Stand by your MAN

[Stevil]

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. 

The bias against female ordination has such a high impact on half the population and is counter intuitive with regards to treating all people with love and respect (equality). To base such a strong stance on lack of evidence is quite something. I see that religion is in a bit of a bind, if something is not 100% clear in the scriptures one cannot simply ask god to clarify, instead one must  revert to other methods to glean "clarity". I feel since assumptions are being made on this ambiguous matter it could be possible (IMHO) for the church to alter its opinion here.

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.

If at some point the current pope changes this stance then later down the line his decision will be seen as historical and hence a more encompassing tradition could be formed.

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. 
... 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).

This bit probably highlights the biggest difference between Atheists and Theists. Atheists very rarely accept a thought pattern or position simply because they are told that that is a non negotiable way to think. Atheists always want a valid reason and will often challenge ideas that they do not understand or buy into.

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

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).

So I take it that the Catholic Church deems god and Jesus to definitely be male and that only a human male can represent Jesus because they assume that a male must be represented by a male.
I understand that Jesus was a male human when he walked the earth but was not aware that souls in the afterlife also are distinguished by male and female.
By my understanding animals have sex organs in order to reproduce, for what purpose are gender attributes in the afterlife?

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'.

From what you have told me and my very limited knowledge of Catholicism, I don't feel it would be such a big deal for this tradition to change. Of course there would be big gasps at first but the Church would survive.

In actual fact, if I were a country policy maker I would make it illegal for an organization to hold such a gender bias. The Church would either have to change or stop operations in my country. Under these circumstances I am sure the Church would change.
But in reality the Catholics are such a large voting force I would either not be voted into leadership or would be overthrown, Oh well.

[TeresaBenedicta]

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. 

The bias against female ordination has such a high impact on half the population and is counter intuitive with regards to treating all people with love and respect (equality). To base such a strong stance on lack of evidence is quite something. I see that religion is in a bit of a bind, if something is not 100% clear in the scriptures one cannot simply ask god to clarify, instead one must  revert to other methods to glean "clarity". I feel since assumptions are being made on this ambiguous matter it could be possible (IMHO) for the church to alter its opinion here.

I don't think assumptions are being made here.  Scripture itself maintains that it does not contain the wholeness of what Jesus taught and did.  This is why the Church has Tradition.  Together, the two, make up the deposit of faith.  And Tradition makes clear what Scripture is silent about (and it's not even completely silent on this case).  By the second century, folks were asking this very question... can women be ordained?  And the answer was clearly no.  The Apostles, who spent time with the Risen Lord and were guided by the Holy Spirit, did not see it within Jesus' will to ordain women.  Those who were attempted to ordain women during the second and third centuries were Gnostics and declared heretics.

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.

If at some point the current pope changes this stance then later down the line his decision will be seen as historical and hence a more encompassing tradition could be formed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way.  Part of Tradition is that it has its root in Scripture and the early Church.  In order for the Church to teach something authoritatively, it must be rooted in both. 

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. 
... 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).

This bit probably highlights the biggest difference between Atheists and Theists. Atheists very rarely accept a thought pattern or position simply because they are told that that is a non negotiable way to think. Atheists always want a valid reason and will often challenge ideas that they do not understand or buy into.

Well, it's not quite that simple.  We accept not because 'the Church says so', and more because we have concluded that the Church is infallible when teachings matters of faith and morals.  And trust me, that latter point, certainly requires a valid reason.  It's an extremely important point, too.  It's what keeps me Catholic.  Otherwise I'd simply be a theist or a deist.  If the Church had no teaching authority (that is protected by the Holy Spirit), there would be no way to grasp the truths of Christianity.  Simply no way.  Because human error would completely distort the Gospel.  There would be no one truth that a person could grasp.  They would be left to, 2,000 some years later, try to figure out a glimpse of what Jesus did and taught.

God knew this.  He knew that the Church would be lost without His guidance.  Which is why He chose to lead it and guide it in a very real and powerful way.

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

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).

