Why not women priests?

Joe1919

When I was in Maynooth there were many women studying theology. Many were very sound and really would in many cases possibly make much better priests than some of the guys. (IMO)

Indeed, they would probably also make better bishops than some.
So anyhow, why not let women into the church as priests etc.
I think it might do good.

Onesimus

Here Catholic apologists on CAF answer such questions so its worth a read.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=429969&highlight=Women+Priests

Sure women Like St.Catherine of Siena can become great Doctors of the Church but as the above link and answers stress... they cannot be ordained priests.

Another good book to buy is Christopher wests commentary and explanation of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

I'm sure there are a lot of hard pressed emotional people out there who think they should be, so I'm prepared for this thread to explode, but no argument can ever change the truth, so I'll leave it at this.

Joe1919

Could a comprimise be reached. For example, there are women who are beyond child bearing age who may be interested in becoming priests.

Now, it may be understandable, in the past, when many people did not live too long beyond childbearing and the risks and responsibilities of childbearing, as to why women were possibly excluded.
However, people are living longer and many women (e.g. mature women) would make excellent priests.

Hence, I can see no reason as to why the church cant change their mind (as they did with limbo, latin mass etc) and allow at least some women into the priesthood.

Its also obvious that this rule has little to do with sexuality, as its apparent that the church were tolerable to all kinds of deviants in the priesthood in the past.

Fanny Cradock

Joe1919 wrote: »

Could a comprimise be reached.

Yeah, they call it the CoI.

smurfhousing

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, they call it the CoI.

Lol.

If the people who advocated women priests actually knew how much it's not going to happen, then they would not be advocating for women priests. There is more chance of me morphing into a giant caterpillar than there is of the Catholic Church ordaining women as priests. It's just not possible.

The only possibility I would foresee, would be for a group of rebel bishops to leave the Catholic Church and start 'ordaining' women. These women would not be priests, and it would be a very sad situation for everyone concerned. That's about as much as women priest campaigners can hope for. And what they are really hoping for, is the ripping to shreds, yet again, of the Body of Christ and the loss of souls. Of course the true faith will remain, the Deposit of faith will be kept safe and so on, but the prayer of Our Lord will be scuppered yet again: That they may all be one.

Closed ac

Too many dishes to be done.

smcgiff

There are many reasons. The question is whether any are defendable.

smurfhousing

It is interesting to note that all the Christian groups which have women 'clerics' have also embraced homosexuality. They lose the meaning of human sexuality and embrace sin. Hence we see lesbian bishops. Is this really were we want to go? I think not.

You also will find that of those who promote women 'priests', most, if not all, also have a problem with the Catholic Church moral teaching on sexuality. Go figure.

me_right_one

Joe1919 wrote: »

Could a comprimise be reached.

Yeah, nuns

smurfhousing

This article sets out the position of the Church clearly:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0001.html

It explains the imagery of male/female, Christ and the Church as Bridegroom and Bride, and hence, with the Catholic Church's clear nuptial theology which means there can never be women priests, and why, as I said above, there is a clear connection between the desire for women priests and the desire for the condoning of homosexuality. The two go together in every case, and abortion and contraception also feature. Hence, the Church cannot budge on homosexuality nor women priests. To do so would be to go against 2000 years of Sacred Tradition and flip everything upside down and mean that the gates of hell had indeed prevailed against the Church. Hence those who are involved in the women priests movement are actually engaged in a spiritually very dangerous game, which is destined to be futile in its objectives but will result in casualties in terms of lost souls. Hence why Pope John Paul II essentially said 'Drop it' in 1994. Are we listening?

Joe1919

Thanks for info and links to one side of the discussion. There are also links to the other side of the argument. e.g.

http://www.womenpriests.org/
http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/

Thomas828

It might still be possible, despite what the Catholic clergy today say. After all, the Anglican church have women in their clergy and so have many other Protestant churches. The Pope may say no today but in future that could change. Maybe not in this century but in centuries to come.

oeb

smurfhousing wrote: »

.. Hence we see lesbian bishops. Is this really were we want to go? I think not.

When you already have pedophile priests, I don't think lesbian bishops should be the greatest of your worries.

Fanny Cradock

oeb wrote: »

When you already have pedophile priests, I don't think lesbian bishops should be the greatest of your worries.

But this thread isn't about paedophiles, is it?

Vinny-Chase

smurfhousing wrote: »

It is interesting to note that all the Christian groups which have women 'clerics' have also embraced homosexuality. They lose the meaning of human sexuality and embrace sin. Hence we see lesbian bishops. Is this really were we want to go? I think not.

