Stand by your MAN

[Stevil]

As part of getting to know TeresaBenedicta it was revealed that she is a Catholic with aspirations towards the ranks of the church.
I myself hold a humanistic view that all people ought to be looked upon as equals and given equal opportunity. Feeling that Catholisism is steeped in outdated tradition which promotes a sexist stance and holds back women within its own ranks, I questioned TeresaBenedicta with regards to her opinion of the Church's stance, asking whether she felt comfortable supporting and even promoting this stance.

I don't agree with the premise-- "that the Catholic church views women as somewhat less than that of a man."  'Women priests' is not an equality issue by any means.  The nature (essence) of the priesthood is inherently male.  Just as it is impossible for a male to conceive and bring to term a child, so is it impossible for a female to be ordained into the ministerial priesthood.

TeresaBenedicta  - I would love it if you would elaborate, now that the shackles of Noobie status have been removed.
Why is it impossible for a female to be ordained into the ministerial priesthood? Is a penis needed for some essential activity of the priesthood, if not then what is the debilitating aspect of a famale with regards to this role?

[Will]

It's an interesting argument linking the biological difference between men and women to the church's bigotry toward women. I think it could have something to do with the fact that, from a religious point of view, there's no real separation between natural law and 'God's law'. The funny thing is, though, seemingly the only way for a Christian to explain why women can't be pastors is either an appeal to authority (it's god's will, therefore it's okay) or a questionable analogy (women can't preach for the same reason men can't give birth). I'd personally like to see a stronger argument.

[The Black Jester]

It's an interesting argument linking the biological difference between men and women to the church's bigotry toward women. I think it could have something to do with the fact that, from a religious point of view, there's no real separation between natural law and 'God's law'.

I am curious about this equivocation.  Natural law, while establishing sexual dimorphism and a sexual difference does not obviously establish a sexual hierarchy.  It takes man to do that.  And I do mean "man."

The funny thing is, though, seemingly the only way for a Christian to explain why women can't be pastors is either an appeal to authority (it's god's will, therefore it's okay) or a questionable analogy (women can't preach for the same reason men can't give birth). I'd personally like to see a stronger argument.

You have to somehow establish that there is some quality essential (in the philosophic sense) to maleness that inherently makes them suited to the priesthood, and that there is some essential quality to femaleness that prevents this suitability.  I have, like you, never seen this convincingly established.

[TeresaBenedicta]

Interesting title for this topic 

I certainly don't mind entering into this discussion and I will do my best to explain the Church's stance in a coherent (and hopefully convincing) way.  One thing I will mention from the start is that we need to recognize certain premises.  What I mean is that we cannot debate from different traditions.  I am not debating a humanist about this issue (yet).  A humanist understanding of reality is likely different than the Catholic understanding of reality.  So I ask that, at first, the discussion concern itself as to whether or not the Church's position is compatible with its own tradition (is there a contradiction between beliefs held within this tradition? etc).  If we are able to determine that the tradition itself holds together, without contradiction, on this point, then we can move to discussion as to whether or not the premises of the tradition are flawed.  Another way of saying all of this is that when dealing with specific issues that are unique to a tradition, we must first examine the issue from within the tradition and then move to look at it from without. 

I hope that makes sense.  (If anyone has read MacIntyre's After Virtue, you'll see even more clearly the point I'm trying to make about arguing within traditions.)

Give me a bit and I'll be back to address issue at hand.

[The Black Jester]

If we are able to determine that the tradition itself holds together, without contradiction, on this point, then we can move to discussion as to whether or not the premises of the tradition are flawed.  Another way of saying all of this is that when dealing with specific issues that are unique to a tradition, we must first examine the issue from within the tradition and then move to look at it from without. 

I can certainly understand and appreciate your wish to proceed in a logically and philosophically rigorous fashion.  Certainly if there are problems with coherence in the philosophical stance of the Catholic church, it does little good to go beyond those issues in any case, since any argument presented with an incoherent foundation will be moot. However, while I understand what you're driving at in terms of procedure, I would like to take issue with the "face-value" of the following statement, to make a point...

What I mean is that we cannot debate from different traditions.

Nonsense.  This is precisely what we must do.  We cannot entirely escape our own perspectives, in any case. 