So I take it that the Catholic Church deems god and Jesus to definitely be male and that only a human male can represent Jesus because they assume that a male must be represented by a male.
I understand that Jesus was a male human when he walked the earth but was not aware that souls in the afterlife also are distinguished by male and female.
By my understanding animals have sex organs in order to reproduce, for what purpose are gender attributes in the afterlife?

Our sexuality goes deeper than just our bodies.  Being male and being female means more than simply having reproductive organs.  It encompasses the whole of who we are.  Body and soul.  When I have a bit more time later this afternoon, I'll explain a little more about this.

Also remember that Catholics believe in the resurrection of the body.  In Heaven we will be reunited with our bodies.  We will not simply be souls wandering around.  We will be fully ourselves.  To cease to have our body would be to exist as less than human.  A human being is body and soul composite.  Without one or the other, we are not fully human.

Jesus is unequivocally male.  This fact is unchangeable.  God chose to incarnate Himself among us as a human male. 

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'.

From what you have told me and my very limited knowledge of Catholicism, I don't feel it would be such a big deal for this tradition to change. Of course there would be big gasps at first but the Church would survive.

In actual fact, if I were a country policy maker I would make it illegal for an organization to hold such a gender bias. The Church would either have to change or stop operations in my country. Under these circumstances I am sure the Church would change.
But in reality the Catholics are such a large voting force I would either not be voted into leadership or would be overthrown, Oh well.

I'm afraid it would be an enormous problem if the Church 'changed' on this.  Remember, her entire authority rests on her infallibility in regards to teaching in matters of faith and morals.  She has taught this teaching infallibly.  If somehow in the future she revoked this teaching, it would be a clear break in Tradition.  It would be proven that she is not protected and guided by the Holy Spirit and without this, the Church is nothing.

I sincerely hope you would not go that route.  Unless of course, you are against the freedom of religion and freedom to practice your religion.  No woman (or man) for that matter has to be Catholic.  They willingly choose their religion, including all that it teaches.  I would be aghast that the government would meddle in such internal affairs.  Trust me, the Church won't last long into the future if this is not a Divine truth.  Women will leave of their own accord and there won't be anyone left in the Church.  She'll die out.  I don't think it'll happen, though.

And you'd be surprised at how firmly the Church will hold onto this, even if there were government pressures.  She would rather go underground than contradict a matter of faith.

[Stevil]

I sincerely hope you would not go that route.  Unless of course, you are against the freedom of religion and freedom to practice your religion. 

I am against discrimination, pure and simple, that even includes discrimination of people based on religion.
I find discrimination based on gender abhorrent and I feel in our society it must not be tolerated. I feel very strongly about this matter. Only time will tell if governments have the courage to take action on such a stance. So far, they have not.
In this way I assume the Catholic church would see me and my ideals of equality as a threat (hence evil, I guess) so I'm guessing that my desire for equality makes me a bad person in the eyes of the Church. This is all purely hypothetical by the way, I have no desire to rule a country.

[Will37]

I sincerely hope you would not go that route.  Unless of course, you are against the freedom of religion and freedom to practice your religion. 

I am against discrimination, pure and simple, that even includes discrimination of people based on religion.
I find discrimination based on gender abhorrent and I feel in our society it must not be tolerated. I feel very strongly about this matter. Only time will tell if governments have the courage to take action on such a stance. So far, they have not.
In this way I assume the Catholic church would see me and my ideals of equality as a threat (hence evil, I guess) so I'm guessing that my desire for equality makes me a bad person in the eyes of the Church. This is all purely hypothetical by the way, I have no desire to rule a country.

That's somewhat totalitarian.  You feel it's the government's place to tell a voluntary collective of individuals how to order their meetings? 

[Stevil]

That's somewhat totalitarian.  You feel it's the government's place to tell a voluntary collective of individuals how to order their meetings? 

Yes, if it infringes on basic human rights. It is currently in place in most areas of society, just not religion.

[TeresaBenedicta]

That's somewhat totalitarian.  You feel it's the government's place to tell a voluntary collective of individuals how to order their meetings? 

