All-male Priesthood

[CephaDrigan]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305053784' post='2239719']
Because women can be intelligent, compasionate, loving, trustworthy, honest, selfless, honerable... The list goes on, I'm not sure which attribute is important to the priesthood that a woman is by design, lacking in.
[/quote]

All of the attributes that make good priests also make good fathers--hence calling priests "Father..." But not all of the traits that make good fathers make good mothers, because men tend to be wired differently than women. That does not, however, in any way imply that women are unnecessary to the family, and so it does not mean that women are unnecessary to the Church either. After all, the Blessed Mother is the single most honored non-divine human in the Catholic faith, and she was a woman.

[BigJon16]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305054986' post='2239731']
I would still have to say that I don't know the reason why Jesus would not have appointed a female and although it looks fishy I am unconvinced that there is a reason.
[/quote]


Before Jesus died, He did appoint a female, just not in the way that you might think.

In the Gospel of John, Chapter 19, verse 26: "When Jesus saw his mother, and the desciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, [color="#FF0000"]"Woman, behold your son."[/color] Then He said to the desciple, [color="#FF0000"]"Behold, your mother."[/color]

Jesus is "appointing" Mary as the mother of Christians. This is very symbolic, in that Mary, as the mother of the church, and who is "Blessed among women", has a role of support; to be a reprisentative of those seeking salvation. Nuns have a very important role in the Church, but it is a different one than that of Priests. Priests do the works of the Desciples of Jesus. Nuns take the role that the women in scripture had taken. They [i]support[/i] the Priests, and they act as reprisentatives of those seeking salvation. I find that when it comes to looking for spiritual advice, Nuns give advice that is just as good, if not better than that of preists sometimes.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305053784' post='2239719']The "presumptuous" bit is merely an emotional social tool to detract people in their desire to know why. Fine that you directed it to yourself but it does imply that you would think it presumptious of anyone to feel that they should know why or even ask.
[/quote]
No, I don't think so. I consider myself a pretty curious and skeptical person by nature. Do I believe it's possible to know at least some of the "what" and "how" of God? Yes. But I think it is beyond our limited intellect to know the "why" (or at the very least, He has chosen not to reveal it to us). There are some things that I can accept not knowing, at least not right now.

[Guest Phil Steinacker]

I have, I believe, stumbled onto defining the struggle [i]stevil[/i] and others have with understanding and accepting the all-male priesthood, among other aspects about the Catholic faith non-believers find troublesome.

Most of us would agree that just about all dissenters from the all-male priesthood base their argument on a notion of equal rights. Therefore, difficulties arise from go because of that decision to view the elements of the issue through a political lens. You can see this not only in the in the positions advanced but also the concepts invoked and the language utilized to expressthem. We see it whenever tentative believers or total non-believers cite Biblical examples and demonstrated they are biblically and theologically illiterate about the material they so poorly interpret. No insult is intended to [i]stevil[/i], but he made open reference to a lack of Biblical knowledge and so he might be surprised to know most of us had already detected this prior to admission.

To grasp the theological underpinnings of the all-male priesthood one must completely discard any examination of the issue in a political framework. This is akin to applying principles of building construction to micro-biological research. One who insists on doing this will always fail to understand what many of us can see without difficulty and can readily accept. This is not to claim that everyone conversant in the Bible or theology will agree with us, but the starting point of discussion with such folks presumes a common understanding of biblical and theological terms and concepts.

I say this because I find too many holes in [i]stevil[/i]'s visceral arguments I find them too demand too much work to answer because to do so entail an effort to bring him out of his frame of reference. I haven't had much success with that so I leave such things to the Holy Spirit. I make these comments only to clarify to other Catholcs what I think the problem really is.

[MithLuin]

I agree that there's a frame of reference issue that has to be addressed.

