Why Exclude Women From The Catholic Church?

Help me understand why the Catholic Church, among others, do not ordain women as priests/religious leaders? From what I've read, women played a significant role in founding the church and at some point they were excluded. Anyone know why this is the case?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Help me understand why the Catholic Church, among others, do not ordain women as priests/religious leaders? From what I've read, women played a significant role in founding the church and at some point they were excluded. Anyone know why this is the case?

You're serious? You really don't know why? Why it just happens to be a male dominated religion just like Islam? Why it's designed to denigrate women and keep them barefoot and pregnant, especially pregnant, don't want no nasty contraceptives here, thank you very much. Otherwise, how will we win the war on Islam if we don't reproduce like rabbits.

Because Jesus was male and infalible and chose only other males for apostles, so therefore God doesn't want females to be priests ever, since social ideas of the time could have nothing to do with it.

It isn't sexism because it is God's plan to discriminate against women.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Help me understand why the Catholic Church, among others, do not ordain women as priests/religious leaders? From what I've read, women played a significant role in founding the church and at some point they were excluded. Anyone know why this is the case?

Because they're nasty.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because they're nasty.

True.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Here's a link to an Apostolic Letter explaining the Catholic Church's position.

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Here's a link to an Apostolic Letter explaining the Catholic Church's position.

Strange, where's the part about them being nasty? I'm not finding it.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Help me understand why the Catholic Church, among others, do not ordain women as priests/religious leaders? From what I've read, women played a significant role in founding the church and at some point they were excluded. Anyone know why this is the case?

They are not excluded from the Church. Women can become nuns and religious sisters, some have been recognized as saints and others have reached the highest level and been acknolwedged as doctors of the Church. Women run global religious orders. So in a number of ways they can be religious leaders. And in my state it is a religious sister group which oversees Catholic hospital administration.

Women are barred from the priesthood because this is a male role, as Jesus was a male. They cannot become bishops as this is also a male role, and apostolic succession has always been exclusively male. I do not believe that this is a repression of women. While the Church accepts gender equality, it also recognizes that men and women are not the same and hence cannot perform the same roles. This is why some countries do not allow women to participate on the front of military conflicts. Is this repression of women?

Catholic church has no female priests because they would be
uncapable of keeping the secrecy of confession, hihi

😛

Originally posted by Conrau K
They are not excluded from the Church. Women can become nuns and religious sisters, some have been recognized as saints and others have reached the highest level and been acknolwedged as doctors of the Church. Women run global religious orders. So in a number of ways they can be religious leaders. And in my state it is a religious sister group which oversee ...[text shortened]... not allow women to participate on the front of military conflicts. Is this repression of women?

Is this repression of women?

If only the men get to decide, yes.

There is no "it." People, men and/or women, decide these questions. If one sex denies the other a role in those decisions, it is repressive.

There are men and women on both sides of the ordination issue. As a non-Catholic, I have no right to tell people who are Catholics what they ought to think on this question, or why, based on scripture or tradition.

But please do not say that it is not repressive for men to reserve for themselves the right to determine what the gender roles are or ought to be.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Is this repression of women?

If only the men get to decide, yes.

There is no "it." People, men and/or women, decide these questions. If one sex denies the other a role in those decisions, it is repressive.

There are men and women on both sides of the ordination issue. As a non-Catholic, I have no right to tell people who are Catholi ...[text shortened]... men to reserve for themselves the right to determine what the gender roles are or ought to be.[/b]

Well, that just conflicts with how the church functions. It is a hierarchical organisation. The people who partipicate in the church do not exert any influence over the leadership of the church. The reason being is that it is the responsibility of that leadership to preserve the teachings inparted through tradition. Effectively it is irrelevant in the church whether women or men decide if women should be ordained. It is rather what tradition dictates that counts. The decision over whether women should be ordained is not disciplinary like the issue over celibate clergy in the Roman Church. The stance against female ordination is theological. Something to be believed not practisedm and in the church what is to be believed is based on tradition, not election.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, that just conflicts with how the church functions. It is a hierarchical organisation. The people who partipicate in the church do not exert any influence over the leadership of the church. The reason being is that it is the responsibility of that leadership to preserve the teachings inparted through tradition. Effectively it is irrelevant in the churc ...[text shortened]... /i] not practisedm and in the church what is to be believed is based on tradition, not election.

I understand that the church is hierarchical. I also understand about the role of tradition. The question is whether or not that tradition included reserving the hierarchy to men—or rather, whether there were good reasons for it do so at the time, and whether those reasons still hold—or whether their relevance was strictly historical. Again, of course, it is for Catholics to pose these questionsas they will—and many are—and to resolve them however.

It is not the fact that Jesus was male that is in question, or that the first apostles—at least according to the scriptural accounts—were all men. The question lies with the “whys” behind the facts. And that is not strictly a theological question. The question is not whether the early apostolic succession only included men, but why—and are the reasons still valid? (There must be some statements on this by the early fathers; suppose they reveal a simple and blatant sexism on the part of the men, in a genrally male-dominated society?) The church tradition is not something that was set in stone all at once, but that developed over time as questions were visited and revisited. It still is.

The question is not whether the church is hierarchical, but who determines the nature of the hierarchy, and—again—why. The hierarchy is all male. And it seems to me that you are using that as another “it.” “Its” decide nothing.

I am not arguing that the Roman Catholic Church, or any other, EDIT should ordain women. I would be very remiss if I did that as an outsider. But you know the question is not noncontroversial within the church, and you can’t escape the question of repression simply by referring to “its,” such as the institution or the hierarchy or the tradition.

