10 Reasons Why Men Shouldnt Be Ordained

[blazeingstar]

I understand the defensiveness. Catholics get a lot of heat on this issue. The explanation for excluding females seems to be that Jesus just happened to pick males for some unknown reason to be priests/bishops/apostles. There's nothing wrong with only saying that. It starts to sound icky when we digress into why women weren't made for this role, why we shouldn't allow little girls to think they can ever become priests, or why this exclusion is a grace.

 

I don't find it icky at all.  Every decision we make is to the exclusion of another decision.  Do I eat chips or an apple?  Do I smoke or chew gum or do neither?

 

It's not that women weren't made for this role but men were.  Do you really think its psychologically harmful to tell a little boy he will never, ever have a baby?  That he will never hold a human life inside of him and get to feel it develop?  Does this make men less human?

 

The fact is that grace is 100%.  You are no more "graced" by being able to celebrate Mass, then you are "graced" in the single life, married life or religious life.  But there are certain gifts that come along with the vocation that some men have been granted, gifts that do place limits.  You are always most gifted when you are persuing your God-given vocation.

 

It's not the Catholic Church's fault that God gives the vocation of motherhood to some women (and only women) and the gift of priesthood to some men (and only men). 

 

If you want to raise a boy believing that some day he can have a baby, I guess you can, but it'd be pretty harmful, I think.  Maybe technology will advance. In the same way raising a girl to believe that she has the ability to step outside the normative spiritual lines is just as harmful and nothing that technology or advanced data could ever change.

 

 

NOTE:  I do find that we don't have more protestant female ministers very sexist.  Without the spiritual side of priesthood, the actual role is a spiritually stripped figurehead and leader. 

Edited February 4, 2014 by blazeingstar

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I don't find it icky at all. Every decision we make is to the exclusion of another decision. Do I eat chips or an apple? Do I smoke or chew gum or do neither?

While this is true, I don't know how it would apply.

It's not that women weren't made for this role but men were. Do you really think its psychologically harmful to tell a little boy he will never, ever have a baby? That he will never hold a human life inside of him and get to feel it develop? Does this make men less human?

It's not exactly the same. There are actual physical limitations preventing men from becoming pregnant. I think a better comparison is an immigrant telling his son he will never be president of the United States because he was born in England.

It's not the Catholic Church's fault that God gives the vocation of motherhood to some women (and only women) and the gift of priesthood to some men (and only men).

I'm perplexed that the vocation of motherhood and the priesthood are compared so often. What about fatherhood? Bringing life into the world is important but it's odd to compare it to a leadership position in the church.

If you want to raise a boy believing that some day he can have a baby, I guess you can, but it'd be pretty harmful, I think. Maybe technology will advance. In the same way raising a girl to believe that she has the ability to step outside the normative spiritual lines is just as harmful and nothing that technology or advanced data could ever change.

I sympathize with this view. I still think the language behind it can easily sound weird. Maybe I'm too out of the loop.

NOTE: I do find that we don't have more protestant female ministers very sexist. Without the spiritual side of priesthood, the actual role is a spiritually stripped figurehead and leader.

I can see that. I don't know if there are many non-priestly leadership positions open to women in the Catholic Church either. Edited February 4, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[KnightofChrist]

I'm perplexed that the vocation of motherhood and the priesthood are compared so often. What about fatherhood? Bringing life into the world is important but it's odd to compare it to a leadership position in the church.

 

Viewing the Priesthood simply as a "leadership position" is likely a primary cause of why the comparison flies right over your head. The comparison is often made because it's easy to understand, for those that want to understand. Squares cannot be triangles, and triangles cannot be squares. Only boys can grow up to be fathers, and only girls can grow up to be mothers. This is true both in biological parenthood and spiritual parenthood. The relationship between the priest and the Church is like that of a husband and wife, or father and mother. The father priest plants the seeds of faith into a soul, by proclaiming the Gospel, dispensing of the Sacraments, etc, in turn Mother Church nurtures that person, who grows in faith within her, like a real child does in a mothers womb, until she gives birth to them at baptism. Then both the priest and the Church continue to care for their flock like parents care for their young.