It may be impossible to proceed without first agreeing on certain basic definitions, but these can, indeed, must be broader definitions acceptable to both Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  It is ridiculous to presume that we must accept the specifically Catholic definition of reality before debating the Catholic definition of reality, since it is precisely this reality that is, or should be, under scrutiny.  As you say, it does little good to argue a philosophic position if that position doesn't hold together in the first place.  But eventually two differing perspectives must compete as candidates for an accurate description of reality.  How else, other than from an external vantage point, could we come to evaluate the premises of either tradition in question?

If I was to say that one must first accept the equality of men and women (without going into the issue of the term "equality") before debating whether the humanist perspective that men and women deserve equal treatment under the law, you would likely, if you were from a massively patriarchal culture, cry foul play and first argue the validity of the first premises.

[TeresaBenedicta]

If we are able to determine that the tradition itself holds together, without contradiction, on this point, then we can move to discussion as to whether or not the premises of the tradition are flawed.  Another way of saying all of this is that when dealing with specific issues that are unique to a tradition, we must first examine the issue from within the tradition and then move to look at it from without.  

I can certainly understand and appreciate your wish to proceed in a logically and philosophically rigorous fashion.  Certainly if there are problems with coherence in the philosophical stance of the Catholic church, it does little good to go beyond those issues in any case, since any argument presented with an incoherent foundation will be moot. However, while I understand what you're driving at in terms of procedure, I would like to take issue with the "face-value" of the following statement, to make a point...

What I mean is that we cannot debate from different traditions.

Nonsense.  This is precisely what we must do.  We cannot entirely escape our own perspectives, in any case.  

It may be impossible to proceed without first agreeing on certain basic definitions, but these can, indeed, must be broader definitions acceptable to both Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  It is ridiculous to presume that we must accept the specifically Catholic definition of reality before debating the Catholic definition of reality, since it is precisely this reality that is, or should be, under scrutiny.  As you say, it does little good to argue a philosophic position if that position doesn't hold together in the first place.  But eventually two differing perspectives must compete as candidates for an accurate description of reality.  How else, other than from an external vantage point, could we come to evaluate the premises of either tradition in question?

If I was to say that one must first accept the equality of men and women (without going into the issue of the term "equality") before debating whether the humanist perspective that men and women deserve equal treatment under the law, you would likely, if you were from a massively patriarchal culture, cry foul play and first argue the validity of the first premises.

For example,

Catholicism and its sacraments work from metaphysical worldview- with causes and essences and forms and accidents and that whole lot.  If, for example, you reject metaphysics (like Comte does and other philosophers), there can be no debating about women priests.  That's what I'm saying.

[The Black Jester]

If we are able to determine that the tradition itself holds together, without contradiction, on this point, then we can move to discussion as to whether or not the premises of the tradition are flawed.  Another way of saying all of this is that when dealing with specific issues that are unique to a tradition, we must first examine the issue from within the tradition and then move to look at it from without.  

I can certainly understand and appreciate your wish to proceed in a logically and philosophically rigorous fashion.  Certainly if there are problems with coherence in the philosophical stance of the Catholic church, it does little good to go beyond those issues in any case, since any argument presented with an incoherent foundation will be moot. However, while I understand what you're driving at in terms of procedure, I would like to take issue with the "face-value" of the following statement, to make a point...

What I mean is that we cannot debate from different traditions.

Nonsense.  This is precisely what we must do.  We cannot entirely escape our own perspectives, in any case.  

It may be impossible to proceed without first agreeing on certain basic definitions, but these can, indeed, must be broader definitions acceptable to both Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  It is ridiculous to presume that we must accept the specifically Catholic definition of reality before debating the Catholic definition of reality, since it is precisely this reality that is, or should be, under scrutiny.  As you say, it does little good to argue a philosophic position if that position doesn't hold together in the first place.  But eventually two differing perspectives must compete as candidates for an accurate description of reality.  How else, other than from an external vantage point, could we come to evaluate the premises of either tradition in question?

If I was to say that one must first accept the equality of men and women (without going into the issue of the term "equality") before debating whether the humanist perspective that men and women deserve equal treatment under the law, you would likely, if you were from a massively patriarchal culture, cry foul play and first argue the validity of the first premises.