Some of that lovely tolerance that guy Jesus spoke about :rolleyes:

Puck

smurfhousing wrote: »

It is interesting to note that all the Christian groups which have women 'clerics' have also embraced homosexuality.

Utter ****e!

Fighting Irish

Joe1919 wrote: »

Why not women priests?

because religion makes sense

Fanny Cradock

Fighting Irish wrote: »

because religion makes sense

Unless you have had a Road to Damascus moment in the last few days. I think an appropriate rejoinder would be: "Unlike you".

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

smurfhousing

Puck wrote: »

Utter ****e!

Nope.

Check their websites. Check the women's 'ordination' sites. They advocate not just for women priests. They also want to change the Church teaching on sexuality so that homosexuality (lesbianism, gay etc...) becomes acceptable and good, and they also in many cases advocate for contraception and abortion, as well as a new age spirituality which is, of course, totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith. You know, they are now having lesbian bishops in the Anglican Communion ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7067711.ece ). Most of their good people are getting pissed off with the nonsense and are embracing the Pope's offer to the Traditional Anglicans made recently.

At the heart of the women's 'ordination' movement is a deep seated hatred for men and God the Father. It is not of God. It is not happening.

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Some of that lovely tolerance that guy Jesus spoke about :rolleyes:

Jesus did not tolerate sin or evil. Where did you get that idea from??? He called all men to repentance and to a new life with Him, a life of self-denial, of embracing the cross and dying to self. A life of Christian perfection which excludes all sin and embraces the God of love. He did not tolerate sin in any way, shape, or form.

Fighting Irish

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Unless you have had a Road to demascus moment in the last few days. I think an appropriate rejoinder would be: "Unlike you".

ha

Just stating my opinion

Blueboyd

Haven't been here for awhile. Too much work. But this thread caught my eye.

I'm proud to tell you that today Finland got its first woman bishop as Irja Askola was just elected to bishop of Helsinki by 591 votes against 561 of her competitor Matti Poutiainen.

As the problem of women priesthood has already been tackeld up here it is now nice to see women priests are moving up in the ranks.

Joe1919

Scien wrote: »

I think one of the many reasons is because a single priest would leave his will to the RCC.
A married one would leave it to his spouse.

I accept what you say as an argument as to why a single priest may have advantages to a married priest from a pragmatic and economic point of view.

However.... when I was in Maynooth, there was one man training to be a priest who was a widower and had a number of (mature) children. As far as I know, there are several cases of widowers with children being accepted into the priesthood. I personally know another case.
Hence, the fact of having children (and the possibily of willing property to children etc.) does not appear to dis-qualify someone from becoming a priest.

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

It is interesting to note that all the Christian groups which have women 'clerics' have also embraced homosexuality.

All? Is there that many who do ordain women in the first place?

I'd note that the United Methodists ordain women - but don't 'embrace' homosexuality.

In accordance with its view of Scripture, the Church officially considers, "the practice of homosexuality (to be) incompatible with Christian teaching." It states that "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" cannot be ordained as ministers,and supports "…laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

You also will find that of those who promote women 'priests', most, if not all, also have a problem with the Catholic Church moral teaching on sexuality. Go figure.

You could say the same of most, if not all, who don't promote woman priests. The Roman churches teaching on contraception and masturbation springs to mind.

Puck

I stand by my "Utter ****e!" statement. Please list the denominations who embrace both female ordination and homosexuality.

smurfhousing wrote: »

Nope.

Check their websites. Check the women's 'ordination' sites. They advocate not just for women priests. They also want to change the Church teaching on sexuality so that homosexuality (lesbianism, gay etc...) becomes acceptable and good, and they also in many cases advocate for contraception and abortion, as well as a new age spirituality which is, of course, totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith. You know, they are now having lesbian bishops in the Anglican Communion ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7067711.ece ). Most of their good people are getting pissed off with the nonsense and are embracing the Pope's offer to the Traditional Anglicans made recently.

At the heart of the women's 'ordination' movement is a deep seated hatred for men and God the Father. It is not of God. It is not happening.



Jesus did not tolerate sin or evil. Where did you get that idea from??? He called all men to repentance and to a new life with Him, a life of self-denial, of embracing the cross and dying to self. A life of Christian perfection which excludes all sin and embraces the God of love. He did not tolerate sin in any way, shape, or form.

philologos

smurfhousing: I'm afraid you are generalising about Anglicanism. What you've said about those who support women ministering in the church is incorrect. There is not a direct correlation between those who support this, and those who support people in non-chaste LGBT relationships in the ministry.

The facts are that most provinces of the Anglican Communion ordain women, but only very few support the ordination of people in non-chaste LGBT relationships.

