Catholicism Poll II: Should the Catholic Church allow women to be Priests?

[Iconito]

After six decades of service with and among thousands of Catholics in various states, and after 5 decades of reading about the Church in the news, I can attest that not one person in my personal experience, nor one person mentioned in any of the thousands of news items about the Church which I have read, has ever said or been quoted as wanting to burn heretics!

How sweet! Let’s wait for the day when Muslims will say, proudly, “Hey! We stopped crashing planes into buildings and setting embassies on fire and stoning our women (etc...) DECADES ago!” 

[david johnson]

m forever:

why do you allege so much alleging?

dj

[M forever]

Because we don't have any really verified direct statements from Jesus at all. The best we have are some texts from people who didn't know him, written in a language which wasn't his, several decades after his presumed presence on earth, selected and edited by people a long time after he bit the dust. Still, if we leave that aside for a moment and just take these texts more or less literally, the major religious organization(s) which claim(s) it/they is/are his exclusive representation on earth is/are very often in direct and glaring contradiction to their core messages.

[Lilas Pastia]

The same holds true for Socrates. And yet, his alleged discourses have had more impact on philosophy than any other person's. Another total fabrication?

[david johnson]

Because we don't have any really verified direct statements from Jesus at all. The best we have are some texts from people who didn't know him, written in a language which wasn't his, several decades after his presumed presence on earth, selected and edited by people a long time after he bit the dust. Still, if we leave that aside for a moment and just take these texts more or less literally, the major religious organization(s) which claim(s) it/they is/are his exclusive representation on earth is/are very often in direct and glaring contradiction to their core messages.

you know of a church that disagrees with such core messages as Jesus' sermon on the mount and what Jesus called the great commandment?  what churches are they?  i would like to read up on them.

some of the nt is in aramaic, Jesus' native language.  most of it is in greek though.

dj

[Shrunk]

The same holds true for Socrates. And yet, his alleged discourses have had more impact on philosophy than any other person's. Another total fabrication?

The difference is that the ideas attributed to Socrates, whether accurately or not, are judged on their own merit.  The same can be said for some of Jesus' teachings.  However, the ideological basis of Christianity is not what Jesus said, but who he was.  And what Christians believe him to have been is something that cannot be supported by evidence, but instead is a matter of faith.

you know of a church that disagrees with such core messages as Jesus' sermon on the mount and what Jesus called the great commandment?  what churches are they?  i would like to read up on them.

As I said above, those teachings are not the defining principles of Christianity.  I doubt you would find any decent, reasonably moral person, regardless of their religious persuasion, who would disagree with those messages (whether or not they actually abide by them).

[Xenophanes]

No mojo for casting the transubstantiation spell


Why Can't Women Be Priests?

By Jason Evert




1. Why doesn't the Church allow women to be priests? I know plenty of women who could give a more moving homily and be more understanding in the confessional.


There aren't many issues within apologetics that require as much sensitivity as this one. In a culture where opening the door for a woman can be seen as an act of misogyny, it's no surprise that male-only ordination strikes some as sexist on the Church's behalf.

It can't be denied that there are women who could be more moving orators than some priests and provide more consolation within the confessional. But the debate over ordination is not over who could be a better priest but over who could be a priest at all.

So, if a woman's abilities are not in question, what's keeping the Church from ordaining her? For one, it should be noted that Jesus did not ordain any women. He selected all of his apostles, and none were women.

Some say that he was bound by the cultural norms of his era to suppress the roles of women, but no one has been able to prove that this was his motive. Furthermore, this accuses Jesus of sexism and it paints an inaccurate portrait of Christ, who had no qualms about shattering the cultural norms regarding interaction with women (Matt. 9:20; Luke 7:37; John 4:27). The idea of priestesses was not unknown to him, since it was a common practice in religions of his time and culture, though not Judaism. (If Jesus had wanted women as priestesses, he would have had the ideal candidate in Mary. Here was a woman who could have spoken the words of consecration literally: "This is my body. This is my blood.")

There were other roles that Christ had in mind for women. For example, they played a key role in the spread of the Gospel, being the first to spread the news of the risen Christ. They were also allowed to pray and prophecy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), but they were not to assume the function of teaching in the Christian assembly (1Cor. 14:34–38; 1 Tim. 2:1–14), which was restricted to the clergy.