For example,

Catholicism and its sacraments work from metaphysical worldview- with causes and essences and forms and accidents and that whole lot.  If, for example, you reject metaphysics (like Comte does and other philosophers), there can be no debating about women priests.  That's what I'm saying.

I suppose what I'm saying is that, in your example, it seems to me that one would have to first have the debate about accepting or refuting metaphisics, and the reasons for doing so, before one proceeded to the argument about women priests. Not simply make bald statements about whether or not metaphysics is valid, and if perspectives differ simply claiming an impasse.   If someone came to me denying the validity of metaphysics, I would want to know their reasons before I allowed them to dismiss my entire argument for disallowing women priests.  I wouldn't simply claim that the "traditions were incompatible."

[Stevil]

Interesting title for this topic  

I wanted to leave it ambiguous. "Stand by" doesn't mean behind, "by" could be thought of as similar to "beside" which sounds like equality, "your man" would imply the man is the possession with the woman being the owner, so a flip on what is actually to be discussed.  However Standing by your man would imply he is making the decisions and you are simply standing by the decisions that he has made. This seems pertinant to my current perception of the Catholic church with the Pope and the priesthood being "The Man". But of course I am struggling with the rules that take "The Man" literally and ensure that "The Man" remains a man only club.

So I ask that, at first, the discussion concern itself as to whether or not the Church's position is compatible with its own tradition

I am not one to follow tradition for tradition's sake, I feel the world has moved on for the better, however your approach sounds interesting and I think I will learn a lot by going along with it.

[Stevil]

I suppose what I'm saying is that, in your example, it seems to me that one would have to first have the debate about accepting or refuting metaphisics

The way I look at it is that TeresaBenedicta is going to present a case from both perspectives, Catholic tradition and Humanist. She has asked us to hold fire on the Humanist counter arguments for the time being presumably so that she can get through an understanding with regards to the Catholic traditions.

It seems that all will be covered.

[TeresaBenedicta]

An important note as I begin... Sacraments are a matter of faith.  While we can speak about them using logic, it will, at some point in time, require an act of faith to completely understand their nature.  And even those of us within the faith will never completely comprehend them until heaven.  Another word for each of the seven sacraments is "μυστήριον".  Our English equivalent of "mystery" doesn't quite capture what is meant in the Greek.  In Biblical language it used to mean "that which, being outside the unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by divine revelation."  I say all of this before beginning so that we aren't surprised if/when we don't come to an agreement at the end of this discussion.  This is why I ask you to first view my arguments from the tradition in which this topic belongs.  We can discuss at a later point in time some of the underlying premises of the tradition itself.

I will provide you with several different arguments of varying strengths.

First, the Church simply does not have the authority to ordain women.  If it were simply a matter of talent or ability, then women would be fair game for the priesthood.  In fact, women would make great priests!  However, even if the Church wanted to ordain women, she couldn't do it.  Her authority comes from Christ Himself.  And Jesus did not ordain women.  The Scripture is silent on female ordination.  Jesus ordained the twelve (Mt. 26:26-29), who consequently chose and ordained only men (Acts 1:26).

So the Scriptures are silent; they do not support the ordination of females.  However, the Church does not abide by sola scriptura, but rather holds that Scripture & Tradition make up the deposit of the faith.  And Tradition also supports the restriction ordination to males only.  From the earliest centuries, the Church Fathers recognized that Jesus' intention was for a male-only priesthood.  The Gnostics in the 2nd & 3rd century who attempted to ordain women were formally declared heretics by the Church.

Here the objection is usually raised that Jesus was restricted by cultural beliefs, that if He were alive today where women hold a more equal footing with men, then He would most certainly ordain women.  I don't buy it.  First, Jesus wasn't afraid to break cultural norms in His dealings with women.  He dealt compassionately with both the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:4) and the prostitute, Mary Magdalene (Luke 7:36), both of whom society had ostracized.  Even His adversaries stated, "Teacher, we know you are a truthful man and teach God's way sincerely. You court no one's favor and do not act of human respect." (Mt 22:16)  Second, if Jesus had wished to ordain women, He had a perfect choice in His own mother, Mary.  Yet even she was not chosen for this.  Nor were any of His other female followers (who, by the way, were the first to see the Risen Lord).  Not to mention that culturally, pagan priestesses were a common occurrence.  The cultural argument is weak at best.

