Female preists


#1

I'm having trouble grasping why women can't be preists. I've heard it has to do with the role a preist plays, but I still don't get it. A preist hears confession, conducts mass, does weddings, funerals, etc. What about those things makes it impossible for a woman to do?


#2

I suggest reading Ordinatio Sacerdotalis for starters.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html


#3
  1. The priesthood is a type of spiritual fatherhood (hence we call priests “father”).

  2. None of Jesus’ apostles (who were the first priests/bishops) were women. Thus, we are called to practice the sacraments the way Jesus instituted them.


#4

Here is a presentation by 2 Lutheran women priests. One became Catholic, the other not.
firstthings.com/article/2007/01/ordaining-women-two-views-50

The convert gives good reasons for a male only priesthood.
The Lutheran seems to argue based on 'equality' rather than revelation.

You may find the discussion informative


#5

[quote="kbwall, post:1, topic:293566"]
I'm having trouble grasping why women can't be preists. I've heard it has to do with the role a preist plays, but I still don't get it. A preist hears confession, conducts mass, does weddings, funerals, etc. What about those things makes it impossible for a woman to do?

[/quote]

It isn't about about what they "do". It is a about what they "are".


#6

A priest becomes a stand-in for Christ. Christ in his human form was male…end of story. Its not about what males and females can do…it’s about who Christ was.


#7

This should help: Inter Insigniores

It is more helpful to ask the question, "What is the appropriate role for women to be playing in the Church and how can they do so better?"


#8

I’d recommend doing a search here as well. I know this topic has been addressed several times.

Read those references that the wise folks here have posted as well.

The gist is the Church does not have the authority to ordain women to be priests. Period. Dot.

God bless you!


#9

While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34–38).

Catholic Answers Give us a Good Article on This:
catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood


#10

[quote="kbwall, post:1, topic:293566"]
I'm having trouble grasping why women can't be preists. I've heard it has to do with the role a preist plays, but I still don't get it. A preist hears confession, conducts mass, does weddings, funerals, etc. What about those things makes it impossible for a woman to do?

[/quote]

See the thread under the Sacred Scripture heading on the Ordination of Women Priests for a recent and ongoing thread on this topic.


#11

Jesus' specific male body parts don't seem to be the most important part of who he was or is...but what was going on with his *spirit and heart and soul.
*
Why should one need male body parts to stand in for him?
If inanimate objects like bread and wine can literally "become" Jesus...then why can't a female human being stand in for him with her spirit, heart, and soul?

Just because the apostles were male, it seems a big leap to interpret that as meaning no female people for the rest of eternity can follow the calling of priesthood.
There may have been many practical reasons he did it that way--the rough and dangerous terrain of the journey ahead, for one. The fact that in that era, women were not listened to at all, for a second. Being able to move around while pregnant or menstruating could be another.
None of those issues exist or would cause a problem today.

But most importantly...he never said women could not be priests! Someone later on interpreted the apostle-picking that way.

According to many books on early Christianity, women performed mass in the home for a long time and it wasn't until a formal hierarchy was set up that they were then excluded.

With all the key players in his life who were women--his mother and Mary M, to name two, who were very present for his birth, his death and his first resurrection appearance...three very important moments--my interpretation would surely be the opposite.

The debate of women being priests isn't an "equality" issue or a "feminist" issue...it's an issue of true "calling".
There wouldn't be a problem with the all-male-priesthood rule if it not for the hundreds or maybe thousands of women all over the world who feel a personal calling to it in their hearts and souls, just like (hopefully all of) the men.

And that calling often ultimately leads them to leave the Catholic church so they can follow their calling elsewhere.


#12

[quote="kbwall, post:1, topic:293566"]
I'm having trouble grasping why women can't be preists. ...

[/quote]

Perhaps it's because you're approaching the question from the wrong end. You should ask rather, why should women be priests? :yup:


#13

[quote="DaddyGirl, post:11, topic:293566"]
The debate of women being priests isn't an "equality" issue or a "feminist" issue...it's an issue of true "calling".
There wouldn't be a problem with the all-male-priesthood rule if it not for the hundreds or maybe thousands of women all over the world who feel a personal calling to it in their hearts and souls, just like (hopefully all of) the men.

And that calling often ultimately leads them to leave the Catholic church so they can follow their calling elsewhere.

[/quote]

And that is even more evidence that they did not experience a true vocation. Even a man who thinks he has a vocation goes through a long period of discernment and formtion. At any point he may decide it's not his true vocation OR the diocese/order could decide that he is not in the right place.