There have been a lot of such tirades over the past while. I would suggest that people read up on what has happened since 2003 (Gene Robinson's ordination) in the Anglican Communion, the Anglican re-alignment, GAFCON, and most recently the ordination of Mary Glasspool as Assistant Bishop of Los Angeles. Make up your own minds.

The reason we are discussing this, is because Anglicans are aware that the church is in a difficult patch, and that it wants to resolve this in some way rather than denying that it is a problem. I would argue that all churches need to do this, transparently.

smurfhousing

Puck wrote: »

I stand by my "Utter ****e!" statement. Please list the denominations who embrace both female and homosexuality.

The Anglican Communion. Lots of silliness has taken place in the US Episcopal Church with blessing gay unions, and openly practising gay male and female bishops ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8684194.stm ). Quakers embrace all sorts of nonsense ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8177536.stm ).

The Episcopal church moves towards blessing gay unions: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56H01I20090718

Also, this is poison but proves my point: http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/morea.asp

It's a mess. Like I say, this desire for female priests is not of God.

There is plenty of crap on the internet about it.

When people lose the meaning of the Church as the Bride of Christ and Christ as the Bridegroom and Head, they lose the meaning of male and female. The meaning of human sexuality is thus perverted and all sorts of things are permitted to take place. I'd be most curious to see if you can prove that this is not the case, notwithstanding the evidence I've provided above of churches which embrace homosexuality and women priests and bishops, my prime example being the US Episcopal church and also increasingly the Anglican church in the UK.

@ Jakkass: the RCC is transparent. Their position is elucidated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is all there for everyone to see. People know what their options are. If I go into McDonalds I can have a big mac, if I want a royale I go to Burger king. The RCC has a clear stance which it has said is not changeable. It won't and can't change. No women priests.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

Online Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

philologos

smurfhousing wrote: »

@ Jakkass: the RCC is transparent. Their position is elucidated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is all there for everyone to see. People know what their options are. If I go into McDonalds I can have a big mac, if I want a royale I go to Burger king. The RCC has a clear stance which it has said is not changeable. It won't and can't change. No women priests.

Transparent about its underlying problems? That's what I meant by transparent.

As for the Catechism, I don't see of what use that is to an argument concerning Anglicanism and the Episcopal Church.

caseyann

Why not men nuns?

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

It's a mess.

Only if you presume to occupy the higher ground. What it actually is, is different churchs who identify as Christian taking different views on things. The Roman Catholic is one, American Anglicanism is another, Protestantism at large yet another

Like I say, this desire for female priests is not of God.

It's debatable whether priests at all (as understood by the RC church) are of God

When people lose the meaning of the Church as the Bride of Christ and Christ as the Bridegroom and Head, they lose the meaning of male and female. The meaning of human sexuality is thus perverted and all sorts of things are permitted to take place.

What has the Bride of Christ (which includes males and females) got to do with precluding the idea of female priests.

homer911

caseyann wrote: »

Why not men nuns?

I think they are called "Monks"

caseyann

homer911 wrote: »

I think they are called "Monks"

AH your not meant to do that you ruined it

owenc

Joe1919 wrote: »

When I was in Maynooth there were many women studying theology. Many were very sound and really would in many cases possibly make much better priests than some of the guys. (IMO)

Indeed, they would probably also make better bishops than some.
So anyhow, why not let women into the church as priests etc.
I think it might do good.

One question, can woman be a bishop in the church of ireland?

efb

smurfhousing wrote: »

The Anglican Communion. Lots of silliness has taken place in the US Episcopal Church with blessing gay unions, and openly practising gay male and female bishops ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8684194.stm ). Quakers embrace all sorts of nonsense ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8177536.stm ).

The Episcopal church moves towards blessing gay unions: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56H01I20090718

Also, this is poison but proves my point: http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/morea.asp

It's a mess. Like I say, this desire for female priests is not of God.

There is plenty of crap on the internet about it.

When people lose the meaning of the Church as the Bride of Christ and Christ as the Bridegroom and Head, they lose the meaning of male and female. The meaning of human sexuality is thus perverted and all sorts of things are permitted to take place. I'd be most curious to see if you can prove that this is not the case, notwithstanding the evidence I've provided above of churches which embrace homosexuality and women priests and bishops, my prime example being the US Episcopal church and also increasingly the Anglican church in the UK.

@ Jakkass: the RCC is transparent. Their position is elucidated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is all there for everyone to see. People know what their options are. If I go into McDonalds I can have a big mac, if I want a royale I go to Burger king. The RCC has a clear stance which it has said is not changeable. It won't and can't change. No women priests.