Also falling under the authority of the Church is the fact that this teaching is taught from the deposit of faith.  That means that, regardless for the reasoning behind the teaching, it is binding on all Catholics.  The deposit of faith contains the unchangeable teachings handed on by Christ and the Apostles that the Church does not have the authority to change.  From Bl. John Paul II, "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).

Unsatisfying?  Probably.  For the non-Catholic, definitely.  But for the Catholic, it ultimately comes down to this... if the teaching authority is wrong on this matter, then the entire Church crumbles.  As Catholics, we believe that the Church is protected from error by the power of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 16:18) in matters of faith and morals.  If she is wrong on this matter, then her teaching authority is not protected by the Holy Spirit, and we have no reason to believe her in any matter whatsoever.  So if a Catholic believes the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Christ, protected by the Holy Spirit (as professed in the Creed), then they must submit to the Church's teaching on this matter.

Again, unsatisfying for non-Catholics.  And while it's enough to settle the matter for Catholics, we should still study the matter further.  To understand the why.

Second, it is inherent to the priesthood that priests are male.

What is the priesthood?  Is it simply leading a congregation?  Teaching about the faith?  Hardly.  No, in its essence, the priesthood is a participation in the double role of Jesus Christ as high-priest and victim.  The Christian priest acts 'in persona Christi', in Christ's stead, and offers the bread and the wine, which Jesus Himself made His body and blood.  In a mysterious way, it is Christ Himself who works through the priest, making present both the sacrifice on the cross and His body and blood.  In this sense, an intrinsic part of the sacramental sign of holy orders is the manhood of Christ.

A sacrament, in its most basic definition, is a sign that effects what it signifies.  (Water cleanses and baptism really cleanses the soul.)  In order for a sacrament to be valid, there must be proper 'form' and 'matter'.  The matter is the physical sign... water, bread and wine, etc.  The form is the words used... "I baptized you in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit", "This is My body... this is My blood," etc.  If the proper matter or form are missing, the sacrament does not take place.  For example, grape juice cannot be consecrated as the blood of Christ.

Manhood is inherent to the 'matter' of the sacrament of holy orders precisely because it is inherent to the priesthood (as participation in the double role of Jesus Christ as high-priest and victim). 

There is also the case of spiritual fatherhood.  But I think this is the weakest of the arguments and I won't go into it here.

I'll end here for now.

At worst, the Church has no evidence that says she can ordain women... therefore it is safer, for the sake of valid sacraments, to restrict the priesthood to males.  At best, the Church recognizes that only a male can be an 'alter Christi'.

[TeresaBenedicta]

As part of getting to know TeresaBenedicta it was revealed that she is a Catholic with aspirations towards the ranks of the church.

Just to clarify... my aspirations are toward religious life, not the priesthood or participation in the hierarchy of the Church. 

[Will37]

An important note as I begin... Sacraments are a matter of faith.  While we can speak about them using logic, it will, at some point in time, require an act of faith to completely understand their nature.  And even those of us within the faith will never completely comprehend them until heaven.  Another word for each of the seven sacraments is "μυστήριον".  Our English equivalent of "mystery" doesn't quite capture what is meant in the Greek.  In Biblical language it used to mean "that which, being outside the unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by divine revelation."  I say all of this before beginning so that we aren't surprised if/when we don't come to an agreement at the end of this discussion.  This is why I ask you to first view my arguments from the tradition in which this topic belongs.  We can discuss at a later point in time some of the underlying premises of the tradition itself.

I will provide you with several different arguments of varying strengths.

First, the Church simply does not have the authority to ordain women.  If it were simply a matter of talent or ability, then women would be fair game for the priesthood.  In fact, women would make great priests!  However, even if the Church wanted to ordain women, she couldn't do it.  Her authority comes from Christ Himself.  And Jesus did not ordain women.  The Scripture is silent on female ordination.  Jesus ordained the twelve (Mt. 26:26-29), who consequently chose and ordained only men (Acts 1:26).

