Question for those who think women should be ordained.

Not sure if this is the correct area to place this question, but here goes.

I am not wanting to start an argument but am just curious about this. For those who think women should be ordained as priests what is the reasoning behind this thought? Why do you think women should be priests? Is it just for equality? something more?

OK, I’ll bite. I wholeheartedly support women’s ordination. This is partly because I grew up with it, so it’s what seems normal to me. Also because in Christ there is no male or female. Now go ahead and rip me up, traditional Catholic people. :slight_smile:

No its just for stupidity. If men can do it so can we. They want the Church to conform to the current culture. Its not in the Church’s power to grant, its also Biblically incorrect.
They can take it up with the Lord, if they meet Him. or if He meets them first. Who do they think they are. They should spend more time praying, and maybe give the nuns a go. Put there service to use in the Convent and to the whole Church in obedience.

I might add that I have no desire to tell Catholic people what to do WRT this issue.

My question to you is, given the significant number of devout women Christ had in his life (his mother first and foremost), why do you think He chose not to ordain any of them to the priesthood? Jesus obviously didn’t adhere to social norms, so that explanation is out; so why wouldn’t he have done so had he thought it important or appropriate?

Thanks for your reply. i have no intention of ripping anyone up for what they think. i just know it is a hot topic with Catholics and am just wondering why and what is the proposed benefit of ordained female priests.

Part of a priest’s job is to be a counselor. There’s more to it than that, of course. But a woman, whether single or married, or a married man would bring a valuable perspective to that role. That’s one thing. There’s also the scripture, I don’t know the book, chapter and verse, that we are each called to be a new creation in Christ, and that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. That’s how Episcopalians see it, AFAIK.

I don’t know. There’s a lot I don’t know. I also don’t know why Jesus didn’t ordain non-Jews. There were plenty of them around. If you would want to limit the priesthood to men of Jewish ancestry, maybe you’d have a case for that, too.

Haha I don’t want to rip you up. Though I am traditional, I just don’t like the idea of women being ordained. Like you (though slightly different) I grew up with there being no women priests and having it like that now is normal to me. What I find interesting is that Christ was a man and the apostles were men.

I do not believe you will find a statement from Christ that women are not fit for ordination -the Apostles were the product of their times where women did not rank too highly

I have heard the arguement “well the 12 Apostles were men” -yes they were but what about Mary Magndalene and those daughters of Philip-Mary Magdalene did not abandon Christ on the Cross as did at least 10 of the Apostles

The Blessed Virgin was fully human and female and I believe that She ranks higher than the Apostles in Roman Catholic teaching

so it is fine for a woman to be the Mother of God-but she can not be a Priest-you will admit that in the early Church there were female Deacons-

With all of that said female ordination in my denomination, the Episcopal CHurch, has not been without problems-along with it came views on human sexuality that ripped apart our Church and continues to do so

The Catholic Church would be wise not to ordain women but just openly say it is our tradition and not to attempt to justify it

I actually don’t think there’s anywhere that the ancestry of all the apostles is outlined. That aside, I’d agree that it’s a safe assumption that they were all Jewish. As for why Christ drew his apostles from the Jews, it is because his ministry was first and foremost to the Jews. Since they were the closest to the scriptures, they would be the most likely to understand the signs her performed, and recognize that he is the Messiah. His ministry, was not limited to men, however, which further reinforces the fact that he only selected men to minister as priests.

A few observations and comments:

Why did Jesus chose only Jews as members of the Twelve? Does this mean that only Jews can be ordained.
I would say no, because salvation came first to the Jews. It would only make sense that these proto-ordinands are Jews. Later, as salvation is expanded to the gentiles, men of other races are ordained. As we know, Jesus wasn’t at all afraid to break social norms, the conversation with the Samaritan Woman at the well is proof of this.

Additionally, you say that Mary was the greatest human, which is true. And yes, she ranks above priests, married persons, bishops, nuns, consecrated virgins, single persons, electricians, chefs, the pope, and the saints. You’re equating “greatness” with ordination, which is wrong.
Being faithful cleric is no more great than being a faithful married person, or a faithful religious sister. No vocation is superior to the other: they are all necessary for the Church to operate.
This falls into the trap that many supporters of women’s ordination fall into, the idea that ordination = superiority. This is not true. If anyone (not just clerics) supports this idea, they’re falling to clericalism.

Full disclosure: I am not a member of the Catholic Church, but am investigating the possibility. From my understanding, women are not allowed to be clergy in large part because Jesus picked 12 MEN as disciples. Other than that, there are, from my understanding, very few references in the Bible to support that stand. Although I can’t - and won’t - speak for Jesus, back then women were not taken all that seriously in some matters and perhaps Jesus understood this. Mostly, I believe, it’s tradition which as I understand it, is quite a force in the church. Several Popes have also issued, in an attempt I believe, to stop the bickering, statements regarding this which places it in the area of “Infallible Doctrine”. But that’s like saying “Do this because I say so”, which may not be the best answer. Tradition may have it’s place, but does that justify Popes in the middle ages who were in effect tyrants? How many still believe that each Pope is in effect the DIRECT successor to St. Peter - no unbroken - or perfect - chain? (See the last sentence) Does tradition justify covering up of sexual abuses? Although there are certain absolute truths, forbidding women priest might not be one of them. But abandoning this would create one big mess, wouldn’t it? Sounds like Episcopalianism. Tradition may be good in some ways but not in all. Folks may say that the Catholic church should not adapt to “modern” ways, but is that the BEST answer? In the end, I believe, actual scriptural justification banning female clergy is tenuous at best. As I said in the beginning, I am not a member of the RC Church and maybe my “liberal” Presbyterian (many other denominations admit women clergy) roots are showing. But since you did ask…

This is not correct.
and,
The OP is posing this question to those who think women should be ordained, not those who think it’s “stupid”.

