There have been some on this forum in favor of women’s ordination. Here are some of their arguments:
Are men and women different? Sure. Vive la difference!
But as we all know, while there is differences between the sexes there are also difference within the sexes. And like everything else human, the variation within the populations is greater than the variation between them.
IIRC the Church simply stated that Christ didn’t ordain women and so we don’t have the authority to change that policy.
If you want, for sake of argument, to ignore that and have a hypothetical discussion then I really don’t see any viable reason why they shouldn’t be ordained…
[quote=Contarini]Historically, women were not ordained because they were considered inferior to men. Women were also not allowed to take positions of authority in the secular world, except in hereditary monarchies where birth counted for more than gender. The Church’s customary practice of only ordaining men cannot be automatically considered authoritative apart from these cultural assumptions.
The fact that all the Twelve were men and that early Christianity did not overturn the cultural assumptions about women does not prove that these cultural assumptions were correct or that the male-only priesthood has a basis independent of those assumptions. Rather, it shows that the matter is not as important as modern feminists believe it to be. Who is in authority in the Church is a secondary matter. The preservation of the Gospel is of primary importance, and the Gospel is not primarily about which groups have power. It’s far more important that whoever leads should learn to lead as a servant than that all classes of people should have an equal chance to lead. Slavery is a good example here. Christianity didn’t abolish slavery right away, but it established principles that ultimately led to that abolition. Similarly, Christianity ultimately led (in spite of itself, in a way) to the view that men and women are basically equal. And this has led to the collapse of traditional reasons for only ordaining men.
[font=Arial]If not ordaining women is against their dignity now, it has always been against their dignity. What this means is that Christ not ordaining women was a slap in the face from the Son of God.
If Christ acted in this way it would make him a pragmatist, that He would put the dignity of women aside in order to gain converts. This in light of the fact that Christ violated other cultural norms left and right.
If not ordaining women is wrong then Christ was the first violator. [/font]
[font=Arial]Very dangerous territory indeed.[/font]