Jesus didn't formally ordain anyone in the Bible.  The scripture is pretty silent on prdination in general.  It's also silent on an explicit acknowledgement of the sacraments in general (as sacraments, I'm not cliaming that the Bible doesn't mention Baptism but it doesn not mention certain actions or religious practices as uniquely sacramental, that I remember. 

More importantly you set selection is arbitrary.  The Church does not ordain women because Jesus did not ordain women.  Very well.  Jesus also did not ordain any Romans.  Why were Romans allowed in the Priesthood? 

Second, it is inherent to the priesthood that priests are male.

What is the priesthood?  Is it simply leading a congregation?  Teaching about the faith?  Hardly.  No, in its essence, the priesthood is a participation in the double role of Jesus Christ as high-priest and victim.  The Christian priest acts 'in persona Christi', in Christ's stead, and offers the bread and the wine, which Jesus Himself made His body and blood.  In a mysterious way, it is Christ Himself who works through the priest, making present both the sacrifice on the cross and His body and blood.  In this sense, an intrinsic part of the sacramental sign of holy orders is the manhood of Christ.

St. Paul claims that man and woman are one in Christ Jesus.  Which aspects of Christs personhood are important and which are arbitrary?  Christ was a Palestinian Jew.  Should only Palestinian jews be allowed to act in persona Christi?

At worst, the Church has no evidence that says she can ordain women... therefore it is safer, for the sake of valid sacraments, to restrict the priesthood to males.  At best, the Church recognizes that only a male can be an 'alter Christi'.

Why males?  Why not restrict it to males that share all the qualities of the Apostles?  Why not restrict the Priesthood to ethnic Jews and Greeks, just to be safe?

[TeresaBenedicta]

Jesus didn't formally ordain anyone in the Bible.  The scripture is pretty silent on prdination in general.  It's also silent on an explicit acknowledgement of the sacraments in general (as sacraments, I'm not cliaming that the Bible doesn't mention Baptism but it doesn not mention certain actions or religious practices as uniquely sacramental, that I remember. 

More importantly you set selection is arbitrary.  The Church does not ordain women because Jesus did not ordain women.  Very well.  Jesus also did not ordain any Romans.  Why were Romans allowed in the Priesthood? 

Scripture & Tradition.  Jesus instituted the sacraments.  Tradition works out what Scripture indicates.  "Do this in memory of me" and "He breathed on them the Holy Spirit".  Everything is not spelled out perfectly in Scripture.  This is why the Church includes both Scripture and Tradition in the deposit of the faith.

My selection is not arbitrary- I am responding to the question about male vs female ordination.  Not Roman vs. Jew.  Tradition takes care of that question, if you want to look into it.

St. Paul claims that man and woman are one in Christ Jesus.  Which aspects of Christs personhood are important and which are arbitrary?  Christ was a Palestinian Jew.  Should only Palestinian jews be allowed to act in persona Christi?

Your reference to St. Paul must be read in context of the entire passage.  You are referring to Galatians 3:8 and Paul is there teaching about justification through faith NOT our roles in the Church.  Check out 1 Cor 5-29 if you want his teaching on roles in the Church.

Why males?  Why not restrict it to males that share all the qualities of the Apostles?  Why not restrict the Priesthood to ethnic Jews and Greeks, just to be safe?

Because the Apostles did not do so.  And Tradition does not teach it.  Besides, ethnic identity is accidental to a person's essence.  Gender is not.

[Will37]

Scripture & Tradition.  Jesus instituted the sacraments.  Tradition works out what Scripture indicates.  "Do this in memory of me" and "He breathed on them the Holy Spirit".  Everything is not spelled out perfectly in Scripture.  This is why the Church includes both Scripture and Tradition in the deposit of the faith.

Right.  But here you are refering to the Bible as your set of evidence.  You say that one piece of evidence is that the Bible does not show Jesus ordaining women.  My point is that the Bible doesn't show Jesus ordaining anyone.  If you want to argue Tradition then argue Tradition.  Scripture doesn't give any strong indication of who should and should not be included in the Sacramental Priesthood because there is no Sacramental Priesthood in the Bible. 

