I’m an Anglican who has struggled to discern my own vocation over the years.

I would like to thank you for your explanation for why the Roman Catholic church does not ordain women to the priesthood. In my opinion it was the best explanation I have heard for why you don’t allow women to become priests. I don’t believe it’s just to spite feminists, and I don’t believe ordination to the priesthood makes an individual “better” or closer to God. Thank you for stopping by to spell out these points.

With all of that said, I still don’t buy it. I’ve heard all the theological arguments against the ordination of women and I find them all fundamentally unconvincing. I’ve never understood why the maleness of Christ is so central to “preserving the natural resemblance of the sacramental sign.” You and I agree that God chose to become incarnate in the a man called Jesus Christ, but I still see no reason why the fact that Christ was a man who called 12 men to be his disciples must necessarily preclude all women from the priesthood for all time. To me, calling only men to ordained ministry is a reflection of the social mores of society 2,000 years ago, rather than a point of incontrovertible dogma.

Still, I thank you for turning up to clear up a few things. I have a feeling that you and I will continue to disagree on this matter, but at the very least we can consider the arguments of those with whom we disagree in an honest way.

Bill

P.S. In the Anglican diocese of Sydney (Australia), they don’t ordain women to the priesthood, but they do ordain women as deacons. Since deacons do not absolve sins or preside at the Eucharist, what would the Roman Catholic church say about ordaining women to the diaconate?

I don’t expect many non-Catholics to be aware of these details of sacramental theology, so it does not surprise me that many people don’t see any good reason for the Church’s reserving priestly ordination to men. But when the Catholic teaching and reasoning is presented, I hope that those who disagree would not simply assume that the teaching is just a smokescreen for bigotry.

Not bigotry, but sexism. Fr. Terry, I agree completely with those who insist that the entire history of Christianity, and of the Abrahamic religions in general (not that the religions of Asia have been immune to this, either), has been manipulated by men who were profoundly misogynistic. Really, at this point, I am so absolutely convinced of it that there is no argument you could present that would change my mind. I’ve heard them all, and they amount to nothing more than upholding the party line – which is what you have been doing here.

And, this may be off topic, but I want to take the opportunity to address it, anyway:

The Catholic Church also teaches that salvation is not limited to the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church (see Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium par. 16-17 here).

You know, you guys pay lip service to this idea, but when reactionary, preconciliar groups groups such as those under the influence of Fr. Gruener and Fr. Feeney (whose community is still flourishing and growing in rural central Massachusetts) teach ideas that are, supposedly, doctrinally incorrect – such as the belief that there can be no salvation outside of the Church or apart from conscious participation in its sacraments – the Vatican looks the other way. Even when individuals like Fr. Gruener are censored, it takes years for them to get around to it, and, even then, there seem to be no consequences for non-compliance.

However – when you get a theologically liberal intellectual like Hans Kung, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can’t sharpen its knives quickly enough. How many lives were ruined by Ratzinger and his gang of thugs? Why is is that when a conservative commits heresy, the Vatican bends over backward not to notice, but when a liberal does it, they fall in on him like a dilapidated house?

I don’t know why I go to the trouble to bring this up, really. You’ll just claim that I don’t know what I’m talking about, and I’m sure you’ll provide “evidence” to that effect, if you even bother to respond at all. Go ahead – let the apologetics begin.

In speaking only for myself, I question whether Jesus only picked men. Even if Jesus did only pick men, I question why that would be significant. Why choose that to be an important symbol? I think the choice of this symbol was made by men who merely followed the cultural norms of the time (marginalizing women). There could have been any number of other symbols people could have chosen to recognize and ritualize. People chose to recognize the symbols that were convenient for them. Jesus himself is commended for challenging some of the cultural norms of his time. Perhaps the Catholic Church should challenge some of its own cultural norms.

Except of course when only males can act the role of Jesus in the Roman Catholic Mass.

More seriously the Bible and Tradition can be used to support almost any doctrine or practice whether it be slavery or abolitionism, discrimination on the basis of sex (or equality), freedom of religion or enforcing only one religion.

But never mind, we know that the symbolism of the priest representing Jesus is important. At least in a visual fashion, somehow it’s never as important for his to speak in Aramaic instead of Latin. And, of course, Jesus was not Italian or Polish, yet there’s never a push to keep the priesthood restricted to young middle-eastern Jews. No, instead elderly europeans will do just fine.

I’m sorry, but this is a smokescreen. It is intellectually vacuous.

In fact, the most qualified candidate for priesthood in terms of holiness was Mary. But Jesus chose not to ordain her.

It’s OK everyone, Jesus was sexist too!

You’d seriously cut off anyone from your church, and proclaim that they’ll burn for all eternity, based on nothing but the fact that your priest needs to be male in order to symbolize Christ???

An excommunication is not a proclamation that someone is condemned to hell. It is a pronouncement that a Catholic has committed an act which separates him or her from communion with the Catholic Church. The intent of excommunication is to act as a medicinal penalty that shows the gravity of the situation, and the need for repentance in order to return to full communion. The Catholic Church also teaches that salvation is not limited to the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church (see Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium par. 16-17 here).

“gravity of the situation”… By which you mean “Doesn’t fit in with a particular symbol”…

A woman can be excommunicated for even seeking to join the leadership of the church. For a symbol. A symbol.

Let me ask you this: Could a woman who sought to be ordained as a priest, and who did not “repent” of it, go to Heaven? Could someone who ordained a woman, and maintained that what he/she did was right and refused to back down, enter Heaven?

You like to use the weasel words like “salvation is not limited to the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church”, but that in no way diminishes what excommunication means. The implications of automatic excommunication are pretty apparent.

You’re making the symbol more important than what it’s supposed to symbolize.