I find that in discussing medieval history, moderns inevitably bring a modern world view to the table, and thus ask what would be absurd questions to an actual medieval. This is mostly forgivable, since there really aren't too many medieval people running around to correct them . But it does reveal...a 'beginner' mentality. One of the misconceptions my professor dealt with was the underlying assumption that the powers-that-be 'knew better' than the commoner, and were just putting forward ideas to trick/control them.

For more grievous misinterpretations of medieval thought and society, see films such as 'A Knight's Tale.'

Attributing modern knowledge to a person of the twelfth century isn't something people mean to do...we just forget what they knew and didn't know back then. So, understanding their actual motivations and decisions can take more effort than we realize. Eventually, you have to accept that they did actually believe what they were saying a lot of the time. Their view of life and history is just rather different from ours, though it can be pretty neat to see through new eyes sometimes. A couple of examples: the Pax Romana happened because God was preparing the world for the birth of Jesus. And the Black Plague struck Europe because the pope was in Avignon, rather than in Rome where he belonged. A modern person would not see these events as cause-effect at all.

Catholics agree that women should not be mistreated or degraded, and that women (and all people) have a certain dignity that should be respected. An all-male priesthood does not conflict with this view.

Edited May 10, 2011 by MithLuin

[CatherineM]

Absolutely. Someone tries to degrade me, and they will find themselves counting their teeth.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Phil Steinacker' timestamp='1305067836' post='2239834']
I have, I believe, stumbled onto defining the struggle [i]stevil[/i] and others have with understanding and accepting the all-male priesthood, among other aspects about the Catholic faith non-believers find troublesome.

Most of us would agree that just about all dissenters from the all-male priesthood base their argument on a notion of equal rights. Therefore, difficulties arise from go because of that decision to view the elements of the issue through a political lens. You can see this not only in the in the positions advanced but also the concepts invoked and the language utilized to expressthem. We see it whenever tentative believers or total non-believers cite Biblical examples and demonstrated they are biblically and theologically illiterate about the material they so poorly interpret. No insult is intended to [i]stevil[/i], but he made open reference to a lack of Biblical knowledge and so he might be surprised to know most of us had already detected this prior to admission.

To grasp the theological underpinnings of the all-male priesthood one must completely discard any examination of the issue in a political framework. This is akin to applying principles of building construction to micro-biological research. One who insists on doing this will always fail to understand what many of us can see without difficulty and can readily accept. This is not to claim that everyone conversant in the Bible or theology will agree with us, but the starting point of discussion with such folks presumes a common understanding of biblical and theological terms and concepts.

I say this because I find too many holes in [i]stevil[/i]'s visceral arguments I find them too demand too much work to answer because to do so entail an effort to bring him out of his frame of reference. I haven't had much success with that so I leave such things to the Holy Spirit. I make these comments only to clarify to other Catholcs what I think the problem really is.
[/quote]

I agree.

(Sorry I was absent for a few days on the other forum, [i]stevil[/i]. This weekend had me working over-time and gave me a bit of a cold. This point quoted above is why I began our discussion at HAF with the condition that we need to look at it from within the tradition/thought of Catholicism first. Phil does a better job explaining why, with the 'political' vs 'theological' lenses. For Catholics it's not a political question, but a theological one.)

[LadyOfSorrows]

I would assume as well, that the tradition of the all-male priesthood would descend from the rabbinical tradition in Judaism (Jesus WAS Jewish) of having all-male Rabbis. This tradition continues today, with some exceptions in the reform synagogues.

[havok579257]

asking why women can't be priests is like asking why did God not make men able to bear children. if you think the church is unfair in that only men can be priests, then you must think God unfair because he did not make men able to bear children.

God made man and women with different roles in life. that's the way life is. really simple.

[stevil]

Oh my, so much to respond to. My "I don't agree with that" radar is going off the chart . I'm trying to pick out the posts that I really want to respond to or either seem to represent the sentiment of a lot of forum members.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305055614' post='2239736']
But the nicest, most kind, loving, decent, and trustworthy man can never be a mother, ever. No matter how much he wants to, he cannot, becuase it is simply notthe role of a man to be a mother, as such he is not capable of being one.