Yes, if it infringes on basic human rights. It is currently in place in most areas of society, just not religion.

But no one has a "right" to the priesthood.

[Stevil]

But no one has a "right" to the priesthood.

It's a basic human rights infringement, equal opportunity, equal rights.
But anyway, I'm jumping the gun here. Let's finish with tradition before we move onto this aspect.

[Stevil]

Trust me, the Church won't last long into the future if this is not a Divine truth.  Women will leave of their own accord and there won't be anyone left in the Church.

People are often illogical
Women in some Muslim countries wrap themselves up in black sheets, hide themselves from the world only to unravel for the pleasure of their man. Most of these women would adamantly defend and praise the Islam religion and Arab culture.

Some women remain with their abusive boyfriends/husbands despite the bruises and broken bones.

Many people inject themselves with drugs despite knowing that it leads to addiction and misery.

People staying in a situation does not mean that they approve of it or think it is divine. Even if they do think it is divine that does not necessarily mean that it is divine.

[Stevil]

It's very interesting this aspect of tradition that you have explained. Thanks very much for taking the time to explain it. I knew tradition was big with the church but didn't understand how important it actually was to them.

With the bible being IP that is open slather to anyone, any church to take on board, to interpret (as is required to understand it) and even to rewrite (in the circumstance of Islam). It seems to me now, that the Catholic Church's key differentiator is their claim to their tradition having been built up via the church receiving divine guidance, which is unique and has been guarded and adhered to for many aeons.

I feel if the church is divinely guided then the leaders can implement change. They have done this through the years although in a very conservative manor. E.g. recent example being that male prostitutes are now morally allowed to use condoms.

Since god works through the male priesthood then this change comes from god and is not to be questioned. God is infallible and since the church is divinely guided then so is the church.

Otherwise, I feel the church is in quite a bind. In today's environment the majority of people not heavily influenced by religion have progressed with regards to their views on equality and social norms. Given the secular nature of common law, so too has the rules of society moved on. Given that religious people also belong to the country's society and being governed by the laws of the land and being exposed by media (tv, movies, books, radio) which have largely also adapted to society's progress towards equality and acceptance. Being part of this society it seems natural that even religious people are seeing an alternative way to think and hence start questioning the rules and stance of the church.
The church must be seeing this happen more and more frequent these days. I am sure it must be having an impact on affiliation. I see three ways that the church could go.
1.   Isolation, they could attempt to get their followers to live in isolated communities, ban popular media and hence maintain control and avoid outside influences. There are many religions that go down this path.
2.   Adapt, they could change with the times, being divinely inspired to change. This way they may risk followers getting confused as to the legitimacy of the church with their past convictions to adhere to controversial stances.
3.   Status Quo. Risk losing followers over time as followers as society proves to be more moral, accepting, loving than the church.

I feel that the church is somewhere between 2 and 3. But much more closer to 3 than 2. In future I think the church will be forced to move closer and closer to 2 with the rate that they move towards 2 accelerating.

But anyway, that is my outsider's thoughts. Really, I don't have a clue.

BTW – If I make three posts in a row in the same thread, does that mean I am talking to myself?

[fester30]

There is specific scripture about the role of women in the church, and the role of women with respect to man. 

Role of women in church
1 Corinthians 14, verses 34 & 35:
34.  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35.  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Role of women with respect to men
1 Timothy 2, verses 11-14:
11.  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

As you can see, there is nothing vague about why women can not be ordained according to the denominations that choose to follow the letters of Paul.  Those denominations that do allow women ministers choose to view these letters as rules laid out by Paul for the EARLY church, and not necessarily meant for today's society, since women's place in society has changed since then.  As long as there is a demand, there will be a new or changing denomination to meet that demand.

There are also verses about women keeping their heads covered, dressing modestly, being the source of sin, and even saying a woman is unclean for a longer period of time if she gives birth to a girl instead of a boy.  If you actually practice by the sexism in the Bible listed on this site http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html it seems to me you would keep women in the back of the church, covered head to toe, and would prosecute them when they are raped.  Sounds a bit like Saudi Arabia.

