MEN ONLY: Should women be ordained?


#1

The poll which banned men from thids topic excluded 49% of the population! it was men who made the decision to ban women, and it only men who could reverse it in the future. So ladies, please step back while the males have their say.

The poll confrimed my suspicions that it is women themselves who oppose the ordination of women. Which woman would go to Confession to another woman and reveal her faults to her, or take advice from her? Now let me get my tin hat on!


#2

[quote=maklavan]The poll which banned men from thids topic excluded 49% of the population! it was men who made the decision to ban women, and it only men who could reverse it in the future. So ladies, please step back while the males have their say.

The poll confrimed my suspicions that it is women themselves who oppose the ordination of women. Which woman would go to Confession to another woman and reveal her faults to her, or take advice from her? Now let me get my tin hat on!
[/quote]

I apologize if I am mistaken, but this post seems incredibly sexist and demeaning to women (I am a man). The second paragraph seems to accuse women of some sort of stubborn pride which would prevent them from seeking council from other women. This is an offensive generalization. It may be true of some women, but by no means is true of the entire gender. Some women, and some men, would not wish to confess their faults to or take advice from anybody of either sex.

Once more offering conditional apologies, I must say that it is this type of attitude which has led to so many calls for the ordination of women. For one, this post states the completely untrue and mistaken idea that men originally forbode women to be ordained. This very same incorrect understanding has led people to think that it is simply a matter of choice for the Church, and that they are in fact patriarchal, chauvanistic, or otherwise anti-women in their decisions. This is simply not true. As JPII pointed out several times, it was nor is the decision of men. Rather, it is a requirement ordained by God Himself (who despite the usage of the masculine pronoun has in fact no gender). This is the reason women may not be ordained, there is no other.

This post only serves to propogate the continuance of this fallacious claim. The truth is that men alone are to be ordained by God, for various theological reasons, which it is not the purpose of this text to explain (you may easily find the data elsewhere on this forum or on the internet).

While the idea of the women only pole may have been based on a faulty understanding (such the idea that male only vs. female ordination is or should be a democratic consensus), this post is no more appropriate or accurate.


#3

I answered no, but whether it “works” or not isn’t the issue.


#4

Your whole premise starts off wrong. “Men” didn’t declare that women couldn’t be ordained, the Church did. Big difference. The Church has spoken and, not being a democracy, that’s the end of it.


#5

Where’s the “No, but I also feel that the opening post was insensitive, sexist, and factually incorrect” option?

Eamon


#6

I am over 50 and I voted yes. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible under the Vatican I rules of infallibility, and I wouldn’t be all that surprised to see female deacons in my lifetime.

John


#7

I am 17 and I don’t think it would work at all. Even if it did work, I don’t think we have the athority to do such a thing like that. Christ ordained men, no women, and I wouldn’t do something Jesus wouldn’t do.


#8

[quote=alterserver_07]Christ ordained men, no women, and I wouldn’t do something Jesus wouldn’t do.
[/quote]

Christ didn’t speak English or drive a car either, as far as we know.

John


#9

[quote=John Higgins]Christ didn’t speak English or drive a car either, as far as we know.

John
[/quote]

Come on, what is that suppost to be.


#10

NOOOOOOO !

I have nothing against women. My wife’s a woman, my daughter will be some day, but it’s impossible. I cut & pasted this reply of mine from another thread, to my knowledge, this explains it or I should say is one of the main reasons why there’s a male only Priesthood.

The symbolism of marriage between God and his people goes back to the Old Testament. God seems to want union and thats how we get new life. In the New Testament also there alot of symbolism between Christ as bridegroom and his Church as bride, Paul states it in Ephesians Chapter 5:

31(BM)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.
32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

This is just one example. The Priest (male) performs his function Persona Christi, In the person of Christ, offering up sacrifice as Christ did for his Church (female). This is how we get new life - The Eucharist which of course is the real body and blood of Christ. You have to have a union as in a marriage, of male and female to have new life. A female to female union (woman Priest offering up sacrifice to the female Church) **CANNOT **produce new life. It’s impossible. At the point a woman Priest tries to consecrate the Eucharist, it has to then be a symbol. Thats why the Church states it has no power to ordain woman priests, it has as much to do with nature as anything. It’s very apparent that the Protestant Churches that have a female clergy are on the decline.