Edited February 4, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Basilisa Marie]

I understand the defensiveness. Catholics get a lot of heat on this issue. The explanation for excluding females seems to be that Jesus just happened to pick males for some unknown reason to be priests/bishops/apostles. There's nothing wrong with only saying that. It starts to sound icky when we digress into why women weren't made for this role, why we shouldn't allow little girls to think they can ever become priests, or why this exclusion is a grace.

 

Hence, the huge need we have to better develop a theology of what it really means to be a man or a woman.  It would solve soooooo many issues. People throw around ideas like "men and women are different" and "women can have babies!" and "priests are like fathers" and that's all well, good, and correct, but it lacks the kind of depth we get with pretty much every other branch of theology.  How is spiritual fatherhood different from spiritual motherhood? What about biologically? Theology of women is almost solely focused on having children, but what about religious or consecrated virgins or infertile women? That right there speaks to the biggest problem - a lot of women feel like our current theology of womanhood doesn't speak to their experience, they think it's not really talking about them, or that they're not really participating in womanhood the right way. So they're left with unsatisfactory answers to incredibly important questions.  If a woman doesn't feel called to motherhood as it's talked about today, or if she doesn't feel particularly maternal, does that mean that there's something wrong with her?  If we actually tried to tackle these issues in a thorough way, I think the male priesthood wouldn't feel quite as exclusionary, and there'd be some real substance behind the idea that men and women have different but equally valuable roles. It wouldn't feel like lip service anymore. 

Anyway I know I probably sound like a broken record, but I think it's important and the biggest reason why the question of women in the priesthood is such an icky sticking point for Catholics, and why our answers leave a lot to be desired. 

Edited February 4, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[Basilisa Marie]

Viewing the Priesthood simply as a "leadership position" is likely a primary cause of why the comparison flies right over your head. The comparison is often made because it's easy to understand, for those that want to understand. Squares cannot be triangles, and triangles cannot be squares. Only boys can grow up to be fathers, and only girls can grow up to be mothers. This is true both in biological parenthood and spiritual parenthood. The relationship between the priest and the Church is like that of a husband and wife, or father and mother. The father priest plants the seeds of faith into a soul, by proclaiming the Gospel, dispensing of the Sacraments, etc, in turn Mother Church nurtures that person, who grows in faith within her, like a real child does in a mothers womb, until she gives birth to them at baptism. Then both the priest and the Church continue to care for their flock like parents care for their young.

 

 

This is part of the problem, too - the priesthood is seen as a leadership position or a position of power in the Church.  And it is! But yeah, it's more than that.  

 

And more and more lay people (particularly lay women) are filling up other kinds of leadership positions in the local Church, whether it be at the parish level or the diocesan level. So I think it's a bit disingenuous (or maybe just simple ignorance?) that leads people to believe women have no say in how the Church is run. More women than men are pursuing theology degrees (outside seminaries), and more and more women are taking up leadership positions in churches, whether they be religious ed or even administrators of parishes, because of the priest shortage in many dioceses. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Hence, the huge need we have to better develop a theology of what it really means to be a man or a woman.  It would solve soooooo many issues. People throw around ideas like "men and women are different" and "women can have babies!" and "priests are like fathers" and that's all well, good, and correct, but it lacks the kind of depth we get with pretty much every other branch of theology.  How is spiritual fatherhood different from spiritual motherhood? What about biologically? Theology of women is almost solely focused on having children, but what about religious or consecrated virgins or infertile women? That right there speaks to the biggest problem - a lot of women feel like our current theology of womanhood doesn't speak to their experience, they think it's not really talking about them, or that they're not really participating in womanhood the right way. So they're left with unsatisfactory answers to incredibly important questions.  If a woman doesn't feel called to motherhood as it's talked about today, or if she doesn't feel particularly maternal, does that mean that there's something wrong with her?  If we actually tried to tackle these issues in a thorough way, I think the male priesthood wouldn't feel quite as exclusionary, and there'd be some real substance behind the idea that men and women have different but equally valuable roles. It wouldn't feel like lip service anymore. 

Anyway I know I probably sound like a broken record, but I think it's important and the biggest reason why the question of women in the priesthood is such an icky sticking point for Catholics, and why our answers leave a lot to be desired. 

Have you read this one?

 

[blazeingstar]

While this is true, I don't know how it would apply.