Two thousand years later, no one—including the pope—has the authority to change the designs of the Church that Christ instituted. Specifically, the Church is unable to change the substance of a sacrament. For example, a person cannot be baptized in wine, nor may a substance other than bread be used for the consecration at Mass. If invalid matter is used, then the sacrament does not take place. Likewise, since the priest acts in the person of Christ, the Church has no authority to confer the sacrament on those who are unable to represent the male Jesus Christ.


2. Wouldn't ordaining women take care of the vocations crisis?


If the Church allowed the ordination of women, there could very well be more ordinations that take place. However, these wouldn't aid the Church because the ordinations wouldn't be valid. So, invalid ordinations are not the solution to the "vocations crisis" that we hear so much about.

But is there a crisis at all? In so many words, the Vatican has declared that the vocations crisis is over. Figures from the Church's Statistic Yearbook for 1997 were given in a June 4, 2000 Zenit News Agency report, which stated, "In 1978 there were 63,882 seminarians; at present there are 108,517, an increase of 69.87 percent. The increase in Africa and Asia, in fact, is incredible. Over the last twenty years, these two continents have seen an increase of 238.50 percent and 124.01 percent, respectively." Over the past twenty years, vocations have increased in every continent around the globe. In America, the number of seminarians has increased from 22,011 to 35,000 in the last two decades.


3. Didn't Paul say that there is neither Jew nor Greek, servant nor free, male nor female, since we are all in Christ? So why should our gender matter to God? We should all have equal rights.


Whenever a verse is paraphrased to defend a particular position, take the time to find that passage and read it in context. When Paul wrote about there being neither male nor female in Christ (Gal. 3:28), he is discussing our justification through faith, not our roles in the Church. Even in 1 Corinthians 12, when Paul speaks about there being Jews, Greeks, slaves, and free being baptized into the one body of Christ, he mentions that within this one body, there are different parts:

"There are varieties of service, but the same Lord . . . All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. . . . If the foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body. . . . If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. . . . Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles . . . Are all apostles?" (1 Cor. 12:5–29).

So, while Paul acknowledges the universality of God's plan for salvation, he's clear that there are different roles within the body of Christ. Men and woman are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness. They play different roles within the Church, as there are different instruments within an orchestra. Just as the instruments are arranged for a symphony, God has "arranged the organs of the body" (1 Cor. 12:18), and we are not to reconstruct the design that he has established.

Since God is the one who has appointed the different roles within the Church, no one can claim a right to any position within the body of Christ. This is especially the case with sacraments. No one—male or female—has a "right" to be a priest. It is not like a governmental office that anyone can run for. It is a sacrament, and no one has a title to grace. It is an unmerited gift from Christ.

This may strike some as unfair, but realize that God has given women other gifts that he has not given to men. For example, women bring the body of Christ (souls) into the world one birth at a time. Men do not have this privilege. Priests bring the body of Christ (Eucharist) into the world one Mass at a time—a gift reserved to them, acting in the person of Christ.


4. Didn't the early Christians ordain women?


If you walk into any secular (and perhaps even Catholic) bookstore, you'll inevitably run across any number of books that claim to have unearthed ancient evidence in favor of the Catholic Church ordaining women to the priesthood. The average Catholic might not know where to begin when refuting these texts, but a review of what the Church Fathers said on the matter is a good place to start (see http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_wpriest.htm ).

Some early Christian women belonged to orders of virgins, widows, and deaconesses, which are all forerunners of modern nuns. However, none of these orders were ordained to the priesthood. Since there were sects in the first centuries, especially within Gnosticism, that allowed women to become priestesses, the Church Fathers too the question under consideration but rejected the idea as incompatible with the faith.


5. But isn't it possible that the Church could come around on this issue?


Certain aspects of the sacraments may change over time, such as the language of the liturgy or the manner in which penance is received. However, male-only ordination is something that has never changed, nor can it ever be changed. The Church's attitude may appear archaic, but it is one of fidelity to a universal tradition in both the East and the West, extending throughout the history of the Church.

In 1994, Pope John Paul II declared, "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 which 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).

One year after this was written, the Church 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. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)" (Response of Oct. 25, 1995). For more on this, see http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/inter.htm and http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/w-ordination.htm

Cardinal Ratzinger wasn't Pope in 1995, and certainly doesn't qualify as "the Church."

There is no record of Jesus ordaining anybody.  So any arguments assuming He did are invalid.

Paul referred to himself as an apostle. Rm: 11:13.  Luke called Paul an apostle, too. Acts 14:4.  Paul never met Jesus in the flesh.