I’m trying to be faithful to the importance that God gives to these symbols in choosing to establish and use the sacraments as one way to communicate his Divine life to us.

Exactly as I said, you’re making symbols more important than actual human beings. The fact that you claim God “gives” these symbols this Better-Than-A-Person importance does not absolve you of this. I could also claim that God told me that the symbol $ or @ is more important than a human. I would be just as wrong as you are.

You failed to answer what I was really asking: Does it make any sense at all to claim that the Ruler of the Whole Universe would be so obsessed with some particular symbol that He would actually consign someone to eternal torment over it? Are symbols more important than reality, more important than real, breathing people? Does it make any sense at all to expel women from you community merely because allowing them equal status in the community would alter some symbol?

You’re not doing the church any favors by spreading the “sophisticated theology” excuse for discriminating against women.

The Catholic Church teaches “as an absolutely fundamental truth of Christian anthropology, the equal personal dignity of men and women, and the necessity of overcoming and doing away with ‘every type of discrimination regarding fundamental rights’ (Gaudium et Spes, 29).” (Ratzinger, Letter, Oct 28, 1995)

I do not believe that God’s choice to use human sexuality to symbolize His relationship with His people was an injustice. Nor do I believe that Christ’s choice to ordain only men as the 12 Apostles or to reserve priestly ordination to men was an injustice.

No one has a right to be a Catholic priest. Men don’t have the right. Women don’t have the right. It is a gift and calling from God. There are vocations within the Church which are reserved only to women – Consecrated Virgins.

And all of this does not imply that women have a lesser holiness. In fact, the most qualified candidate for priesthood in terms of holiness was Mary. But Jesus chose not to ordain her. Her sharing in divine glory now exceeds all the Apostles, Popes, bishops and priests put together.

Diversity in mission does not take away from equality in dignity:

“…the presence of a certain diversity of roles is in no way prejudicial to women, provided that this diversity is not the result of an arbitrary imposition, but is rather an expression of what is specific to being male and female… When we consider the ‘iconic’ complementarity of male and female roles, two of the Church’s essential dimensions are seen in a clearer light: the ‘Marian’ principle and the Apostolic-Petrine principle.”

“[Reserving priesthood to men] in no way detracts from the role of women, or for that matter from the role of the other members of the Church who are not ordained to the sacred ministry, since all share equally in the dignity proper to the ‘common priesthood’ based on Baptism.” (John Paul II, Letter to Women, 1995, 6 & 11)

Nonsense. The policy blocks women from reaching the highest positions of authority in the church, thereby guaranteeing the church will be controlled exclusively by men. It subjugates women. It subjugates women (according to you) for the sake of a symbol. A symbol!

Yes, it does detract from the role of women. It prohibits them from ever having any real authority. It guarantees that Catholic women will always be subjugated exclusively to men.

Once again, I’m simply appalled by the position you’re taking here. It’s both an affront to reason and a moral outrage. To claim that a policy which automatically bars women from ever gaining a position of authority “in no way detracts from the role of women” is simultaneously illogical and reprehensible. Denying them positions of authority is intrinsically detracting from their role. And to do it all for the sake of a symbol, which you proclaim (based on no evidence at all) is so crucially important to the Ruler of the Entire Universe that any alteration of it must result in a person being expelled from the church, just makes it all the more irrational and immoral.

How convenient that this symbol you love so much, which is apparently so crucially important to the Ruler of the Universe, is tied so closely to who has authority in the church. I suppose that’s all just a big coincidence, right?

An excommunication is not a proclamation that someone is condemned to hell. It is a pronouncement that a Catholic has committed an act which separates him or her from communion with the Catholic Church. The intent of excommunication is to act as a medicinal penalty that shows the gravity of the situation, and the need for repentance in order to return to full communion. The Catholic Church also teaches that salvation is not limited to the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church (see Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium par. 16-17 here).

You’re making the symbol more important than what it’s supposed to symbolize.

I’m trying to be faithful to the importance that God gives to these symbols in choosing to establish and use the sacraments as one way to communicate his Divine life to us.

You’re not doing the church any favors by spreading the “sophisticated theology” excuse for discriminating against women.

The Catholic Church teaches “as an absolutely fundamental truth of Christian anthropology, the equal personal dignity of men and women, and the necessity of overcoming and doing away with ‘every type of discrimination regarding fundamental rights’ (Gaudium et Spes, 29).” (Ratzinger, Letter, Oct 28, 1995)

I do not believe that God’s choice to use human sexuality to symbolize His relationship with His people was an injustice. Nor do I believe that Christ’s choice to ordain only men as the 12 Apostles or to reserve priestly ordination to men was an injustice.

No one has a right to be a Catholic priest. Men don’t have the right. Women don’t have the right. It is a gift and calling from God. There are vocations within the Church which are reserved only to women – Consecrated Virgins.

And all of this does not imply that women have a lesser holiness. In fact, the most qualified candidate for priesthood in terms of holiness was Mary. But Jesus chose not to ordain her. Her sharing in divine glory now exceeds all the Apostles, Popes, bishops and priests put together.

Diversity in mission does not take away from equality in dignity:

“…the presence of a certain diversity of roles is in no way prejudicial to women, provided that this diversity is not the result of an arbitrary imposition, but is rather an expression of what is specific to being male and female… When we consider the ‘iconic’ complementarity of male and female roles, two of the Church’s essential dimensions are seen in a clearer light: the ‘Marian’ principle and the Apostolic-Petrine principle.”

“[Reserving priesthood to men] in no way detracts from the role of women, or for that matter from the role of the other members of the Church who are not ordained to the sacred ministry, since all share equally in the dignity proper to the ‘common priesthood’ based on Baptism.” (John Paul II, Letter to Women, 1995, 6 & 11)