trees … Women have often been seen as second class citizens, Because males have always been the hunter gathers ,
The conquerors , the enslavers , the adventures , and women have been the nurturers ,
The home makers… Fortunately women have progresses ten fold, I for one think women should have always been an equal, because if there were no women, there would be no men… A lot of men that I have known,should have been circumcised at the neck…
Because of there aggressiveness , lack of respect for there fellow human being,
I see no logical reason why women can not be the ruler of a country, a Monarch ,
or a church, it is only the ego of males that hold women back…

Its not about “gender”. It’s not about women being “unfit”(which I really don’t understand where this idea comes from).

The priesthood is not like choosing to apply for a job at a fast food place.

The priesthood is a vocation; a calling. And its not us who call ourselves, nor is one called by a “church”. The vocation for a priest comes from God.

When Christ called the Apostles He could have called women. The best and most holy woman that He knew(because He created her) was His own mother.

But when it came time to call His first disciples who would eventually become the Apostles, He called men.

The Church has no right to alter this precept, that’s why even Pope Francis has said that the door is shut in regards to women priests. There are certain graces and charisms that are exclusive to the priesthood which simply cannot be bestowed upon women. That’s how God established it. It’s really that simple.

Wonderful response! Thank you!

You did very well in the way you responded to your classmate.

Women were gifted in ways that men are not, and they do very much in the Church to build up the Body of Christ. They are mothers, CCD teachers, , facilitators of bible studies, proclaimers at Mass, Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, and the list goes on.

It is so easy for some to complain and rebel against the legitimate authority that Christ gave the Church.
It reminds me of the grumbling that the Israelites did in the desert. After all God did for them they forgot, and couldn’t bear the discipline of the desert.

Oh what a great virtue obedience is! What harmony and blessedness there would be if members of the Body of Christ obeyed the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals!

No, there is nothing else besides gender.

I can’t get into why it’s different that “people deemed that it was men’s God-given task to work and women’s to stay at home” and how that’s different. But the fact is, the Church does not teach that women have to stay home. They are free to work outside the home. Just because some people thought that’s the way it should be doesn’t make it so.

The simple and obvious fact is that women are physically able to have babies, and men are not physically able to have babies. This isn’t a man made or Church made law. However, there is no physical natural detriment (beyond rules) that prevent a woman from being a priest. They are physically able to perform the duties of a priest. They are just not acceptable by the Church. The simple matter is that in the Catholic Church, women are not allowed to be priests because they are not men. It is what it is.

:clapping::clapping:

On top of which the first person that Our Lord chose to make himself known to after his crucifixion was Mary Magdalene…a woman. What an eternal gift!.

**OP **- I think you did a good job with your opening response to your classmate. You stated your points well.:slight_smile:

The answer to this issue is very simple: The Church does not have the authority to ordain women, nor does the Church know why it does not have the authority.

This is true.

nor does the Church know why it does not have the authority.

This is not true. Either you don’t know the Church’s reason, you don’t understand it, or your have rejected the Church’s explanation for this inability.

The reason the Church cannot ordain women is the Church has not been granted the authority. If there is an authoritative statement (dogma, not the opinion of any particular theologian) as to the specific reason, I would like to see the source.

There are constantly cited examples such as “all apostles were men,” “traditionally all priest have been men,” etc. Those are actually not reasons; they’re observations. I have yet to see what reason that underlies those observations is. And, furthermore, my statements are based on what people far more informed on the matter have stated.

Lastly, without knowing a specific divine prohibition against women ordination, we cannot assertively state that woman cannot ever be ordained. Obviously, since the Church does not currently have the authority to ordain woman, it cannot happen without Divine Revelation; e.g., Christ coming back to Earth and changing it.

There is a huge difference between not being permitted to do something that is possible, and being prohibited from doing something because it is impossible by its very nature. It is my understanding that the reason for woman not being able to be ordained has not been revealed.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION TO MEN ALONE

  1. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

**Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
**

  1. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

This is effectively what I’m saying. Women cannot be ordained because the Church has no authority to do so, and the reason for Church not having that authority is not given.

You did miss something. As you can see from my signature, while all the above are possible reasons why God decided on an all-male priesthood, the main**** reason that the Church teaches it is this: the Church has no authority to ordain women,

None, zip, zilch, nada. It isn’t a decision that the Church could make.

With the others, there are the constant, "but but but’ and "couldn’t it change because we know now that women can do blah blah blah’. . .

but that has nothing to do with the fact that God HIMSELF instituted this. Not ‘the Church’. Not ‘mere men’. And if God Himself has said “My Church–My bride–has no authority to do this”. . .then The Church has no authority to do it.

Let’s take another example: The Eucharist. The Eucharist accidents are wheat bread and grape wine.

Are Wheat bread and grape wine BETTER than say corn tortillas and milk? Or rice and beer? There are plenty of places on earth where the main ‘grain’ is not wheat, and the main ‘drink’ is not grape wine. . .but the Church has no authority**** to say that in say Peru the Eucharist can be maize and water, or that ‘teetotlers’ of any place can substitute grape JUICE, or that celiacs can have absolutely NO gluten and have rice flour instead.

Or another: Marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman who are free to marry (not married to another person) and able to make a valid contract (not forced into it at gunpoint). The Church has no authority to change this teaching into “two men” or ‘two women’ or 'one man, two women", or to allow those who are validly married in the Church and whose marriage is proven by the tribunal to be valid to marry somebody else, or to say that somebody who was forced is ‘still married anyway’.

The Church has authority to ‘bind and loose’, but it’s like the ‘can god make a rock too heavy to lift’ kind of question. . .The Church’s authority to bind and loose can’t take something God has already ‘bound’ and loosen it, nor take what God has ‘loosened’ and bind it up.

The Church can’t declare God a Quartet when God has already declared Himself a Trinity. The Church can’t say that Jesus never rose from the dead when He truly did. The Church can’t ‘bind’ something that God has ‘loosened’ (it cannot suddenly declare for example that all Catholics must keep kosher, because God already declared that not necessary for Christians). And it cannot ‘loosen’ something God has already bound (and the male priesthood, the Trinity, the Eucharist, marriage, and the Resurrection are all examples of ‘bound’ truths given and revealed by God, which the Church MUST proclaim as such.)

yeah well, i feel like my efforts were in vain. just telling someone “that’s the way God wants it” does not get anywhere at all. especially when my friend comes from an sikh indian family where that was the explanation given to women for a lot of things. i.e. arranged marriages, females being lower than males, girls not being educated or employed EtC… so she sees it as a kind of extension of that. i don’t necessarily blame her either, that’s just the kind of thing she has been taught her whole life. it’s definitely a barrier

In some families, the children want the daddy more in this way…the father has more of the bond. It depends on the person.
It’s not about being fair.

At the same time…there’s nothing Jesus did that demanded a “male” body. He didn’t have sex and procreate, for example. So there was nothing he did physically that specifically needed male secondary sex characteristics.

He never explained why, did he? I don’t think so.
It could have been that at that time, the men were stronger and safer to do the traveling around…and it was dangerous…and he was worried people would not listen to a woman. After all, apostle Paul was the one who said women shouldn’t even talk in church, right?
But none of these issues are a factor anymore.

Archeologists have found frescos in Roman catacombs dating from the first century to the fourth century depicting women giving the Eucharist, receiving ordination from a bishop, and dressed in liturgical vestments.

He may have, indeed, intended women to carry on and lead such rituals as it looks as though they did in the first several centuries…but somewhere along the way, someone changed this…

.

Could you show us where God has told us this?

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.