 

 

 

Just that no human can do two things...serve two masters

 

 

 

It's not exactly the same. There are actual physical limitations preventing men from becoming pregnant. I think a better comparison is an immigrant telling his son he will never be president of the United States because he was born in England.

 

Not really.  See, spiritual limitations are ontological.  At best, president is a birthright at worse it's a law that can be changed.  Peoples views in the USA are such that many don't really care anymore...given the accusations that were given to our current president, it's clear that the law is truly a civil matter.  The difference I speak of is one of nature, not law.

 

 

I'm perplexed that the vocation of motherhood and the priesthood are compared so often. What about fatherhood? Bringing life into the world is important but it's odd to compare it to a leadership position in the church.

 

 

 

We could say that women don't have penis' but that would be crass.  Also, bringing life into the world is not the same as motherhood.  We're talking about a physical capability, that usually gets whitewashed because women want to be "allowed" to do something men do.

 

I sympathize with this view. I still think the language behind it can easily sound weird. Maybe I'm too out of the loop.

 

 

 

Nah, just have to learn.

 

I can see that. I don't know if there are many non-priestly leadership positions open to women in the Catholic Church either.

 

 

Haha, I can't think of one male DRE or music director these days that is a guy.  Look at the bullitins...there are mostly female names.  There are many wonderful places for women in the church.

[blazeingstar]

This is part of the problem, too - the priesthood is seen as a leadership position or a position of power in the Church.  And it is! But yeah, it's more than that.  

 

And more and more lay people (particularly lay women) are filling up other kinds of leadership positions in the local Church, whether it be at the parish level or the diocesan level. So I think it's a bit disingenuous (or maybe just simple ignorance?) that leads people to believe women have no say in how the Church is run. More women than men are pursuing theology degrees (outside seminaries), and more and more women are taking up leadership positions in churches, whether they be religious ed or even administrators of parishes, because of the priest shortage in many dioceses. 

 

This is where the early 1900's to 1950's were HORRIBLE for the church.  Before then, women were the silent rulers and did know Theology.  We have some amazing women of the church who were really running things before the guys got it together Madame de Gondi practically formed St. Vincent into the man he became.

 

Its really the recent culture (as in the past 100 years) that have enforced this belief.

[Basilisa Marie]

Have you read this one?

 

 

Yes! I'm not a huge fan of Alice von Hildebrand. I tend to think she takes a more masculine view of femininity and womanhood. That is, it really doesn't strike me as any different from what most male theologians have said about femininity (womanhood is "mysterious" and "gentle" and always passive and you just have to meditate on this to get it). Her work still leaves me with a lot to be desired. But! I think it's fantastic that she's doing it, especially because she's a woman who's generally accepted among popular theology offering her view. I think we need more people like her, but maybe not exactly like her. She's one part of what should be a much bigger conversation. 

 

This is where the early 1900's to 1950's were HORRIBLE for the church.  Before then, women were the silent rulers and did know Theology.  We have some amazing women of the church who were really running things before the guys got it together Madame de Gondi practically formed St. Vincent into the man he became.

 

Its really the recent culture (as in the past 100 years) that have enforced this belief.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the industrial revolution. Before then, in a lot of places in the western world men and women were both expected to participate in child-rearing and in public life, particularly the market. Women were able to help support their families at home by doing all kinds of things, like weaving or laundry or whatever, and it wasn't strange for a widow to take over a husband's business. There was a better sense of complimentary yet equally valuable roles, but it wasn't strictly women raise babies and men bring home the bacon. Then with the industrial revolution people couldn't really work at home anymore.  During the Victorian (Edwardian? Georgian? idk, Enlightenment-ish) times there grew this weird idea that "real" virtuous women stayed home away from the dirty work world that men participated in, to the point where truly feminine women weren't even capable of raising their own children (because "frailty"), even though the lower classes were certainly working hard to do all of that. And those values snowballed until the mid twentieth century. 

That, I believe, is where we got the modern feminist movement, as a backlash to the extreme cultural preference for women to be in the home AND that the home wasn't all that important compared to the work world, which itself was a product of the industrial revolution.  It's not like it was a feminist paradise for women before the assembly line, but at least society had a real appreciation for how important it was to run a household. Later on that didn't get any respect. And that's still somewhat lacking in today's feminist movement - we've gotten the right to vote and own property and work a job and be valued the same as a male in the public sphere, but the private, home sphere just doesn't matter.  Hence, New Feminism, which is all about promoting a woman's ability to be a stay at home mom and run a household and how valuable all that is.  