Online Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

If you go to McDonalds in France, it's a Royale

burger king is the whopper, and slogan is "Have it your way"

me_right_one

What I can never understand is why people just wont do what Jesus wants? Why question it? God asked Abraham to murder his own son isaac, and as fcuked up as Abraham thought it was, and despite his crushing sorrow, he went to do it. This was a test from God. The whole women priest thing is the same. God said no, so just put up with it:mad:

antiskeptic

me_right_one wrote: »

God said no, so just put up with it:mad:

Where did God say there were to be priests at all?

caseyann

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where did God say there were to be priests at all?

He didnt thats man made.

Mute

oeb wrote: »

When you already have pedophile priests, I don't think lesbian bishops should be the greatest of your worries.

Now your talking!!!

No! to Women Priests however...........

Yes! to Lesbian Bishops:)

me_right_one

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where did God say there were to be priests at all?

Well, seeing as he handpicked the first 12 of them personally, and then instructed the head one to create a church, and go and spread the word:rolleyes:

Puck

smurfhousing wrote: »

The Anglican Communion. Lots of silliness has taken place in the US Episcopal Church with blessing gay unions, and openly practising gay male and female bishops ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8684194.stm ). Quakers embrace all sorts of nonsense ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8177536.stm ).

The Episcopal church moves towards blessing gay unions: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56H01I20090718

Also, this is poison but proves my point: http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/morea.asp

It's a mess. Like I say, this desire for female priests is not of God.

There is plenty of crap on the internet about it.

When people lose the meaning of the Church as the Bride of Christ and Christ as the Bridegroom and Head, they lose the meaning of male and female. The meaning of human sexuality is thus perverted and all sorts of things are permitted to take place. I'd be most curious to see if you can prove that this is not the case, notwithstanding the evidence I've provided above of churches which embrace homosexuality and women priests and bishops, my prime example being the US Episcopal church and also increasingly the Anglican church in the UK.

@ Jakkass: the RCC is transparent. Their position is elucidated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is all there for everyone to see. People know what their options are. If I go into McDonalds I can have a big mac, if I want a royale I go to Burger king. The RCC has a clear stance which it has said is not changeable. It won't and can't change. No women priests.



Online Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Your original post said:

It is interesting to note that all the Christian groups which have women 'clerics' have also embraced homosexuality.

[my emphasis]

You have yet to substantiate this bull****.

Jazzy

me_right_one wrote: »

What I can never understand is why people just wont do what Jesus wants? Why question it? God asked Abraham to murder his own son isaac, and as fcuked up as Abraham thought it was, and despite his crushing sorrow, he went to do it. This was a test from God. The whole women priest thing is the same. God said no, so just put up with it:mad:

did he also say dont smoke that hemp that he put here on earth? where does he lie on that one? what about eating fish on a sunday? did the pope get on the big red batman phone and god rang it in - "its holy to eat fish on a friday lads", "no problemo boss man". or was it because of italian and spanish fishing industry suffering at the time?
if things like that are changed, why not women priests ?

me_right_one

Jazzy wrote: »

did he also say dont smoke that hemp that he put here on earth? where does he lie on that one? what about eating fish on a sunday? did the pope get on the big red batman phone and god rang it in - "its holy to eat fish on a friday lads", "no problemo boss man". or was it because of italian and spanish fishing industry suffering at the time?
if things like that are changed, why not women priests ?

What happened was, Jesus said to Peter, his chosen successor, "Whatever you bind on Earth, you bind in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, you loose in Heaven". In other words, "you the man now dawg"! So Batman phone aside, the various popes down the years base whatever decisions they have to make on what Jesus would do. Some were right, some were wrong, some were wierd. The point is, SUCK IT UP!

fontanalis

me_right_one wrote: »

What happened was, Jesus said to Peter, his chosen successor, "Whatever you bind on Earth, you bind in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, you loose in Heaven". In other words, "you the man now dawg"! So Batman phone aside, the various popes down the years base whatever decisions they have to make on what Jesus would do. Some were right, some were wrong, some were wierd. The point is, SUCK IT UP!

Whata wonderful attitude you have towards life.

lmaopml

While I probably wouldn't quite phrase it the same way as others. I will say, that as a female Catholic, I am more than happy with the continuity of my faith, there are very few that hit the spotlight for steadfastness ( amongst other things of late )....and 'no' I don't want it to change....'them's the rules..', and others have their very own no doubt!! A quick look or a little research always answers the questions of the genuine seeking mind.

However, I disagree that 'women priests' is a stepping stone, or has even displayed itself as a vastly huge left wing break away from the basic tenets of Gods law within Christianity in general...