Why is it so shocking that Men might have a role within the Church unique to them?
[/quote]
Hmmm, depends on your definition of a mother. My wife and I are currently looking after our two young children, one is almost 2 and a half and the other is almost a half.
I didn't carry them to term and I didn't push them out of a hole in my body but I am doing all I can to raise them. I can't breast feed, not that I have tried, but I'm pretty sure my nipples are next to useless. But I do hand feed them from a bottle, I change their diapers, I bath them and read to them and do pretty much any other activity that old fossils may think are traditional mother activities.

The disagreeable part is that I feel that other then the rule, based on tradition or a perception that god didn't want females ordained, I see no physical or mental limitation of a woman doing this role. I have a strong desire to treat people as equals and that to me means equal opportunity and equal rights. I struggle to accept (for what ever reason) when constraints are put onto people in this way.

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1305055823' post='2239738']
It is not gender discrimination in the fact that we as Catholic women do not feel oppressed.

A major trait of the Church is that it is the established relationship between God and his people and it serves as a model for what our lives in unity with God will be like in the afterlife.

For instance, the sacrament of Holy Matrimony symbolizes the relationship between God and his Church- the man representing Jesus and the woman representing the Church. In a similar way, nuns and religious sisters become so much a part of the Church that they have Jesus as their spouse, and men as priests become so much a part of Jesus' apostolic ministry that their spouse and purpose is to serve the Church.
[/quote]
Regardless if the people being discriminated against are OK with it and do not feel oppressed, to me that does not remove the injustice of gender discrimination. It would be interesting if the rule were removed how long it would take for a woman to become a priest and how long it would take for women to start aspiring for the priesthood. But of course we can't know. This is only hypothetical.

Yes, the church is a model for its followers. I am not sure how this model manifests itself outside the church, are Catholic men more likely to be master of the house?

You'll probably laugh at me for mentioning this, but from what you say, it seems that the church presents a lot of symbolic ideas. they then take this symbolism and live their lives by it. Is this why priests don't marry? because they consider themselves married to the church? And nuns because they consider themselves married to god?

[quote name='HopefulBride' timestamp='1305056253' post='2239741']
True but as the church is a bride, the church needs a [b]bridegroom[/b] which Christ represented and in his absence, the priests, bishops and the pope fill that role. [b]Women cannot[/b]
[/quote]
More symbolism, simply a semantic play on words that Catholics then choose to live their lives by.

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305059851' post='2239784']
I may not have perceived authority in the church, but I'm often asked my opinion about things by priests. They don't do that because they find me unintelligent.
[/quote]
You have great potential . Maybe you don't aspire to be in the priesthood, but potentially your qualities could be best utilised from that position, many people will miss out on what you have to offer.
[quote name='Selah' timestamp='1305061819' post='2239794']
I never really understood, why it was such a big deal for some people in the first place. Certain people, men and women, have roles. So, there ya go. It's not a slight, it's just, everyone has a role to fill, and some only a man can do and some only a woman can do.
[/quote]
I like to remove the constraints from people and then see what can be achieved. Without choice, how can a person engage the gift of their free will?

[quote name='CephaDrigan' timestamp='1305065276' post='2239821']
All of the attributes that make good priests also make good fathers--hence calling priests "Father..." But not all of the traits that make good fathers make good mothers, because men tend to be wired differently than women.
[/quote]
Are you able to pinpoint and articulate what those attributes would be? It seems to me that the door has been shut on women regardless. If it were true that there were a set of necessary attributes then you wouldn't need the rule. You could simply choose the people that presented the best example of those attributes.
[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1305066262' post='2239829']
No, I don't think so. I consider myself a pretty curious and skeptical person by nature. Do I believe it's possible to know at least some of the "what" and "how" of God? Yes. But I think it is beyond our limited intellect to know the "why" (or at the very least, He has chosen not to reveal it to us). There are some things that I can accept not knowing, at least not right now.
[/quote]
As an Atheist I wholeheartedly agree that it is OK not to know the answers. I totally respect your position that you don't know why god does not want women in the priesthood. My point is that I don't think it is presumptuous to want answers or to search for answers. I feel it becomes presumptuous when a person stops looking for the answers because they think they know it all already.