And I was reacting more to your statement about “gender roles.” Within or without the church (e.g., your example about women in the military). Again, if men reserve to themselves the right to determine what are appropriate gender roles, that is repression.

As for whether there were ever women apostles, I offer the following, just as a point for relevant discussion—

___________________________________

Junia, the Apostle

> NRS Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among [or within] the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Junia is a woman. In the Greek, her name is Iounian, and is feminine, accusative, singular in form.

The NIV translation says: “They are outstanding among the apostles” (as does the NAS). KJV says: “who are of note among the apostles.” NJB says: “Greetings to those outstanding apostles,...”

The text is clear: Junia is a woman apostle. An apostolos is one sent to proclaim a message, in this case the gospel message. And, as an apostle, Junia is in the top ranks of the “ecclesial structure” as outlined by Paul—


> NRS 1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.

One could also argue that there is gospel precedent for a woman serving the “apostolic role”—in Mary Magdalen.

The decision over whether women should be ordained is not disciplinary like the issue over celibate clergy in the Roman Church.

Question, Conrau—I don’t know what you mean by “disciplinary.” I am assuming that that means that a priest, say, who argues for the ordination of women is not subject to any disciplinary action. Is that correct?

Re church tradition: the formation of the RCC as a separate body, which occurred with the great schism of 1054, came about over Rome’s insistence (1) on the addition of the filioque as part of the Nicene Creed (it was not in the original), and (2) supremacy of the Roman Patriarchate over the others—both of which were (and are) viewed as violations of tradition in the churches of the East. I have argued that, in fact—although not as clear-cut as the eastern churches may claim—the bulk of the evidence supports the view that these were innovations by the West vis-à-vis the tradition. I only mention this as an example of controversies over interpreting church tradition...

The tradition was formed and interpreted by people—men, yes—but they didn’t find it revealed in tablets of stone.

Originally posted by vistesd
I understand that the church is hierarchical. I also understand about the role of tradition. The question is whether or not that tradition included reserving the hierarchy to men—or rather, whether there were good reasons for it do so at the time, and whether those reasons still hold—or whether their relevance was strictly historical. Again, of course, it ...[text shortened]... argue that there is gospel precedent for a woman serving the “apostolic role”—in Mary Magdalen.

Your argument just seems to be an ad hominem against male leadership. Whether or not the women can be legitametly ordained should be true independent of whether a male or a female decides. What I tried to convey is that both male and female roles in the church are restricted. The pope cannot gratuitously declare female ordination as valid, just as women cannot either. Both are restricted by a tradition they have inherited, to what is established as true. While I am not aware of any Church Fathers explicitly articulating a stance against female ordination, there is a deeply held belief in what is described as a "nuptial mystery" present in the clergy. The Church identifies a nuptial relationship between Christ and his church, where the church is the bride to Jesus. Thus, a clergyman is intended to be a visible symbol of Christ, a bridegroom to the church. The symbolism isn't present in female ordination (the church does not recognize bride and bride).

One problem with your argument is that how would women influence the decision process? Would they simply inform? (which they already do - there are a number of female theologians in Catholic universities), or make theological declarations? (which is circular, because this would entail investing women with the power to invest themselves with power).

Essentially Catholics believe that the college of bishops is invested with the power to discern the truth (this is te doctrine of infallibility). If women decided to ordain themselves under a new church, they might not be "repressed" but they couldn't be recognized as true by Catholics.

I do not have access to a biblical commentary so I cannot comment much on the verses you cite. However, just intuitively I would expect that the language used by Paul is not the same as the ecclesiastical sense. For example, just before Paul mentions Junia, he refers to a Phoebe of the title "deaconess". However, this role of deaconess did not involve any administration of the sacraments or exercise of authority (Apologetics and Catholic Docrtine, Michael Sheehan.) It was not the equivalent of the role of deacon, as the language suggests. The terms for bishops and priests are also not defined in scripture but developed later. Paul uses the terms "presbyteros" and "episcopos" almost interchangeably, but after 107 Ignatius of Antioch establishes a clear distinction between them (for priest and bishop). While Paul might (I would like to peruse a commentary before committing myself entirely) have referred to a woman as an apostle, it can be objected that Paul uses the term apostle in a different way to us.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The decision over whether women should be ordained is not disciplinary like the issue over celibate clergy in the Roman Church.

Question, Conrau—I don’t know what you mean by “disciplinary.” I am assuming that that means that a priest, say, who argues for the ordination of women is not subject to any disciplinary action. Is that correct?

Re ch ...[text shortened]... formed and interpreted by people—men, yes—but they didn’t find it revealed in tablets of stone.[/b]

The decision over whether women should be ordained is not disciplinary like the issue over celibate clergy in the Roman Church.

Essentially, the pope can impose disciplines on his Roman church without reference to tradition. The pope can allow celibacy for Latin priests, change the rite, and so on. This is not exercise of his papal infallibility or is dogmatic. It is just his power as the supreme bishop. The pope cannot impose these disciplines on the Eastern Churches. I often think it important to delineate the powers of the pope between theological and disciplinary. The Eastern Catholic Churches do receive the dogmatic pronouncements of the pope.

I'm not sure who these "churches of the East" are. I have attended a Melakite liturgy in full communion with Rome. Certainly there are Eastern churches opposed to the supremacy of the Roman Patriarchate over others (those not in communion)...I wouldn't call myself qualified on the issue. Though I do agree that tradition wasn't found, "revealed in tablets of stone".