Why women can't be priests


I was speaking for a female Baptist pastor on this topic. I explained that it’s not out of predjudice, and that the reason is because the priest must act in the person of Christ, who is the bridegroom (male), while the Church is the bride (female).

Did I leave anything important out as to the REASON?

She responded by saying that bride/bridegroom is just an analogy, and there is no gender, so it shouldn’t matter. How would you respond to that?


Christ Jesus being male is of no small significance - see these two articles:




Here’s a few links to give you some good info on the subject:

Catholic Answers’ Women and the Priesthood tract: catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Catholics United for the Faith’s Faith Fact: Why Not Women Priests?: cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=139

That should be a good starting point at least. Hope it helps!


It is also important to note that, unlike the Baptist Church, the Catholic Church relies on Sacred Tradition in addition to Sacred Scripture. While there is a tradition of female deacons, there is none of female priests.


I am going to try to answer the question on women’s ordination, but first I am going to give this link: peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

After you have read my answer listen to the audio recording there, because it will introduce some points that go far beyond what I have said and will address what I have said in a way that is probably easier to understand.

When it comes to this issue, the first thing that has to be looked at is the idea of masculinity and feminity. Now in our modern minds, we tend to think of masculinity as being a word used to describe things that are like men, or that share qualities of men, and femininity is a word used to describe things that are like women or that share qualities of women. The problem is that that is the complete opposite of how things really work. Masculinity is simply quality of being, one that is abstract and not based on tangible things. In other words, things aren’t called masculine because masculinity is like men: men are called masculine because they are like masculinity.

In its most fundamental aspect, the quality of masculinity is the quality of transcendance, while in its most fundamental aspect, femininity is the quality of immanence. To be transcendant from a thing is to be beyond and seperate from a thing. To be immanent is to be within and in some way united with a thing. That is why the gender of a species which creates the offspring and then steps back is called the male. The father of a child plays his part in the conception, then he steps back and is seperate and beyond the child. Throughout human history the father has also played in many ways a more transcendent role after birth in that he has been the one beyond the child, the one in a different world, out working and setting rules and so forth. The gender of the species which are immanent with the child are called female. They are feminine. The child is with them for nine months, living inside the mother. The child then feeds directly from the mothers breasts, and throughout human history the mother has been the primary caregiver, the one involved in raising the child. We see this in our language, too. We call ships “she” and “her” instead of “him” and “he” because we are immanent with them - we ride inside them.

Now God is called “He,” He is the “Father,” because He is masculine. He is transcendant - beyond the world, seperate from it. This hits at the very reason we have male priests. We have male priests because the priests are standing in the place of God. The action of sacrificing Christ belongs only and exclusively to Christ Himself - to God. Priests are merely standing in for Him as that sacrifice is offered. Priests have to be male because they have to be masculine because they are standing in for God who is masculine. The act of sacrifice to God is a transcendant act because God Himself is transcendant. By its nature, any act that attempts to offer something to a transcendant God must be itself transcendant, because that act must “leave” the world, it must transcend the world, and go to God who is outside of the world. A transcendant act is by its nature masculine, because transcendance is the funamental quality of masculinity. By definition, feminity is immanent, not transcendant.

This is why, for instance, when you had the ancient pagan religions that worshipped idols, they had priestesses. An idol was a statue that was not believed to represent a god, but to literally be a god. An idol was a god that was literally in the world. Any act of sacrifice to an idol would be immanent, because it would stay in the world. The god was right there - there was nothing to transcend. God, however, is outside of the world, so to reach to Him is to transcend the world. That is why, as Dr. Kreeft says, having priestesses is not a matter of deciding how we should worship in our religion - it is literally and actually a completely different religion. The differences between priests and priestesses is the difference between a God who is not in the world, who is beyond it, above it - who created it, and having a God who is in the world - who is part of the world, and by nature of being in the world cannot have created it, or else He would have created Himself, which obviously makes no sense.

If we believe that God created the world, then by definition, by nature, inevitably, we must have masculine priests. We must have priests that sacrifice transcendently, that the sacrifice may transcend our world and reach to God who is outside of and beyond the world - who created it. If we have priestesses, then we have immanent sacrifices which by definition, by nature, inevitably remain in the world, and therefore what we sacrifice to must be in the world, and cannot have created it.

That’s why we don’t have female priests.