[quote name='Phil Steinacker' timestamp='1305067836' post='2239834']
I have, I believe, stumbled onto defining the struggle [i]stevil[/i] and others have with understanding and accepting the all-male priesthood, among other aspects about the Catholic faith non-believers find troublesome.

Most of us would agree that just about all dissenters from the all-male priesthood base their argument on a notion of equal rights. Therefore, difficulties arise from go because of that decision to view the elements of the issue through a political lens.
[/quote]
Gotta love that word "dissenter". I am not against the Church, I am not looking for reasons to attack or second guess the church. In fact I am looking for reasons to respect the Catholic people's stance. As an outsider with a personal agreement towards a humanistic equality standpoint, I am struggling to understand a seemingly gender discriminant Catholic stance. I am learning much from this conversation, it seems that most of you are for equality where possible but feel women in preisthood goes against god's will based on the observations that the Catholic church have made, due to scripture and tradition.

I have no political agenda. I am simply trying to make sense of the Catholic stance which clashes with my personal values.
[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1305070866' post='2239856']
Sorry I was absent for a few days on the other forum, [i]stevil[/i]. This weekend had me working over-time and gave me a bit of a cold.

This point quoted above is why I began our discussion at HAF with the condition that we need to look at it from within the tradition/thought of Catholicism first.
[/quote]
I was worried that I had scared you off. I can be a bit blunt at times, certainly not as tactful as I would like to be. I feel you have a great tactful quality about you hence I was looking forward to conversing with you to gain more exposure to this quality of yours, I was hoping to learn by osmosis from you.

I really appreciate you taking the time to educate me with regards to the Catholic tradition perspective, I was previously unaware of this.
[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305081771' post='2239903']
asking why women can't be priests is like asking why did God not make men able to bear children. if you think the church is unfair in that only men can be priests, then you must think God unfair because he did not make men able to bear children.

God made man and women with different roles in life. that's the way life is. really simple.
[/quote]
Is this the analogy that gets taught in Catholic schools?
I don't agree with it because of two reasons:
1. There is an important and obvious physical reason why men can't give birth. No ovaries, no eggs, no womb, no vagina. What is the important physical reason why a woman can't be in the priesthood?
2. I don't have a belief in god. I don't believe that any intelligent decision was implored with regards to the physical design of a man and woman. Some creatures are a-sexual (producing offspring without a partner), some are hermaphrodites (snails - able to get pregnant and make another partner pregnant), some are sexual (female and male pairs). humans just happen to be sexual.
What ever cards life has dealt, it would be good to know that people can choose to make the most of their lives without the extra constraints that societies decide to throw at them. Don't get me wrong, of course society needs some rules. But if a man is allowed to do certain things then why do we need rules to prevent a woman doing those same things?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305046311' post='2239670']
I can make this whole women preist thing very simple... Christ did not make any women Apostles, the Apostles did not choos to make any women to successor Apostles, nordid they make women Priest. The arguement that women could not have been such in that society is ridiculous, Deborah was ner athousandyears beforeChrist, and there were prophetesess. Anna lived in the Temple itself.
[/quote]
To add to this, priestesses were quite common throughout the Roman world, and were very respected.

