That is pretty strong surface-thinking, there. I suppose if that is as far as you want to think about it, you have that. Maybe that is part of the issue, though, for those who question the policy.
I think that point gets missed a lot. It would be like complaining that the farmers aren’t letting their pigs fly. The farmers aren’t stopping the pigs from doing anything. It’s God who decided to make pigs without wings.
Heterosexuality is not the foundation of the male only priesthood though…
And nothing we say here will make any difference at all We’re only trying to convince each other, an none of us has any say in the matter. I was only trying to make the point that the reasons for the Church being a patriarchy are weak.
Also there were pagan religions that had priestesses.
We don’t know what Jesus’ sexual orientation was. At least I don’t believe it is mentioned in the bible. I can only assume that is because it doesn’t really matter. So yes, you are correct. Sexual orientation doesn’t have anything to do with a male-only priesthood. But I wasn’t talking about sexual orientation. I am talking about sexuality (body parts, mainly).
No, I think it’s cultural Marxism and radical feminism.
Actually I’m quite sure that’s what it is.
Is it possible that Jesus was just acting within the social framework of his time, recognizing that women in the 1st century had very little freedom or authority and so those 12 men would be best suited to that purpose? I wonder whether you risk holding up the gender roles of ancient Rome/Palestine as divinely mandated.
I think the reasons about priests ‘standing in’ for Jesus in sacramental roles is a bit more convincing, though I think it attaches too much importance to sex.
Yes, but the argument isn’t whether not having wings is unjust to pigs. They would need very large wings to support their weight, which would be very inconvenient to carry when they weren’t flying.
I don’t think the Church ever says we should “rise above” our biological sex though. Sexuality, as in sexual attraction, sure, rise above that. But rise above my being a male? What would that even entail doing?
Or maybe, now just hang with me here, just maybe just a slight possibility, perhaps it could be…
That God doesn’t share our 21st century ideas about the sexes being exactly equal in abilites.
What do you mean by “abilities”?
In my experience, men are better at lifting and throwing things, but women are generally better at a lot of communication and organization that are very useful in a church setting. And a mixed ministry can sympathize with and speak to a more wide variety of laypersons.
The Catholic Church has its reasons for doing as it does but I just want to emphasize that women in non-Catholic churches do serve excellently in ministerial and pastoral roles. There are definitely no emotional, mental, or physical faculties that hold women back in this area, and I have never experienced anything that would lead me to believe they are deficient in any relevant spiritual faculty.
He sent out 72; we don’t have a list of who was in that group; nor do we have much evidence from the Gospels of what the women close to Christ did in spreading the Good news; so speculating that only went to men is just that: speculating.
I am not going to get into a long-winded argument about priesthood; but I would suggest that you pick up a cop of Brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. He speaks quite a bit about priesthood and what that entails. And as I noted; y’all can blame God as this is what has been handed down from the beginning. I disagree that His choice was simply a product of the time. And if that is your strongly held position, we need to a agree to disagree.
I don’t agree with the general statement that women have no to little position in the Church. Some of the best theologians I have personally met have been women. The have a part in the Church. And if I had to quickly recall women who have had great influence in the Church, I would name St Theresa of Avila and Hildegarde of Bingen.
As to their calling, the Church makes vey clear that it is the Church which calls. An individual may feel with all their heart and soul and mind they have a calling to be a priest, but ultimately that is decided by the Church. It is not the individual’s “calling”. It is the Church’s “calling”.
I think it would entail not holding someone back from their calling just because they don’t have a penis, to be blunt.
That is just me though. Not Catholic, but fascinated by this subject. I have enjoyed reading the thread.
I believe God, not the Church, does the calling. The individual is on the receiving end of the calling, making it their calling (that they are in receipt of). Sort of like when someone calls you on the phone, afterwards you may refer to it as “your call with so-and-so.”
Men are usually better at things like reaching the top shelf at the grocery store or lifting heavy weights over their heads. But as for the duties of the priesthood, I’ve seen women priests who were much better at it than almost any man. And please note, I’m not talking about the chrism supposed to be conferred by ordination, which is humanly imperceptible, but the visible attributes.
God does do the calling. The question is, does He call only men? Or does He call women, but the patriarchy won’t allow them to answer in the Catholic Church?
Well I beleive He calls both but that women have to figure something else out for their vocation. Obviously, that isn’t what the Church teaches.
I never felt a calling like that but I know a couple of women who did. Both left and went to the Episcopal Church so they could serve God in the way they felt he called them to do. They are great in what they do.
The worst part is that they were accused of being power-grabbers when they expressed their unhappiness with the RCC on this issue. I have read that a lot here, too. They were anything but that.
God may make the initial call, but I can guarantee it is the Church who calls. No one has a right to ordination.