Being a priest is first and formost about being in service to the Church. If a man is turned away at some point before being ordained, that desire to serve the Church will lead to his finding another way. *Leaving the Church can never be an option for someone who wants to lovingly serve her. *


#14

its called 'In Persona Christi'. A woman can't act In Persona Christi.


#15

Women should be ordained deaconesses, to see how that works. As I recall, at least Phoebe was one of those in the early church.

   I can recall when there never were women readers at mass, nor girl altar servers, etc. In my home town nuns (many of them then, all gone now) were treated with 1/5 the respect priests received. In fact, priests were revered as though they were superhuman, could do no wrong. They appeared to think that, too - at least some priests. They could be kind but also extremely autocratic. Wasn't there some rule about how close women could approach the altar - that is, behind the communion rails that once were in every church? I never did learn the details. 

   As for scripture, Paul does say that women should be silent in the churches and that they should not teach men. Wow! The church certainly tossed those verses to the breeze. Or, consider Mother Angelica. She may oppose ordination of women but she is a good example of women who are not silent and who teach people of both genders and all ages.

Oh, and the Bible also says that women should cover their heads, a definite rule when I was a child. Apparently the Church can ignore the Bible when it wants to???

  So, the Church can change and has. In fact, when I look at it today and what it was like when I was a young child, one may be inclined to think of Catholicism as a different religion - well, certainly when it comes to worship. I recall that we were forbidden to speak out loud in church, apart from liturgical responses, of course. Was that a rule or just the tradition in the church in my small, rural village? 

   I like the changes. They reflect a more democratic tradition and place less emphasis on the impact that medievalism had upon the church. Whenever I watch some major event on EWTN and see all those bishops etc processing in, dressed in those matching ancient vestments - not a female among them - I have to wonder, and cringe a bit.

  But, that's just one point of view. I think it could be a majority view among American Catholics but certainly not here in CAF.

  God bless and guide everybody - no exceptions. Let's trust in God.

#16

[quote="Corki, post:13, topic:293566"]
And that is even more evidence that they did not experience a true vocation. Even a man who thinks he has a vocation goes through a long period of discernment and formtion. At any point he may decide it's not his true vocation OR the diocese/order could decide that he is not in the right place.

Being a priest is first and formost about being in service to the Church. If a man is turned away at some point before being ordained, that desire to serve the Church will lead to his finding another way. *Leaving the Church can never be an option for someone who wants to lovingly serve her. *

[/quote]

was thinking the exact same thing.

And, gosh, I could never live without the Eucharist. I'd give up everything, but not the Eucharist.


#17

[quote="Roy5, post:15, topic:293566"]
Women should be ordained deaconesses, to see how that works. As I recall, at least Phoebe was one of those in the early church.

   I can recall when there never were women readers at mass, nor girl altar servers, etc. In my home town nuns (many of them then, all gone now) were treated with 1/5 the respect priests received. In fact, priests were revered as though they were superhuman, could do no wrong. They appeared to think that, too - at least some priests. They could be kind but also extremely autocratic. Wasn't there some rule about how close women could approach the altar - that is, behind the communion rails that once were in every church? I never did learn the details. 

   As for scripture, Paul does say that women should be silent in the churches and that they should not teach men. Wow! The church certainly tossed those verses to the breeze. Or, consider Mother Angelica. She may oppose ordination of women but she is a good example of women who are not silent and who teach people of both genders and all ages.

Oh, and the Bible also says that women should cover their heads, a definite rule when I was a child. Apparently the Church can ignore the Bible when it wants to???

  So, the Church can change and has. In fact, when I look at it today and what it was like when I was a young child, one may be inclined to think of Catholicism as a different religion - well, certainly when it comes to worship. I recall that we were forbidden to speak out loud in church, apart from liturgical responses, of course. Was that a rule or just the tradition in the church in my small, rural village? 

   I like the changes. They reflect a more democratic tradition and place less emphasis on the impact that medievalism had upon the church. Whenever I watch some major event on EWTN and see all those bishops etc processing in, dressed in those matching ancient vestments - not a female among them - I have to wonder, and cringe a bit.

  But, that's just one point of view. I think it could be a majority view among American Catholics but certainly not here in CAF.

  God bless and guide everybody - no exceptions. Let's trust in God.

[/quote]

Indeed.

And since there are so many denominations that promote women 'priests,' why do you not point that out?