[Amppax]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305109392' post='2240008']
Is this the analogy that gets taught in Catholic schools?
I don't agree with it because of two reasons:
1. There is an important and obvious physical reason why men can't give birth. No ovaries, no eggs, no womb, no vagina. What is the important physical reason why a woman can't be in the priesthood?
2. I don't have a belief in god. I don't believe that any intelligent decision was implored with regards to the physical design of a man and woman. Some creatures are a-sexual (producing offspring without a partner), some are hermaphrodites (snails - able to get pregnant and make another partner pregnant), some are sexual (female and male pairs). humans just happen to be sexual.
What ever cards life has dealt, it would be good to know that people can choose to make the most of their lives without the extra constraints that societies decide to throw at them. Don't get me wrong, of course society needs some rules. But if a man is allowed to do certain things then why do we need rules to prevent a woman doing those same things?
[/quote]

I think another thing to keep in mind is that there are more then just physical differences between men and women. Men and women are also psychologically very different. Also, I think that we have different ways of seeing equality. Women and men are equal, but different. I don't think that there is anything inherently sexist in having different roles and different jobs. Ultimately, the goal of all Catholics (all Christians too) is to get to heaven. Your job in this life is to get to heaven in the next. As long as those roles serve that purpose (which by the number of female saints I think we're doing a pretty good job of that), there is no reason why there can't be different roles.

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305109392' post='2240008']
Is this the analogy that gets taught in Catholic schools?
I don't agree with it because of two reasons:
1. There is an important and obvious physical reason why men can't give birth. No ovaries, no eggs, no womb, no vagina. What is the important physical reason why a woman can't be in the priesthood?
2. I don't have a belief in god. I don't believe that any intelligent decision was implored with regards to the physical design of a man and woman. Some creatures are a-sexual (producing offspring without a partner), some are hermaphrodites (snails - able to get pregnant and make another partner pregnant), some are sexual (female and male pairs). humans just happen to be sexual.
What ever cards life has dealt, it would be good to know that people can choose to make the most of their lives without the extra constraints that societies decide to throw at them. Don't get me wrong, of course society needs some rules. But if a man is allowed to do certain things then why do we need rules to prevent a woman doing those same things?
[/quote]


if you don't believe in God, then your sticker should not say agnostic.

your mind is so set in the liberal philosophy that unless women get to do everything that men get to do, then they are be persecuted and it is unjust. this is simply not the case. this has not been the case for thousands of years. only in today's society is it considered equality if women can do everything a man can do.

to be a catholic, you know that Jesus formed this church. what he put into place can NOT be changed. don't like it, then your free to go somewhere else. Jesus put in place only men as his apostles. none of the apostles appointed women. that was set in stone at the beginnning of the church. God willed it and who are we to think that we know better than God? if Jesus had wanted women as apostles he would have made them. as someone else said, Jesus broke so many social taboo's in his time. its assanine to think he was all for breaking all social taboo's except for one. Jesus didn't care what the Roman's in charge, what the Jews in charge or what anyone else thought. he cared about doing God's will. he was not worried about anyone else's opinion of his actions. if he was, he wouldn't have done a fraction of what he did. had Jesus wanted women as apostles he would have made then since there were quite a few good women who followed him and his apostles.