[TeresaBenedicta]

Trust me, the Church won't last long into the future if this is not a Divine truth.  Women will leave of their own accord and there won't be anyone left in the Church.

People are often illogical
Women in some Muslim countries wrap themselves up in black sheets, hide themselves from the world only to unravel for the pleasure of their man. Most of these women would adamantly defend and praise the Islam religion and Arab culture.

Some women remain with their abusive boyfriends/husbands despite the bruises and broken bones.

Many people inject themselves with drugs despite knowing that it leads to addiction and misery.

People staying in a situation does not mean that they approve of it or think it is divine. Even if they do think it is divine that does not necessarily mean that it is divine.

I don't think its fair to compare the first with the second two.  The first, if freely chosen, is not inherently bad.  The second two, regardless if chosen, is inherently bad. 

There are Muslim women here in America that choose freely to cover themselves.  Is that wrong?

[TeresaBenedicta]

I feel if the church is divinely guided then the leaders can implement change. They have done this through the years although in a very conservative manor. E.g. recent example being that male prostitutes are now morally allowed to use condoms.

Since god works through the male priesthood then this change comes from god and is not to be questioned. God is infallible and since the church is divinely guided then so is the church.

Two things here- first, it is not true that male prostitutes are now morally allowed to use condoms.  The Pope's statement said that the use of condoms in that situation indicates the beginning of an understanding of morality.  At the same time he said that the use of condoms is always inherently immoral.  The 'beginning of an understanding of morality' does not equate to 'morally acceptable.'  It simply means that using a condom as a prostitute shows more moral awareness (care enough about the other person to desire that they not contract disease) than a prostitute not using a condom (no respect for the other person whatsoever).  There is still a severe lacking in moral awareness in the first.  But it's better than the latter.  It's like saying a pop-up is better than a strike out.  Both are outs.  But one shows a better hand-eye coordination than the other.

Second, a bit of a clarification.  Yes, the Church is divinely guided... but, coupled with that teaching, is the teaching that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the apostles.  That means that the fullness of truth that the Church teaches is contained in the deposit of faith as found in Sacred Scripture and the Traditions of the Apostles.  She cannot teach outside of the two.  She can apply moral principles from that truth to new situations, but she never can teach a "new" truth. 

This is contrasted, for example, with the Mormons (LDS), who believe in continuing revelation after the death of the last Apostles.  This is how they were able to explain the change in teaching from pro-polygamy to anti-polygamy.  It was divinely revealed that polygamy should take place for a certain amount of time and then divinely revealed that it should stop.

The Church doesn't work that way.  Everything that was to be revealed WAS revealed in Jesus Christ.  The Church teaches nothing 'new'.  So it would be impossible for her to change her teaching in this matter.

Otherwise, I feel the church is in quite a bind. In today's environment the majority of people not heavily influenced by religion have progressed with regards to their views on equality and social norms. Given the secular nature of common law, so too has the rules of society moved on. Given that religious people also belong to the country's society and being governed by the laws of the land and being exposed by media (tv, movies, books, radio) which have largely also adapted to society's progress towards equality and acceptance. Being part of this society it seems natural that even religious people are seeing an alternative way to think and hence start questioning the rules and stance of the church.

The church must be seeing this happen more and more frequent these days. I am sure it must be having an impact on affiliation. I see three ways that the church could go.

1.   Isolation, they could attempt to get their followers to live in isolated communities, ban popular media and hence maintain control and avoid outside influences. There are many religions that go down this path.
2.   Adapt, they could change with the times, being divinely inspired to change. This way they may risk followers getting confused as to the legitimacy of the church with their past convictions to adhere to controversial stances.
3.   Status Quo. Risk losing followers over time as followers as society proves to be more moral, accepting, loving than the church.

I feel that the church is somewhere between 2 and 3. But much more closer to 3 than 2. In future I think the church will be forced to move closer and closer to 2 with the rate that they move towards 2 accelerating.

But anyway, that is my outsider's thoughts. Really, I don't have a clue.

