Is the Church a Patriarchy?


This isn’t technically true. A man cannot pursue a vocation as a Consecrated Virgin.

:wink: Oh! The discrimination!


Its a holy and venerable vocation. The Church doesn’t think in worldly terms…that’s what these discussions all come down to: power and worldly prestige.


I certainly agree with you on ‘current events’ topics, but I’d say this is of a different nature entirely - these arguments have been made in other places as well.

What claims does the article make that are false?


Right and I think the whole idea of patriarchy (as a negative) in the Church would be greatly lessened if, as others on here have said, the alleged roles of power (like bishops, etc.) would be exercised as roles of service.

I’m not saying they are not. Pope Francis comes to mind as a leader who is “with the sheep” and considers the Petrine office as one of service.

I think some people still think of the Church in royal, worldly terms that were present in Medieval times, for example.


Certainly not, but wasn’t that essentially the argument for their introduction?
“Sally can carry the cross and hold the book and light candles the same as Sammy, let’s make her an altar server!”


I’m saying it’s making a mountain out of molehill kind of thing.

Having girl altar servers is not going to lead to women priests, for example (and, after all, don’t these kinds of Catholics think it’s impossible considering infallibility?).

Female altar servers is not saying “Women and Men are the exact same.”


I sense passive liberalism here veiled under the guise of PC “Catholicism”


Okay, so then why is it discrimination?

I’d certainly hope not, but wouldn’t it make more sense to have the gender which can celebrate the Mass and can receive Holy Orders assist at the Mass itself? Certainly, this is what the Church thought for the past millennia.



I said there is evidence to the contrary; and perhaps "contrary is not the best choice of words.

As I noted in a post, my parish alone (one out of 17,200+/- nationwide) has had two women profess religious vows and both were altar servers.

The point is, serving can lead to vocations.

The problem is not with girls serving. It is with helicopter parents who are afraid to tell a 6th to 8th grade boy that serving is what they will do because it is serving Christ; it is not about who else serves with you.

And that is what I have heard about boys somewhere around 6th grade not wanting to serve. Last I checked, girls don’t have any more cooties than boys do - and likely fewer.

We seem to have about an equal number of boys and girls serving in our parish. 4 priests, 2 deacons and 2 sisters professed - I think those in the hierarchy who don’t want girls serving are missing significant information.

And believe me, I am well aware that these ideas have been stated elsewhere. I don’t agree with them, not nearly so much because of opinion as due to facts.


I’d certainly hope not, but wouldn’t it make more sense to have the gender which can celebrate the Mass and can receive Holy Orders assist at the Mass itself? Certainly, this is what the Church thought for the past millennia.

Why do you hope not?

They will never be, according to infallibility.

And if they are, then you will have just been wrong, and the Holy Spirit knew better.

Either way, I thought the Catholic was first confident in the Church guided by the Spirit to make these decisions?


Because then the Church would be in a state of manifest heresy.


Manifest heresy because of the same Church that declared women cannot become priests?

Confused. How can you say the Church is in manifest heresy when the heresy is based on said Church’s own definition?

I thought communion with Peter came first, not what I just so happen to think the Church ought to be. Isn’t the former what guarantees infallibility?


Not me, but rather what the Church herself in the past had said.
But, this is all based on a hypothetical which will never happen- both of us know the truth.


I guess it was more like “it’s unfair ti say that Sally can’t serve because she is a woman. after all, she was made in God’s image and likeness just like Sammy so there is no valid reason to discriminate against her”


Just wait till you get to Heaven. That’s the biggest Patriarchy of them all!


Just to be clear—you’re not implying God is actually male, right? As opposed to pure Being?


Do I think the church is sexist? In some areas yes.

Nothing to do with the priesthood, abortion or birth control.

Also, Catholicism is universal so we can’t just look at the States. There has been some stuff going on in India, for example.

Frankly, I’m just tired of Catholics going on and on about how women should not be altar servers, give out Communion, be readers etc. And their half baked reasons for it, really. I’m in Singapore, so altar servers = boys here. Sigh.

Also kind of tired at the weird sentiment that women or femininity is the ‘cherry on top of the cake’. I’m kind of tired with the whole feminine genius thing too. Nothing against JPII, he’s pretty great. Just a little annoyed with the people who take that and ‘teach it’.

Edit: perhaps sexism is too strong of a word. I don’t think there’s ‘hate’ overall, but a blind spot.


I’d rather have the view of women that the Church has over the view of women that Evangelicals or any other religion has.

At least with Catholic women, the Church acknowledges that not all women can be defined by being a wife and mother.

Evangelicals seem to be limited in their view of women as solely being wives and mothers.


I don’t know what Evangelicals you’re usually around, but that has not been my experience of them at all. My in-laws are Evangelicals and they’re far from that view; my mother-in-law is a veterinary dentist affiliated with a major dentistry school and teaches vet techs. Their Evangelical preacher, who is of a conservative Calvinist bent, never said anything along those lines during our premarital counseling.


The Evangelicals I met were of the view that women should not live on their own but live with their fathers until marriage. At that time, authority over the woman is transferred from father to husband. They view women as perpetual minors and must have an authority over them at all times. This means a father for the early part of life and a husband for the next part of life. When she gets widowed, her son will be her authority. If she doesn’t have a son, the nearest male relative will do.

I lived in Indiana and a lot of Evangelicals there were of this mindset.

Also any woman who is not married is viewed as being “in rebellion “ against the God given order of male authority.

They call this male authority as a “covering” which according to them safeguards a woman’s virtue. Any woman who is not “covered” with appropriate male authority is not considered respectable.

Also they point to Paul’s admonishment of young widows being required to marry but they have switched the word widows to women and so we end up with the admonition of young women being required to marry.

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