since your all about equality, are you going to start a new thread talking about how the church is unfair to men since the church does not allow MEN to be nun's? unless you are in up in arms about men not being able to be nun's, then you really don't care about the equality you talk about.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305109392' post='2240008']
Hmmm, depends on your definition of a mother. My wife and I are currently looking after our two young children, one is almost 2 and a half and the other is almost a half.
I didn't carry them to term and I didn't push them out of a hole in my body but I am doing all I can to raise them. I can't breast feed, not that I have tried, but I'm pretty sure my nipples are next to useless. But I do hand feed them from a bottle, I change their diapers, I bath them and read to them and do pretty much any other activity that old fossils may think are traditional mother activities.
[/quote]
What you're describing, though, is parenting, but not mothering, if that makes sense. Your hormones will never alert you to when a child wants to eat before they even ask, for example. Oh, and male lactation actually is possible, though of course it isn't a response to pregnancy and birth as with women. In some cultures, the fathers will comfort the child by allowing him to use the father's nipple as a dummy. I guess my point is that being a mother isn't necessarily defined by what we do, but is how we're made. A man cannot carry a child in a womb, cannot give birth, will not experience the same hormone rush at birth and various hormonal responses afterwards. Our definitions of traditional activities for mothers & fathers changes over time and from culture to culture, but the biological facts of motherhood remain the same. I'd argue that the priesthood is also related to those biological facts, and is not solely about the tasks a priest performs.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Hmmm, depends on your definition of a mother. My wife and I are currently looking after our two young children, one is almost 2 and a half and the other is almost a half.
I didn't carry them to term and I didn't push them out of a hole in my body but I am doing all I can to raise them. I can't breast feed, not that I have tried, but I'm pretty sure my nipples are next to useless. But I do hand feed them from a bottle, I change their diapers, I bath them and read to them and do pretty much any other activity that old fossils may think are traditional mother activities.[/quote]
But none of that is beng a mother, it is parenting, and one can do it even if not biologically related at all. That, however, is quite differant to mothering.
[quote]
part is that I feel that other then the rule, based on tradition or a perception that god didn't want females ordained, I see no physical or mental limitation of a woman doing this role. I have a strong desire to treat people as equals and that to me means equal opportunity and equal rights. I struggle to accept (for what ever reason) when constraints are put onto people in this way. Regardless if the people being discriminated against are OK with it and do not feel oppressed, to me that does not remove the injustice of gender discrimination. It would be interesting if the rule were removed how long it would take for a woman to become a priest and how long it would take for women to start aspiring for the priesthood. But of course we can't know. This is only hypothetical.[/quote]

I see this basic issue a lot. Let me say this plainly, men and women are not equal, equality [i]requires [/i] sameness, 2 apples can be equal but an apple and an orange cannot be, not ever. They can be equal in attributes or traits, they could for example be equal in weight, as men and women are equal in human dignity, but they can never truely be equal.
What you object to is based on a belief than women and men are equally capable of doing the same jobs and having the same roles in society, and that too is false. Men and women are not equally suited to all roles. We as a society have decided that women and men are supposed to be given the oppertunity to preform jobs that our gender, as a whole, is not as suited, based on our individual suitability, that is fine. But it does not change the fact that on average women are less suited for combat than men, or that women have better fine motor skills than men.

[quote]
I like to remove the constraints from people and then see what can be achieved. Without choice, how can a person engage the gift of their free will?[/quote]

I find it funny that people tend to use this arguement about somethings and not the other, our free will is constrained all the time. When I get mad at someone I often want to beat the bejesus out of them, but I don't ( at least not just becuase I am mad, that isn't a claim I have never, or would never fight). Some desires and actions are immoral, others are inappropriate. Free will allows one to do things that are wrong as well as right, many constraints are their to prevent people choosing to do wrong.


[quote]Is this the analogy that gets taught in Catholic schools?
I don't agree with it because of two reasons:
1. There is an important and obvious physical reason why men can't give birth. No ovaries, no eggs, no womb, no vagina. What is the important physical reason why a woman can't be in the priesthood?
2. I don't have a belief in god. I don't believe that any intelligent decision was implored with regards to the physical design of a man and woman. Some creatures are a-sexual (producing offspring without a partner), some are hermaphrodites (snails - able to get pregnant and make another partner pregnant), some are sexual (female and male pairs). humans just happen to be sexual.
What ever cards life has dealt, it would be good to know that people can choose to make the most of their lives without the extra constraints that societies decide to throw at them. Don't get me wrong, of course society needs some rules. But if a man is allowed to do certain things then why do we need rules to prevent a woman doing those same things?[/quote]


Yes it is an issue of biology. Jesus Christ had a penis, we know this becuase he was taken to the temple at 8 days old and had his foreskin removed.

TO be in Persona Christi one must have the same equipment at Christ.

Similarly all of those chosen by Jesus to have this role had penises despite very close relationships with women. All of those he chose, chose others, all of these also had penises, this is despite the fact that women were seen as having spiritual gifts, including some rather dramatic ones, such as prophesy.

You object because you see preisthood as a job, like being a teacher, but it is not, becoming a priest is a sacramental event, not an occupational selection.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Don John of Austria