Paul refers to Junia as an apostle, too. Rm: 16:7.

For many centuries, Mary was often referred to as a priestess. Here's site with lots of information. 

http://www.womenpriests.org/mrpriest/mpr_ovr.asp

I would have thought that the Church should long ago given up on deciding historical questions by dogmatic fiat. One would think Pascal's Provincial Letters should have done that much.

[M forever]

The same holds true for Socrates. And yet, his alleged discourses have had more impact on philosophy than any other person's. Another total fabrication?

Maybe. Maybe not. Could be though. But that doesn't matter, because what matters about him is purely the discourses, not the cultic worship of his person (or is there a religion which worships him as a god?). So even if his discourses are just edited together from somebody else's or several other people's, it doesn't change anything about the content of the discourses. Which are preserved in his own language, BTW, but if they are his own words, we don't know either. But as far as I know no one said that Socrates could walk on water and that he has to be worshipped as the one and only true savior of mankind, so his identity is just a question of some historical interest, nothing else.

The same can be said for the texts of the NT, of course. They are obviously edited together from various sources and may or may not have much to do with the historical person Jesus, if there was such a man. That they come from various sources and that they are second and third generation paraphrases at best and that they may even be collections of ideas and saying that have just been put into Jesus' mouth by later authors to fit their own needs may not change much about the value of the messages either. But there is a big difference between an ancient collection of texts which may be interesting for their philosophical or spiritual or other value *as texts* and making them the basis for the idol worshipping of the person who allegedly said these things.

The difference is that the ideas attributed to Socrates, whether accurately or not, are judged on their own merit.  The same can be said for some of Jesus' teachings.  However, the ideological basis of Christianity is not what Jesus said, but who he was.  And what Christians believe him to have been is something that cannot be supported by evidence, but instead is a matter of faith.

Or rather, indoctrination. Random indoctrination, I might add because if the same people who were indoctrinated to be Christians had been born somewhere else in the world or in a different socio-religious context, they would probably be fervent followers of whatever other religion is the rage there.

As I said above, those teachings are not the defining principles of Christianity.  I doubt you would find any decent, reasonably moral person, regardless of their religious persuasion, who would disagree with those messages (whether or not they actually abide by them).

How about the Catholic and manuy other churches. They amass incredible riches while many people, including many of their own followers, are direly poor. They put down women and have a system built on military hierarchies going on in their own organization, all that in the name of a man who preached that everybody should be loved and respected equally?

Oh, OK, I see - you said any decent, reasonably moral person, that exludes these hyprocritic pseudo-moral apostles by definition. My bad.

[bwv 1080]

Cardinal Ratzinger wasn't Pope in 1995, and certainly doesn't qualify as "the Church."

There is no record of Jesus ordaining anybody.  So any arguments assuming He did are invalid.

Paul referred to himself as an apostle. Rm: 11:13.  Luke called Paul an apostle, too. Acts 14:4.  Paul never met Jesus in the flesh.

Paul refers to Junia as an apostle, too. Rm: 16:7.

For many centuries, Mary was often referred to as a priestess. Here's site with lots of information. 

http://www.womenpriests.org/mrpriest/mpr_ovr.asp

I would have thought that the Church should long ago given up on deciding historical questions by dogmatic fiat. One would think Pascal's Provincial Letters should have done that much.

Do you not understand that in Catholicism a) Tradition is as authoritative as scripture and b) the Pope has the ability to infallibly rule on matters of doctrine for the whole church?  That is what Catholicism is.

[M forever]

Do you not understand that in Catholicism a) Tradition is as authoritative as scripture and b) the Pope has the ability to infallibly rule on matters of doctrine for the whole church?  That is what Catholicism is.

You are right. And that is why I call it just a primitive pagan idol worshipping cult. It is certainly not what it claims to be.

[Lilas Pastia]

Do you not understand that in Catholicism a) Tradition is as authoritative as scripture and b) the Pope has the ability to infallibly rule on matters of doctrine for the whole church?  That is what Catholicism is.

This is too simplistic, therefore not true. Reducing a very complex set of elements to one or two features and then making them a definition of the whole subject (That is what Catholicism is")  is basically wrong both in intent and as a result. Papal infallibility is a very recent dogma (1870). Tradition predates it by almost two millenia. For a fair understanding of the matter, I suggest the wiki article on papal infallibility.

Nothing is certain, sure or definitive in religious matters (which in a sense is contradictory to the nature of the subject). That's why there is unending debate. Using slam-bang arguments (from any side) is fruitless.