My selection is not arbitrary- I am responding to the question about male vs female ordination.  Not Roman vs. Jew.  Tradition takes care of that question, if you want to look into it.

But by the logic that you used they should be.  So you can point to an exception to this logic that Tradition makes but I bet that Ican always come up with something not mentioned in Tradition that by the logic you presented should exclude set x from the Priesthood. 

Your reference to St. Paul must be read in context of the entire passage.  You are referring to Galatians 3:8 and Paul is there teaching about justification through faith NOT our roles in the Church.

3:28.  I assume that's a typo but just mentioning that for other's benefit.  The passage does not offer such restrictions.


Check out 1 Cor 5-29 if you want his teaching on roles in the Church.

Right, because through faith all are one in Christ.  "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clother yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free person, there is not male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendant, heirs according to the promise."

What in 1 Cor are you refering too?  The only thing I can think of is 1 Timothy 2: 8-15.  Which does make clear that women have a particular place in society, and that is to remain home and have children.  That does help your argument in proving that the Church is being faithful to it's founding texts in banning women from the Priesthood but it hurts your larger argument that this ban does not indicate a deeper misogyny in Christianity

1 Timothy 2:

Because the Apostles did not do so.  And Tradition does not teach it.  Besides, ethnic identity is accidental to a person's essence.  Gender is not.

Why is biological sex any less accidental in this respect than ethnicity?

[TeresaBenedicta]

Right.  But here you are refering to the Bible as your set of evidence.  You say that one piece of evidence is that the Bible does not show Jesus ordaining women.  My point is that the Bible doesn't show Jesus ordaining anyone.  If you want to argue Tradition then argue Tradition.  Scripture doesn't give any strong indication of who should and should not be included in the Sacramental Priesthood because there is no Sacramental Priesthood in the Bible. 

Do you want to argue a sacramental priesthood itself?  That's a different question than allowing females into the sacramental priesthood (which is what we're discussing).  I didn't go into this because it was assumed within the question we're discussing. 

Like I said, Scripture does not spell out the sacraments in full.  Tradition develops the sacraments instituted by Christ.  I don't like to dump quotes, but here are a few from the 2nd and 3rd century the indicate a sacramental priesthood.

"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians 6:1 [A.D. 110]

"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2).

More can be found http://www.catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp.

My selection is not arbitrary- I am responding to the question about male vs female ordination.  Not Roman vs. Jew.  Tradition takes care of that question, if you want to look into it.

But by the logic that you used they should be.

No.  Like I said, I'm responding to the question of male vs female ordination.  Scripture is only one part of the answer that I provided.  The Apostles and early Church Fathers had no problem ordaining men of varying ethnic identities.  They did have a problem with ordaining women.  Scripture and Tradition.

Your reference to St. Paul must be read in context of the entire passage.  You are referring to Galatians 3:8 and Paul is there teaching about justification through faith NOT our roles in the Church.

3:28.  I assume that's a typo but just mentioning that for other's benefit.  The passage does not offer such restrictions.


Check out 1 Cor 5-29 if you want his teaching on roles in the Church.

Right, because through faith all are one in Christ.  "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clother yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free person, there is not male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendant, heirs according to the promise."

What in 1 Cor are you refering too?  The only thing I can think of is Timothy.  Which does make clear that women have a particular place in society, and that is to remain home and have children.  That does help your argument in proving that the Church is being faithful to it's founding texts in banning women from the Priesthood but it hurts your larger argument that this ban does not indicate a deeper misogyny in Christianity

No, I meant 3:8.  It gives the context of the passage you are citing.  Paul is talking to the Galatians about how God willed the Gentiles to be saved along with the Jews.  And this justification is made through faith, regardless of being a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, male or female.  Paul is talking about justification NOT roles within the Church.

Sorry-- I missed the chapter reference.  1 Cor 12:5-29.  Paul is talking about how some are prophets and some are healers.  One body but different parts. 

Because the Apostles did not do so.  And Tradition does not teach it.  Besides, ethnic identity is accidental to a person's essence.  Gender is not.

Why is biological sex any less accidental in this respect than ethnicity?

Being male or female is inherent to who one is, essentially.  Ethnicity is not.  A soul is male or female.  But it is not a particular ethnicity.