However..., when I decided to bear the 'cap' of my faith I undertook all it entails, and not 'without' question, but with genuine curiosity as to the 'good' of it...

While it may 'seem' an easy target for faux feminism which apparently it has become, I see no reason why 'we' as female Catholics should feel the need to change our life choices and outlook. Hard done by; I do NOT feel! I have my own 'role'...I'm very happy with it...and I LOVE the faith. I love my Christian brothers and sisters too..

antiskeptic

me_right_one wrote: »

Well, seeing as he handpicked the first 12 of them personally, and then instructed the head one to create a church, and go and spread the word:rolleyes:

The biblical term is "disciple". And the instruction was to go make disciples of others: men and women.

How did "disciple" morph into "priest".

lmaopml

Ahh but we are 'disciples' antiskeptic. Women are 'disciples'...always have been, always will be..and that isn't outlawed by a long shot within the Catholic faith.

Some of the most inspirational people within the Catholic heritage are 'women'...we're protagonists, same as today we always were..right from the very beginnings.

The idea of 'continuity' in the Catholic church ( and granted you may have a different outlook ) is that Christ handed on the 'priesthood' to 'one' church.....to make sure that 'continuity' and bending of the the law didn't change along with changing times. Catholics believe that Christ wanted one church that 'grows' in faith and understanding, doesn't stick it's head in were it doesn't belong too rigidly as with earth sciences etc., but has 'rules'...God given rules that are foundational. The Catholic Church would be torn apart even more by it's worst critics if it were 'changeable' as regards it's very basic faith...'doctrine' and 'dogma' are totally different.

Dogma, is a 'dog, with a bone'...and most real Catholics 'cherish' that bone believe it or not! Why should we 'change'?


I for one, as a Catholic, and let's face it, anybody is free to either 'be' one or no.....LIKE my faith. It doesn't mean I 'hate' others, not by a long shot. I hope everybody is happy with theirs, I just wish they were ALL Catholic..lol......but hey, one can dream...

At least we are all 'Christian'! ....and that is most important, because it means we are trying to be 'true'..

..being Catholic isn't easy...it's the really hard route.

mdebets

Blueboyd wrote: »

Haven't been here for awhile. Too much work. But this thread caught my eye.

I'm proud to tell you that today Finland got its first woman bishop as Irja Askola was just elected to bishop of Helsinki by 591 votes against 561 of her competitor Matti Poutiainen.

As the problem of women priesthood has already been tackeld up here it is now nice to see women priests are moving up in the ranks.

Just to be pedantic here, but she is not a priest in the Catholic sense, as she is Lutheran. There is only the priesthood of all, and pastors (and Bishop) don't have the special status as a priest, like in the Catholic Church.

mdebets

Joe1919 wrote: »

I accept what you say as an argument as to why a single priest may have advantages to a married priest from a pragmatic and economic point of view.

However.... when I was in Maynooth, there was one man training to be a priest who was a widower and had a number of (mature) children. As far as I know, there are several cases of widowers with children being accepted into the priesthood. I personally know another case.
Hence, the fact of having children (and the possibily of willing property to children etc.) does not appear to dis-qualify someone from becoming a priest.

Not only that, but there are also married priest in the Catholic Church.
Anglican or Lutheran pastors (and probably other protestants as well) that convert to Catholicism can become priests, even if they are married. Priests of the Eastern Rites in the Catholic Church can marry before they are ordained.
And if I understood it correctly (don't have a link, just a talk with my pastor), it seems that the Catholic Church offered the Anglican communities in England that are at the moment considering to convert a special status, that would allow that their priests could marry, even after they converted to
Catholicism.

smurfhousing

Many women clamouring for priesthood are only really after the power and privilege which they have seen misused by some men in the Church and they desire to possess it for themselves. However, the solution is to have holy priests and bishops, which is what our Holy Father Pope Benedict is calling for constantly in his addresses and audiences to the Church. We cannot have women 'priests', but we can have holy priests and bishops who courageously lead the flock. This is sorely needed today, especially in Ireland. We must get rid of the scourge of clericalism which infects the Church. This is not a correct understanding of the role or nature of the Catholic priesthood. Archbishop Dolan did a speech recently at Maynooth on the priesthood - well worth a read: http://www.catholicbishops.ie/images/stories/features/Archbishop_Dolan_visit/archbishop_dolan_address_maynooth_27052010.pdf

Fanny Cradock

smurfhousing wrote: »

Many women clamouring for priesthood are only really after the power and privilege ...

I should warn you that I don't take kindly to spurious generalisations.

Fanny Cradock

Read the charter.