.

When people start a sentence with “No offence but” or “I don’t want to insult anyone” or “I am not wanting to start an argument”

…it usually means that is exactly what they want. :popcorn:

It isn’t even a remote possibility. Pope John Paul II clearly stated that the Church has no power to ordain women, Pope Francis has also reiterated this.

Whether or not some people think the Church should ordain women is irrelevant, the Church CANNOT ordain women. The Church cannot do something that it has not been granted the power and authority to do so.

There is also the issue of the rite of ordination. In order to accommodate the ordination of women the rite would have to be altered. This would then invalidate the rite.

The issue of women’s ordination has arisen as a result of the false view that the role of a priest is simply a job, from the false view that the Church doesn’t ordain women because the Church has decided not to ordain women and could change its mind, and from a false sense of ‘equality’ resulting from militant feminism.

If the Church decided to ‘change the rules’ and ordain women, then regardless of what anyone, thought these women would never actually be priests, would never be able to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist or Confession, as they would have been falsely ordained.

Arguments about the benefits, or otherwise, of having women priests are irrelevant. The Church does not have, and never will have, the power to ordain women.

Hi Brendan 64:

In a previous post earlier today, I advocated for the ordination of women - or at least gave my understanding of why denying them ordination was on somewhat shaky ground, but expressly stated I am not a member of the church, just investigating. Let me play devil’s advocate with you. If the church DID want to ordain women, HOW would that authority be obtained? Direct revelation from Christ thru Pope Francis? And IF that happened and the church made it clear that it would be so, WHY would the women “never actually be priests”? Wouldn’t a “proclamation” from the Pope be sufficient? Kind of reminds me of back a few decades ago when blacks were not allowed in the LDS (Mormon) priesthood. The church’s president stated he had a “revelation” that that doctrine should be reversed. No one (publicly) refuted that. If your argument - and a widely held one I’m not disputing that - is that the RC Church does not have the authority to ordain women, IF it could be done, HOW could it be done? Trying to learn!!

Hi again;

A followup. It may sound like I’m expressing a view as to why I LEFT the RC Church; an anti-apologist of sorts. Just the opposite, I’m trying to explore why I SHOULD look more seriously into becoming a member. Just showing my “liberal” Presbyterian beliefs, I guess.

Since when are people’s feelings and thoughts “irrelevant”?
They may not change anything, but their feelings and thoughts are still valid and important. If I were in charge of a business or a church or a religion and I cared about the people in it, I’d want to know how my congregation was feeling and what they were thinking and what they were not happy about. Wouldn’t you?

.

I agree that women should be ordained.

I think Jesus meant for it to be so.
I think the biblical canon is probably lacking many books and stories that would have shown more female involvement and leadership, but these were not included in the official canon centuries later for various reasons.
Take the fragment that was found recently, quoting Jesus talking about Mary M, telling the other male disciplines she is “worthy” of the job.
In the catacombs in Rome, several paintings on the walls show women as priests wearing albs and as deacons.
Many NT scholars agree that in early Christianity in the first few centuries, women took leadership roles and gave out the Eucharist at home with their families.
But as the heirarchy and structure of the church was established, they were left behind. Perhaps it was Paul’s infamous words in his letter decades later about women not talking in church that snuffed them out.

And if Jesus did only choose men for apostles that one day, it may have been for other reasons.
Maybe he was worried for the women’s safety, that men would not accept listening to a woman (Paul!!!) and would stone them. He may have thought the road was too difficult for them. Or that it would be hard for them to be pregnant and preach at the same time. Or maybe on the day he chose the Apostles, there were no women nearby. The point is, he didn’t say why …so it could have been anything. And if it was the reasons above, these obstacles no longer exist…and no where, no time, did he say it was only to be men, and forever.

As many have pointed out, Jesus exalted women higher than most did in that day. After Jesus died, Mary Magdalene did go off and preach for the rest of her life. She was, in essence, a priest/preacher. Who knows what he would have done had he lived longer.

Why didn’t he make Mary his mother an Apostle? Well, maybe she didn’t want to be one, we don’t know. In that one scene in Mark 3 , she has many of Jesus’ brothers around her to take care of. She was needed at home. Also in that scene, he and Mary seem a bit at odds…

People have argued that the priest needs to be male because he is representing or embodying Jesus. Well, why would the sex parts be important here? There is nothing physical or sexual that a priest does in his duties that are gender-specific. It’s not as though the priest must impregnate a woman or anything. It is the soul and spirit that is important here.

I assume the women were present at that last Passover meal and partook of the bread and wine. I think all four gospels say he went for the meal with his “disciples” not apostles…and that includes women. Passover dinner is a very important ritual…Jesus was very Jewish…it’s not like he’s going to send the women out into the night on Passover.
When he gives out the bread and wine, the bible says it was to his disciples…not his apostles, even tho just the 12 Apostles are mentioned in other moments to differentiate just them.

Matthew 26:26–
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

The two Marys–his mother and Magdalena, were with him from start to finish–at birth and at death–as women often do. Mary Magdalena even helped to fund his ministry. They did not run when Jesus was to be crucified, as the other male disciples did. They never denied him or betrayed him.
Surely, these two strong, wise, unflinching women in his life have earned their stripes enough for all women.

.

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.