10 Reasons Why Men Shouldnt Be Ordained

[Semper Catholic]

If Jesus is a man (Which he is), it is outside the realm of reason and logic to have a woman act in Persona Christi. That's like me taking the lead role in Evita.

Yeah men have never played women in theatre. Truth is outside of saying "well that's just how it's always been" there isn't a whole lot to back up not ordaining women.

[Not The Philosopher]

My understanding is that the fundamental reason for an all-male clergy is that Christ elected only men to be Apostles. We can come up with various explanations for why He chose as He did, but the reason rests in that choice.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Not The Philosopher

[PhuturePriest]

Yeah men have never played women in theatre. Truth is outside of saying "well that's just how it's always been" there isn't a whole lot to back up not ordaining women.

 

This is far different than men bending gender roles in musicals. The reason there is a male-only clergy has nothing to do with tradition. You can disagree with a male-only clergy if you want, but there's no reason to choose to be ignorant about the reason why there are only men in the clergy.

[Anastasia13]

This is a bit of an aside, but is the reason why women can't be ordained solely an argument from authority?

 

What does this mean?

[Brother Adam]

What does this mean?

 

The poster is asking if the reason for not ordaining women is rooted in a logical fallacy (saying something is so for the sole reason that an authority figure said it was so). Women are not ordained to the priesthood because it is unreasonable to suggest that motherhood is the same thing as fatherhood, or that fatherhood is the same thing as motherhood. They are two roles that are equal in dignity, are complementary (we need both motherhood and fatherhood; both the feminine genius and masculinity), but are different in nature. The priesthood is an act of spiritual fatherhood. A girl cannot be a priest and I cannot be a religious sister. It is not reasonable to address Abbott John as "Mother" or Mother Teresa as "Father". Mother Teresa cannot carry out fatherhood any more than Abbott John can carry out motherhood. The difference between motherhood and fatherhood isn't a radical thought either. Everyone readily accepts the epidemic of fatherless homes and the damage it causes children. Women cannot replace men. And no matter how many cookies I give my 3 year old when mom is gone, I'm still not mom. So you can't "deny" something to someone that no one has a right to demand in the first place, and the priesthood is more than simply a leadership role but an act of fatherhood that represents Christ's will (women are welcomed throughout the church in roles of leadership, often supervising men). You also have to keep in mind that the Eucharist is an image of the nupital feast. John Paul II calls "the Eucharist the Sacrament of the Bridegroom and Bride for it makes present in a sacramental way the sacrifice of Christ the bridegroom - his body is given and his blood is poured out - and calls forth the Bride's response of love." Even here we see the differences between the masculine and the feminine in the central and supreme act of the priesthood (Ephesians 5:25). That is why JPII said that in reserving the priesthood to men "Christ wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is feminine and what is masculine." The "Bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom."

 

I highly recomend Sister Sara Bulter's The Catholic Priesthood and Women and John Paul II"s Mulieris Dignitatem.
 

[4588686]

*sigh* For protestants not having women ministers is quite sexist.  However, Catholics view things differently. 

 

But yet again we seem to be the mean gender-discriminating pigs.

 

 

Oh, well, it's not sexist if you 'view things differently.'

[KnightofChrist]

The poster is asking if the reason for not ordaining women is rooted in a logical fallacy (saying something is so for the sole reason that an authority figure said it was so). Women are not ordained to the priesthood because it is unreasonable to suggest that motherhood is the same thing as fatherhood, or that fatherhood is the same thing as motherhood. They are two roles that are equal in dignity, are complementary (we need both motherhood and fatherhood; both the feminine genius and masculinity), but are different in nature. The priesthood is an act of spiritual fatherhood. A girl cannot be a priest and I cannot be a religious sister. It is not reasonable to address Abbott John as "Mother" or Mother Teresa as "Father". Mother Teresa cannot carry out fatherhood any more than Abbott John can carry out motherhood. The difference between motherhood and fatherhood isn't a radical thought either. Everyone readily accepts the epidemic of fatherless homes and the damage it causes children. Women cannot replace men. And no matter how many cookies I give my 3 year old when mom is gone, I'm still not mom. So you can't "deny" something to someone that no one has a right to demand in the first place, and the priesthood is more than simply a leadership role but an act of fatherhood that represents Christ's will (women are welcomed throughout the church in roles of leadership, often supervising men). You also have to keep in mind that the Eucharist is an image of the nupital feast. John Paul II calls "the Eucharist the Sacrament of the Bridegroom and Bride for it makes present in a sacramental way the sacrifice of Christ the bridegroom - his body is given and his blood is poured out - and calls forth the Bride's response of love." Even here we see the differences between the masculine and the feminine in the central and supreme act of the priesthood (Ephesians 5:25). That is why JPII said that in reserving the priesthood to men "Christ wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is feminine and what is masculine." The "Bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom."

I highly recomend Sister Sara Bulter's The Catholic Priesthood and Women and John Paul II"s Mulieris Dignitatem.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

[Basilisa Marie]

This is a bit of an aside, but is the reason why women can't be ordained solely an argument from authority?

 

Not solely, but I find the strongest ones appeal to authority, whether it be the Church's Tradition or Christ choosing only men to be apostles, when he clearly could have chosen women to be apostles because there were plenty of women around and following him as disciples. Mary Magdalene seems to me to be the most natural candidate for being an apostle, but she's never made one. In acts we have plenty of women who are disciples, serving others, opening their homes for celebrations, etc, so it's not just an issue of women being "written out" of the texts, either. And in early church history there are plenty accounts of groups of "deaconesses" who were usually widows, who participated in all sorts of service, but there's no evidence that any of them were ordained, either. Men and women seemed to do different things, but both kinds of roles seemed to be quite valued by most of the Early Fathers. 