This offends the sensibilities of many 21st century liberal Catholics who’s criteron for anything is sharing power or what is considered ‘fair’ by secular standards.

It wasn’t fair that only the Levites could be clergy in the Old Testament of the twelve tribes so it’s not the first time God’s ways haven’t been our ways in this regard.



#11

Hey Ambrose

I like you post. Very interesting. I wouldn’t have seen it that curious way :slight_smile:

God Bless


#12

[quote=John Higgins]I am over 50 and I voted yes. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible under the Vatican I rules of infallibility, and I wouldn’t be all that surprised to see female deacons in my lifetime.
[/quote]

Wrong!!!

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis has been infallibly defined. Here is a section from Women and the Priesthood (This Rock: November 2003):

In 1994, Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “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 that pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 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” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

In 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).

PF


#13

[quote=Lumen Gentium]Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.
[/quote]

The reference to Lumen Gentium 25:2 is flawed. For infallibility to be claimed under this proviso, all the bishops must agree. They must agree with the teaching AND they must agree that it is to be held “definitively and absolutely.” That’s simply not so.

OS is an authoritative teaching of the Church. That is without question. It’s simply not infallible.

Further, from the Code of Canon Law:

** Can 749 §3** No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

John


#14

[quote=alterserver_07]Come on, what is that suppost to be.
[/quote]

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25, NIV

He did not do these things and have them recorded. That was my point.

John


#15

I always thought this was interesting:

[quote=1 Cor 14:33ish-35]As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.
[/quote]

Alan


#16

I didn’t vote. Didn’t like any of the options presented.

This is a highly charged issue.

There are human (psychological issues and motivational issues) and ecclesiastical issues that could be discussed.

In addition, some denominations do have female priests or ministers and a discussion of some of the experiences of those denominations would be useful. The priesthood is not for those who are on a “power-trip”. [There are a lot of people who enjoy “being the boss”, giving orders.] It is for those who are willing to sacrifice their lives to gain the maximum number of souls for God. It is a 24/7 totally pre-occupying vocation - not just a job. I guess one “practical” test question would be: would you be willing to be a priest if the Bishop said that your life-time assignment would be in a monastery, saying daily Mass alone and in solitary prayer constantly for the rest of your life. OR if your assignment would be to a foreign mission where ALL of the previous priests had died of horrible disease within a couple of months of their arrivals.

There is a psychology of women (and men). Each gender has unique aspects. There are some similarities, but also substantial differences. Some advocates deny there are any substantial differences.

The traditional decision of the Church to allow men only to be ordained was a wise one.


#17

It is a non-issue

there is no scriptual, patristic, councilar, or papal presedent to support this, and the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has explained that what the church has always taught is to be defined as infallibly taught.

Of course there are those who will claim that the definition of infallibility is itself not infallible.


#18

It’s funny that people seem to think such a radical physical difference between men and women would not be packaged with a matching complimentary set of differences in the areas of mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and sexual (self-identity) components? :ehh:

Even staunch evolutionists must admit there are good reasons the brain would develop differently in these other areas given the roles of women as the ones who carry and deliver and nurse babies. :hmmm:

Many times they don’t, though. :whacky:

Guess that shows what authority I have over them. :stuck_out_tongue:

Alan


#19

I’ve tentatively adopted the concept of “sovereignty” as my definition of infallibility.

I can say the pope is infallible in that he has final say over the Church, period.

That, I can take or leave but organizationally it is undeniable.

Whether God protects any human from uttering a false word on certain topics, I usually let others who care more than I do argue those things because it matters not to me in how well I serve the Lord, His Church, or feed His people. I don’t require the Church to be infallible to love, honor, and serve her.

Sometimes I argue on either side of it, because I tend to argue more against reasoning I think is dumb than in favor of whether they reach the right conclusion. Therefore, I may agree with someone but still think their reasoning is dumb and having stated it may damage our side of the argument rather than boost it, but then I really need to quit getting so worked up about things. :wink:

Alan


#20

My option was not there, I say no. Period, end of story.


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.