In the process of all of this, I think women and society at large lost a real sense of what it means to be a woman. We've never really had to do a real theology of womanhood because no one really cared about it until now. Women don't really know what it means to be a woman anymore, so we need women to step up and figure it out again. A woman's place in the Church is a huge part of this.

[Lil Red]

See that's a much better explanation. Even god knows women are completely unreasonable.

 

:hehe2: bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha i wish i could prop this.  :winner:

[NotreDame]

In the process of all of this, I think women and society at large lost a real sense of what it means to be a woman. We've never really had to do a real theology of womanhood because no one really cared about it until now. Women don't really know what it means to be a woman anymore, so we need women to step up and figure it out again. A woman's place in the Church is a huge part of this.

 

From the outside looking in It seems like the modern feminist milieu tells women that they can have it all... and if they don't have it all they are a failure and have let down their fellow females.  

 

Unfortunately, if one tries to "have it all" they are inevitably doing so at the expense of something else (eg. going deep in any one discipline, like motherhood, work, etc.) and they implicitly recognize this as well, even if it's not explicitly embraced by the broader culture.

 

So from my point of view, it's kind of like a lose-lose scenario that's been created for women and few seem to be immune from the broader culture to such an extent that they aren't affected at least a little bit.

Edited February 4, 2014 by NotreDame

[Lil Red]

To be another Chris in the sacramental sense, to act in the person of Christ, requires masculinity.

 

i know lots of "Chris"es that aren't masculine. :| 

 

oh come on, I'm the only one who is making this joke?! 

[SilentJoy]

i know lots of "Chris"es that aren't masculine. :|

 

oh come on, I'm the only one who is making this joke?! 

:smile2:

[Lil Red]

Hence, the huge need we have to better develop a theology of what it really means to be a man or a woman.  It would solve soooooo many issues. People throw around ideas like "men and women are different" and "women can have babies!" and "priests are like fathers" and that's all well, good, and correct, but it lacks the kind of depth we get with pretty much every other branch of theology.  How is spiritual fatherhood different from spiritual motherhood? What about biologically? Theology of women is almost solely focused on having children, but what about religious or consecrated virgins or infertile women? That right there speaks to the biggest problem - a lot of women feel like our current theology of womanhood doesn't speak to their experience, they think it's not really talking about them, or that they're not really participating in womanhood the right way. So they're left with unsatisfactory answers to incredibly important questions.  If a woman doesn't feel called to motherhood as it's talked about today, or if she doesn't feel particularly maternal, does that mean that there's something wrong with her?  If we actually tried to tackle these issues in a thorough way, I think the male priesthood wouldn't feel quite as exclusionary, and there'd be some real substance behind the idea that men and women have different but equally valuable roles. It wouldn't feel like lip service anymore. 

Anyway I know I probably sound like a broken record, but I think it's important and the biggest reason why the question of women in the priesthood is such an icky sticking point for Catholics, and why our answers leave a lot to be desired. 

 

I just want to shout "AMEN" to all your posts, seriously. :) 

 

Yes! I'm not a huge fan of Alice von Hildebrand. I tend to think she takes a more masculine view of femininity and womanhood. That is, it really doesn't strike me as any different from what most male theologians have said about femininity (womanhood is "mysterious" and "gentle" and always passive and you just have to meditate on this to get it). Her work still leaves me with a lot to be desired. But! I think it's fantastic that she's doing it, especially because she's a woman who's generally accepted among popular theology offering her view. I think we need more people like her, but maybe not exactly like her. She's one part of what should be a much bigger conversation. 

 

yeah, i can't stand her writing. never had much luck with it. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Oh and in case any of the dudebros are feeling left out, figuring out a solid theology of womanhood will naturally result in a more solid theology of manhood and masculinity. :) So it's in everybody's interest to do this. 

 

Maybe we'd actually figure out how to articulate what exactly is the thing about masculinity that allows priests to act in persona Christi, instead of just saying "it just is." 