Why ask or even expect the Catholic Church to change into something she is not, when females who feel they want to be 'priests' can so easily go elsewhere?


#18

[quote="DaddyGirl, post:11, topic:293566"]
Jesus' specific male body parts don't seem to be the most important part of who he was or is...but what was going on with his *spirit and heart and soul.
*
Why should one need male body parts to stand in for him?
If inanimate objects like bread and wine can literally "become" Jesus...then why can't a female human being stand in for him with her spirit, heart, and soul?

Just because the apostles were male, it seems a big leap to interpret that as meaning no female people for the rest of eternity can follow the calling of priesthood.
There may have been many practical reasons he did it that way--the rough and dangerous terrain of the journey ahead, for one. The fact that in that era, women were not listened to at all, for a second. Being able to move around while pregnant or menstruating could be another.
None of those issues exist or would cause a problem today.

But most importantly...he never said women could not be priests! Someone later on interpreted the apostle-picking that way.

According to many books on early Christianity, women performed mass in the home for a long time and it wasn't until a formal hierarchy was set up that they were then excluded.

With all the key players in his life who were women--his mother and Mary M, to name two, who were very present for his birth, his death and his first resurrection appearance...three very important moments--my interpretation would surely be the opposite.

The debate of women being priests isn't an "equality" issue or a "feminist" issue...it's an issue of true "calling".
There wouldn't be a problem with the all-male-priesthood rule if it not for the hundreds or maybe thousands of women all over the world who feel a personal calling to it in their hearts and souls, just like (hopefully all of) the men.

And that calling often ultimately leads them to leave the Catholic church so they can follow their calling elsewhere.

[/quote]

My guess is that Jesus foresaw danger that following him brings and honored the life vessels that women are. Sometimes we have to take a look at the Church in the whole 2000 year perspective and not just from a modern American perspective. All of the popes in the first 300 years of the Church were martyred, during World War II Catholic priests, Bishops and Cardinals were sent to Dachu. Now let’s leave American shores where members of the clergy aren’t being persecuted and go to South Sudan where a priest was just recently crucified not with nails but with ropes but he was hung on a cross. Being a priest is a dangerous job in many parts of the world today and has been since Jesus himself was crucified. It’s also probably why priests are not allowed to marry. If persecutors are going to go after priests they aren’t likely to leave their wife and children alone either.


#19

[quote="504Katrin, post:16, topic:293566"]
was thinking the exact same thing.

And, gosh, I could never live without the Eucharist. I'd give up everything, but not the Eucharist.

[/quote]

I couldn't give it up either!!!


#20

[quote="DaddyGirl, post:11, topic:293566"]
Jesus' specific male body parts don't seem to be the most important part of who he was or is...but what was going on with his *spirit and heart and soul.
*
Why should one need male body parts to stand in for him?
If inanimate objects like bread and wine can literally "become" Jesus...then why can't a female human being stand in for him with her spirit, heart, and soul?

[/quote]

Christ's heart, mind, and soul were male. What you are doing is saying that Christ's body was male but Christ was not male. This is not true. Christ is his body, and his body is Christ.

He never said women could not be priests!

The all male priesthood was a Jewish custom. If Christ had intended to end it, he would have.

According to many books on early Christianity, women performed mass in the home for a long time and it wasn't until a formal hierarchy was set up that they were then excluded.

You will find the discussion of their exclusion in the writings of the early church fathers. I suggest you read the documents yourself and decide for yourself what to think.

With all the key players in his life who were women--his mother and Mary M, to name two, who were very present for his birth, his death and his first resurrection appearance...three very important moments--my interpretation would surely be the opposite.

Women were very important in the gospel and VERY important in the Church. What is a family without a mother?

The debate of women being priests isn't an "equality" issue or a "feminist" issue...it's an issue of true "calling".
There wouldn't be a problem with the all-male-priesthood rule if it not for the hundreds or maybe thousands of women all over the world who feel a personal calling to it in their hearts and souls, just like (hopefully all of) the men.

This is the most unfortunate misunderstanding that I think happens. The priesthood is not a 'calling'. Men (and women) are called to the religious life. The bishop is the one who institutes a man as a priest. Unfortunately, today there is such a lack of people responding to vocations that being called to be a religious is equated to being called to be a priest for men.

And that calling often ultimately leads them to leave the Catholic church so they can follow their calling elsewhere.

Any woman who loves her spouse would not leave him. What is sad is that such women do not realize that their calling is to be a mother in the church, not a father somewhere else.


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.