Truth attracts people.  It's not terribly difficult to see that the issue of women in the priesthood is not an equality issue.  I grew up in the same culture that you describe, with the same influences.  I am strongly pro-women's equality.  But I also recognize that equality does not mean sameness.  I know someone earlier disliked this analogy, but it really does indicate the truth of the matter... Just as a man cannot physically bear a child, so too is it impossible (metaphysically speaking) for a woman to be ordained as a priest.  It is impossible to consecrate pizza as the body of Christ... it is impossible to baptize with beer... it is impossible to ordain a female.  The underlying 'matter' is imperative for the sacrament to take place.  Men and women are not only different in regards to physical features, but are also 'male' or 'female' in soul.

The Church will continue to do what she has always done- proclaim the Truth.  There will be those who respond and those who don't.  I think we all see the growing tension between society and the Church.  Well, it won't be the first time that the Church goes underground/isn't accepted by the society at large.  Parts of the Church already suffers this (China, for example).  The Church doesn't aim to please society.  She aims to bring people to Jesus Christ and the truth He proclaimed.  In its fulness. 

Your third option intrigues me.  You say that we risk losing followers to a society that is more "moral, accepting, and loving" than the Church.  The Church loves people by teaching how to live lives that will bring them true happiness.  The Church accepts all people and then challenges them to grow.  Love is not simply letting people do whatever they want because they feel like it in the name of acceptance and respect.  True love wants what is best for the person and is willing to help them no matter the personal cost, while respecting human free choice.

And where is the love and acceptance for the Church and its members on behalf of society?  Are we outcasts because we believe a certain way?  Are we unworthy of love and acceptance unless we change our beliefs to society's beliefs?  Is our acceptance conditional?  Dependent on our beliefs conforming with society's?

[Stevil]

I don't think its fair to compare the first with the second two.  The first, if freely chosen, is not inherently bad.  The second two, regardless if chosen, is inherently bad. 

There are Muslim women here in America that choose freely to cover themselves.  Is that wrong?

You certainly have a different definition of free will than I do. Some of these countries have laws. If a woman exposes her hair, face, ankles, even if her shape can be determined under her attire she runs the risk of being disciplined. There is also a social stigma even within non Muslim countries, Minority groups often put a lot of pressure on themselves, its almost as if they were living in a Muslim country. These women aren't allowed to drive cars, they aren't allowed to rent a hotel room, they aren't even allowed to travel without a letter of approval from their man. Yes, it is happy times for the Muslim woman.

[Stevil]

first, it is not true that male prostitutes are now morally allowed to use condoms.  The Pope's statement said that the use of condoms in that situation indicates the beginning of an understanding of morality. 

So you admit to change then, after all these years of tradition, there has been change, no matter how miniscule.

Divine Revelation ended with the death of the apostles.  That means that the fullness of truth that the Church teaches is contained in the deposit of faith as found in Sacred Scripture and the Traditions of the Apostles. 

So in holding to tradition the church is essentially playing a centuries long game of Chinese Whispers. We played it at school as children, within a matter of minutes the original message had changed drastically.

So it would be impossible for her to change her teaching in this matter.

Nothing is impossible for an all powerful god and hence a church guided by the almighty. We have seen change, no matter how miniscule.

Truth attracts people.

Yes, hence the vast majority of religious people talk about their respective religions and beliefs being the truth.

It's not terribly difficult to see that the issue of women in the priesthood is not an equality issue. 

Maybe the problem is me, maybe I am lacking the brain cells required to see this. I hear what you are saying with regards to tradition and I know that a claim of divinity can persuade many a people. It seems that even the Catholics do not know why god doesn't want women in the priest hood. They simply accept this as god's will.
The only reasoning you have offered behind god's implied stance is with regards to persona Christi. By my reasoning an all powerful god could persona Christi via a woman.

.

And where is the love and acceptance for the Church and its members on behalf of society?

I have heard this before, and you probably already know the well used Atheist response.
The right to discriminate is not a right, it takes away human rights.

[Recusant]

All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday.  The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle.  Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?