[mortify ii]

I think I would agree with Basilisa that some development of our understanding of gender is required, or at least reminding ourselves what it really means. Clearly in the supernatural order we're dealing with more than differences of anatomy and endocrinology. There seems to be something really different here. It was Adam's sin that brought the race down, and not Eve's. God became man, and not a woman. Men are can participate spiritually in a way that women can not. There is more here that is simply lost to the secular mind which seeks to make the complementary halves identical and indistinguishable. 

[Socrates]

Yes! I'm not a huge fan of Alice von Hildebrand. I tend to think she takes a more masculine view of femininity and womanhood. That is, it really doesn't strike me as any different from what most male theologians have said about femininity (womanhood is "mysterious" and "gentle" and always passive and you just have to meditate on this to get it). Her work still leaves me with a lot to be desired. 

 

While I'm hardly an expert, from what I've seen, I wouldn't describe Dr. Hildebrand's views as "masculine."

 

Not all women are feminists, and I don't think non-feminist women are in any sense less women than feminists are.

 

While you may not agree with her, I don't think she's any less a woman, or more "masculine" than you and other feminist women.

 

(In fact, many more traditional women would probably argue that it's your feminist views that are masculine, and measuring worth from a male perspective.)

 

I also don't think that it's necessary for female Catholic theologians to take a radically different view of sex/gender than orthodox Catholic male theologians.

 

Do you consider men who are feminists or sympathetic to feminist views of gender roles to be less masculine than men with more traditional views?

 

I'm not trying to rehash the whole feminism debate here are argue about who's right and wrong, but just wanted to point out how one need not ascribed to feminist views to be a "real woman."

 

It seems a lot of feminists see modern feminism (of some form or the other) as the only valid female viewpoint - though its actually a historically extremely recent ideology (for either men or women).

 

But I'm a male, so my two cents on this is probably worthless. 

[Socrates]

It's always puzzled me why some people who don't believe in the Church, the priesthood, or even God, get so worked up about the all-male priesthood.

 

I mean, I don't give two craps about who is or isn't considered qualified for various roles in the Church of Scientology.  (Or who can or can't be president of the local Atheist Club, for that matter.)

Regarding the former, I would spend more time trying to get people to leave that sick cult, rather than ensure that its internal policies conform to my personal beliefs.

 

If the Church is not real, and its teachings not true, we shouldn't care about the priesthood, or who can or can't be priest.  Nobody's forced to be a Catholic.

If the Church is real, however, we should conform to Her teachings, rather than try to change them to suit our personal preferences.

[NotreDame]

It's always puzzled me why some people who don't believe in the Church, the priesthood, or even God, get so worked up about the all-male priesthood.

I'm sure this is rhetorical at some level, but I'll take the bait... It's because the church is an impediment to their agenda, they want to do anything they can to weaken it, and attacking the priesthood is their most effective tactic.

 

[PhuturePriest]

While I'm hardly an expert, from what I've seen, I wouldn't describe Dr. Hildebrand's views as "masculine."

Not all women are feminists, and I don't think non-feminist women are in any sense less women than feminists are.

While you may not agree with her, I don't think she's any less a woman, or more "masculine" than you and other feminist women.

(In fact, many more traditional women would probably argue that it's your feminist views that are masculine, and measuring worth from a male perspective.)

I also don't think that it's necessary for female Catholic theologians to take a radically different view of sex/gender than orthodox Catholic male theologians.

Do you consider men who are feminists or sympathetic to feminist views of gender roles to be less masculine than men with more traditional views?

I'm not trying to rehash the whole feminism debate here are argue about who's right and wrong, but just wanted to point out how one need not ascribed to feminist views to be a "real woman."

It seems a lot of feminists see modern feminism (of some form or the other) as the only valid female viewpoint - though its actually a historically extremely recent ideology (for either men or women).

But I'm a male, so my two cents on this is probably worthless.

Don't jump the gun, now. She was saying Hildebrand's writings on femininity were masculine, not Hildebrand herself. Major difference. She also never implied or insinuated that Hildebrand was "less of a woman" because she isn't a feminist. It's honestly probably offensive for you to say that when Basilisa never said or touched upon anything of the sort.

Edited February 5, 2014 by FuturePriest387