[Xenophanes]

Do you not understand that in Catholicism a) Tradition is as authoritative as scripture and b) the Pope has the ability to infallibly rule on matters of doctrine for the whole church?  That is what Catholicism is.

IOW, you simply refuse to argue the matter and appeal to an alleged authority.

But on some matters, the Popes have clearly gone against long standing traditions, as the case of Mary Priestess shows.

As well, there either were or were not women presiding over liturgical celebrations in the early Church.  That's a matter for historical study. Such things cannot be decided by papal infallibility.  All we have is a Pope who went against his own commission and put forward his own opinion.

Moreover, the arguments put forward make no sense.  As a consumer of the Eucharist, the gender of the mass celebrant makes no difference to me. So much for the symbolism argument:  Are women part of the body of Christ or not?

[Shrunk]

IOW, you simply refuse to argue the matter and appeal to an alleged authority....

I think you should check the batteries in your irony detector.

[M forever]

My recollection is weak here, but doesn't even Paul list women among the leaders of some of the Christian communities he mentions?

[bwv 1080]

IOW, you simply refuse to argue the matter and appeal to an alleged authority.

But on some matters, the Popes have clearly gone against long standing traditions, as the case of Mary Priestess shows.

As well, there either were or were not women presiding over liturgical celebrations in the early Church.  That's a matter for historical study. Such things cannot be decided by papal infallibility.  All we have is a Pope who went against his own commission and put forward his own opinion.

Moreover, the arguments put forward make no sense.  As a consumer of the Eucharist, the gender of the mass celebrant makes no difference to me. So much for the symbolism argument:  Are women part of the body of Christ or not?

I am not arguing for anything, simply stating the basic foundations of Catholic doctrine.  The Church believes the Holy Spirit has protected it from doctrinal error.  The Church has ruled (as the article states) that the ordination of Women is not something it has the power to do.  To change its position now would be to admit to doctrinal error therefore it cannot ordain women.  The Church has also stated (infallibly in its view) that a male priest is necessary for a valid consecration.   There is no historical evidence that could conceivably come to light to change the Church's position, as any historical data is always subject to interpetation.  I am not Catholic and am not arguing that the Church is neccessarily right in any of these views but simply that the Church will no more ordain women than declare Jesus to be just another incarnation of Vishnu.

[Xenophanes]

I am not arguing for anything, simply stating the basic foundations of Catholic doctrine.  The Church believes the Holy Spirit has protected it from doctrinal error.  The Church has ruled (as the article states) that the ordination of Women is not something it has the power to do.  To change its position now would be to admit to doctrinal error therefore it cannot ordain women.  The Church has also stated (infallibly in its view) that a male priest is necessary for a valid consecration.   There is no historical evidence that could conceivably come to light to change the Church's position, as any historical data is always subject to interpetation.  I am not Catholic and am not arguing that the Church is neccessarily right in any of these views but simply that the Church will no more ordain women than declare Jesus to be just another incarnation of Vishnu.

I just love it when non-Catholics try to explain the Catholic Church to Catholics.  Perhaps some can do it.  You are not one of them.

[bwv 1080]

I just love it when non-Catholics try to explain the Catholic Church to Catholics.  Perhaps some can do it.  You are not one of them.

Perhaps you should actually read your catechism then.

[M forever]

I just love it when non-Catholics try to explain the Catholic Church to Catholics.  Perhaps some can do it.  You are not one of them.

You once again confirmed that the Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to do with the "divine", but that it is a very primitively earthly organization in which rules and who is a member and who is not and who reports to who and all that are more important than any "spiritual" matters.

[Brian]

I just love it when non-Catholics try to explain the Catholic Church to Catholics.  Perhaps some can do it.  You are not one of them.

What exactly was wrong with his explanation?

[Cato]

How sweet! Let's wait for the day when Muslims will say, proudly, "Hey! We stopped crashing planes into buildings and setting embassies on fire and stoning our women (etc...) DECADES ago!" 

That's the hope!   0:) 

Islam needs a Council of Trent or a Martin Luther of some sort.

Brian: The only "infallible" ex cathedra statement from a pope has come in 1950 concerning the Virgin Mary.  That is what is wrong with the previous explanation.

The Church could allow a married clergy, and it could allow female ordination.  Most probably it will not, especially the latter, because of the tradition: but it has nothing to do with suddenly changing any infallible proclamation.

See my earlier link to possible female priests and even bishops in the early Church.