 

I find the arguments that priests are married to the Church and the Church is a she so women can't marry the Church to be less convincing, but they make sense to some people so that's cool. There's something to be said about the nature of fatherhood (physical or spiritual) being different than motherhood (again, physical or spiritual), and something about fatherhood is necessary for the priesthood. I haven't done a whole lot of research about what that "thing" is or read anything that really articulates the difference between spiritual motherhood and fatherhood clearly (at least from my perspective), so maybe that's something theologians will explore more fully in the future. So there's certainly theological reasons that exist, too, but it wasn't until fairly recently that people have been really raising the questions a lot, so people haven't spent quite as much time on it as other topics. I second Brother Adam's recommendation of Sister Sara Butler. 

 

But again, I find the clearest and most definitive arguments to be the ones that appeal to authority it some way. 

[KnightofChrist]

The appeal to authority while it may seem strong, it is rather weak and circular without a purpose or just cause of why the authority makes a command. There are always sound reasons why God commands one thing or another, and it is always more than simply because God says so. Stealing from someone, for example stealing the bread of a poor man or woman, is not wrong simply because God says "Thy shalt not steal" which without a reason is just an appeal to authority. He does not forbid stealing just because He says so, but because stealing from a poor and hungry man or woman harms the welfare and livelihood of that person. God did not simply forbid our first parents from eating the forbidden fruit because He said so. But because if they did they would introduce sin and death into the world. In like manner Christ instituted a male only priesthood for the reasons that Blessed John Paul II explains in Mulieris Dignitatem, (which is much better and goes much deeper in comparison than my prior explanation) and not simply because Christ said that is the way it will be done.

[CrossCuT]

Not solely, but I find the strongest ones appeal to authority, whether it be the Church's Tradition or Christ choosing only men to be apostles, when he clearly could have chosen women to be apostles because there were plenty of women around and following him as disciples. Mary Magdalene seems to me to be the most natural candidate for being an apostle, but she's never made one. In acts we have plenty of women who are disciples, serving others, opening their homes for celebrations, etc, so it's not just an issue of women being "written out" of the texts, either. And in early church history there are plenty accounts of groups of "deaconesses" who were usually widows, who participated in all sorts of service, but there's no evidence that any of them were ordained, either. Men and women seemed to do different things, but both kinds of roles seemed to be quite valued by most of the Early Fathers. 

 

I find the arguments that priests are married to the Church and the Church is a she so women can't marry the Church to be less convincing, but they make sense to some people so that's cool. There's something to be said about the nature of fatherhood (physical or spiritual) being different than motherhood (again, physical or spiritual), and something about fatherhood is necessary for the priesthood. I haven't done a whole lot of research about what that "thing" is or read anything that really articulates the difference between spiritual motherhood and fatherhood clearly (at least from my perspective), so maybe that's something theologians will explore more fully in the future. So there's certainly theological reasons that exist, too, but it wasn't until fairly recently that people have been really raising the questions a lot, so people haven't spent quite as much time on it as other topics. I second Brother Adam's recommendation of Sister Sara Butler. 

 

But again, I find the clearest and most definitive arguments to be the ones that appeal to authority it some way. 

 

Yeah thats the biggest thing people tend to cite in conversations I have had. Jesus didnt have female Apostles. He COULD have. Women were there! But he didnt for whatever reason.

[mortify ii]

I think the nimbus surrounding the church's position on ordination implies a fundamental difference between man and woman.

[Basilisa Marie]

I think the nimbus surrounding the church's position on ordination implies a fundamental difference between man and woman.

 

It really does, and there have been a few decent documents talking about it, but I see them more as a starting point than a conclusion. 

 

Also I think there needs to be more women doing serious theology of what it means to be a woman. I mean, if we take the differences between the sexes seriously, then we have to admit that there's (at least a very, very strong probability of) something that women can contribute to the conversation about what it means to be a woman and what spiritual motherhood looks like that men simply cannot bring to the table (and vice-versa). 

 

I really think that we won't have a strong and thorough theological answer to why women can't be priests until we have a more developed understanding of gender. Until then, I still think our strongest arguments about priesthood have to have something to do with someone's authority, whether it be Christ's (in that he chose men) or the Church's (we've always chosen men). 

[KnightofChrist]

I think the nimbus surrounding the church's position on ordination implies a fundamental difference between man and woman.

You're not reverting back to your poisonous anti-catholic Apteka personality, are you?

[ThereseMaria]

As far as I can tell, Catholic women don't seem to be offended by the fact that only men are ordained (I, for one, have NEVER heard a Catholic woman complain about it). And as for women who aren't Catholic... They're not Catholic. Therefore, they can go on living their lives without really being affected by it... If anyone can find an argument against this, please do tell me. I'm no apologist, but honestly... I think it makes perfect sense that men and women have different roles. And the practice of ordaining men (and not women) seems to have been around for approximately 2000 years. I'll let that number speak for itself. 2000 years.

[Basilisa Marie]

As far as I can tell, Catholic women don't seem to be offended by the fact that only men are ordained (I, for one, have NEVER heard a Catholic woman complain about it). And as for women who aren't Catholic... They're not Catholic. Therefore, they can go on living their lives without really being affected by it... If anyone can find an argument against this, please do tell me. I'm no apologist, but honestly... I think it makes perfect sense that men and women have different roles. And the practice of ordaining men (and not women) seems to have been around for approximately 2000 years. I'll let that number speak for itself. 2000 years.

 

I know some women who are Catholic and have problems with the male-only priesthood. Their issues seem to stem from the fact that they aren't satisfied with the Church's current theology of gender, in that it doesn't provide them with answers to all the questions they have. Some have issues with ecclesiology and understanding how the priest's role fits into the rest of the Church, but for the most part it seems to be a problem of gender differences.