Definitely doubletalk. Forces women to think of themselves as only at a biological level- and who benefits from this? No one. A human created paradigm that rationalizes the “masculine” concept of God. since when don’t women “transcend” biology.? It’s 1984 all over again. BTW, “men” are no longer necessary for procreation. Which they had very little role in, to begin with. nothing Jesus said or did was masculine in the stereotypical sense of the word.


BTW, women are most definitely separate from the world all they wish to be. What a leap of logic from seeing woman as capable of gestating a child - and everything else they can do just as well as men- to equating that with God being a male. You flunk logic, methinks, as well as psychology ( your argument has elements of psychotic thinking). Women gestate children, so they are never “separate” from the world? Nine months equals not imaging God? Get real? Or give up your rationalization of your esteemed male status. Funny how those historically in power get to define who God is, and to make pronouncements about who/what women are. Jesus Christ didn’t make any such pronouncements. And furthermore, the more you admit it, looks more like a male body with the best of female behaviors. maybe he was trying to
tell you gyrs something. YOU"re OBSOLETE!


I recently attended a lecture by Sr. Sarah Butler (a member of the Pontifical Theological Council) on this topic.

Her basic point was, since Jesus chose only men to found the priesthood (the original twelve Apostles) the Church is not free to alter this.

God Bless.


The Catholic Church lacks the authority to change Jesus’ teachings.


An article that discusses this in First Things is firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=472 Ordaining Women: Two Views written by two ordained Lutheran ministers. One remained a Lutheran minister and used support for her ordination based mainly on Genisis CH 1-2. The other, had given up her ministry and joined the Church. Her theology came from the New Testament.


Trus-since the Church and Jesus are one in the Same its not a problem , however.


So your points are:

There is no need for men &
Jesus was a Homosexual

One of the more bizzare posts I have ever run across


Christ is the Head of the Body. There is submission to His will.


I have to agree that was loaded with a sense of anti-male rage.


No, I just meant that abstractions like “immanence-transcendance” sound like doublespeak.


And the contention men aren’t needed for pro-creation relates to this becuase…?


This is one of those topics on which tempers seem to flair.

I think folks go through all kinds of effort to come up with justifications that proponents of female priests will accept, and frankly they end up saying things that are bit of a stretch and ultimately put forth week arguments.

Frankly I think its mostly a waste of time.

Pope JPII wrote defiitively on the subject. If his exhortation continues to be rejected, why woukd we think folks would accept any other arguments?

Its not the way they want it so it must be wrong.

No philosophical or logical appeals are going to change that.

Its a matter of accepting Church authority. Its a matter of faith.

You either accept Church teaching or you don’t. Once You’ve decided that the Church can and does teach error, its pretty much pointless discussing any particular doctrine: as can be evidenced by the diversity of sincerely believed theologies put forth by the various Protestant denominations.



So true. Good post. Rome has spoken. Case Closed! As for me I will not debate it.


When women notice that men are less than perfect, they are usually accused of having “anti-male rage”. Yeah, massuh.

You can imitate the recorded history of Jesus appointing male apostles ( term invented later), so the Church imitates that behavior, so you can take that as your authority. But who has the authority to exclude non-males, Jesus never delivered a statement about that. Having the authority to include males does not equal the authority to exclude non males.

Your interpretation of my posts as saying Jesus-homosexual? no, I just noted that he had a male body but his actions and behaviors were not stereotypically masculine- rather his emphasis on cooperation, esteem of women, non violence, turning the other cheek, collegiality, are not sterotypically masculine. We don’t have any written record of his sexual inclinations. We can see that he did not favor HIERARCHY, and dominance over others, a stereotypically masculine pursuit. Or the amassing of goods to be rich and control the lives of others. I don’t see a Masculine message in the Gospel at all.

I think that the lesser importance of males in procreation has been created by technology and is a fact, like it or not. And the leave the woman at home and go out into the world pattern of males was part of the pattern of having females economically dependent on males. So don’t get too broken up about being called less necessary, see how emotional guys get. A taste of your own medicine , as females were seen as " lesser" for eons. Guess they were feeling what you’re feeling now. Anyway, isn’t being “lesser” a good thing, the least of us…


Jesus had the authority to exclude women from the priesthood, and he did. Jesus was clearly not sexist, the Blessed Mother, and Mary Magdalene, among others, were clearly very important disciples. Yet he did not make them priests. He chose only men to be priests.

If any women was going to be a priest, wouldn’t it be the Blessed Mother?

Jesus didn’t ordain women, so the Church can’t. It’s that simple.

God Bless

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.