![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i.huffpost.com\/gen\/211250\/thumbs\/s-WOMAN-PRIEST-ORDAINED-large.jpg\")
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nand i was getting all into this \u2018male priesthood\u2019 thing too\u2026<\/span>\u00a0\n
Okay, okay, I\u2019ll respond now!<\/span><\/p>\n Marc,<\/p>\n Still going with that \u201cteenager\u201d thing, huh? Look, when you\u2019re ready to reveal your identity as a middle aged, published theologian, we\u2019re all here for ya. \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n Man, oh man! Are you on it! You said, \u201cIf we are to argue that there should only be a male priesthood, then it must be on the basis of a characteristic that only men have.\u201d You\u2019re so right! And I love that you said, \u201cWhile I agree that they are characteristics more \u201cat home\u201d in men, a woman can do them without too much difficulty, and often better.\u201d I was a\u2019totally a\u2019missing the point!<\/p>\n So I guess the basic difference between men and women is how they give life. Naturally, only women can give physical life as mothers, through birth. And spiritually, only men can give spiritual life as priests, through the priesthood. If this wasn\u2019t acceptable, those vying for the female priesthood should also then be supportive of male pregnancy. (Gag alert!)<\/p>\n In regards to your reflections.. Women can\u2019t be an image of Christ, as He is the husband of the Church. Similarly, men can\u2019t be the image of Mary, as she is the \u201cGod-bearer\u201d. So, to answer your question, I guess I see woman as the bearer and grower of physical life, which might elude to a new cycle of bride\/bridegroom kind of thang.. Would it?<\/p>\n I\u2019m feeling less sure of this and oh-so-reflective of your last response so, instead of asking you a new question, I\u2019ll ask that you just critique my lame attempts at an answer..<\/p>\n Still graciously mentioning, Caitie,<\/span><\/p>\n Now it\u2019s my turn to apologize. I was at the beach, busy stroking my well-formed, greying beard, drinking martinis and writing an introduction to the newest edition of my published work, Summa Marcologica. Though I hate to do it, I disagree with your following statement. Or rather, I agree with it whole-heartedly, but disagree with our use of it as a viable argument.<\/p>\n \u201cSo I guess the basic difference between men and women is how they give life. Naturally, only women can give physical life as mothers, through birth. And spiritually, only men can give spiritual life as priests\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n The problem being that we are attempting to make<\/em> the case that \u201conly men can give spiritual life as priests\u201d and I don\u2019t believe we have yet. As such, we can\u2019t use it as the basic difference between men and women (until we do). And I\u2019m afraid \u201cgiving spiritual life\u201d is too vague of a term for us to grapple with.<\/p>\n Interesting that you should mention Mary though. Because Mary would have been, without any shadow of doubt, the perfect priest. What better person to stand in the person of Christ then her without sin? What better person to offer the sacrifice of the Mass then she who had her heart pierced with a sword at the sacrifice of her son? Could we ask for a more perfect example of holiness, for better knowledge of Christ, for a greater disciple, a greater apostle? And, as we hear her messages from Fatima, from Lourdes and in our own hearts, could we really offer an example of a human being with more concern for her flock? With more of a priestly love for the Church? The answer is no. And yet Mary was not with the twelve when the priesthood was instituted, at the Last Supper. Mary was not a priest.<\/p>\n I am led to realize that the only thing those twelve men were better at than Mary was being men. That\u2019s the only thing. And as Christians, we know that everything Christ did, he did for a reason. And so we are led to conclude that, in excluding the perfect disciple from being a priest, he was reserving the priesthood for men. For those with the characteristic of paternity that reflects God\u2019s fatherly love for us. Because let\u2019s be honest, Mary could kick Peter\u2019s butt in all things but manliness.<\/p>\n But I guess all this leaves a question. Was Christ being a jerk to women? Hey, you\u2019re one of those woman things! Do you feel unfairly treated? Do you grit your teeth and mumble \u201coh the patriarchy!\u201d under your teeth at Mass?<\/p>\n Yours, Marc, <\/span><\/p>\n Ah, you\u2019re right! I jumped ahead didn\u2019t I? See? This is why I need to talk this through with someone first. I end up jumping around more than a soccer mom at the Oprah show and everyone comes out confused. Thank goodness you\u2019re here!<\/p>\n Totally agree on the Mary thang.. I mean, talk about the perfect Keys to Heaven caretaker! Mary seems like the kind of gal who\u2019d always hang them up when she came in the house too.. I\u2019m sure Peter had a couple \u201cKeys.. keys.. where did I \u2014 \u201d moments. \ud83d\ude09 So, why Peter? You, as always, summed it up perfectly: \u201cI am led to realize that the only thing those twelve men were better at than Mary was being men.\u201d<\/p>\n Think of all the stories of Jesus with women; the woman at the well, Mary Magdalene, and even Mary and Martha! I mean, c\u2019mon! Talk about a guy who doesn\u2019t confine women to the kitchen! His interactions with women show that not only does He have a love for us, He has a deep respect for us, and that doesn\u2019t stop when He picks only-male Apostles. He saw each person as His Father\u2019s child, so saying that there should have been women Apostles is saying, not only that Jesus was wrong (which is ballsy in itself) but that He is guilty of sexism. Plus, there were plenty of pagan religions that had priestesses at the time.. It wasn\u2019t THAT crazy an idea. If Jesus had wanted women priests, He would have had them.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t feel unfairly treated at all and I\u2019ll give you three reasons why: first, because I am so in awe that God would create us to be able to do such things as humans alone! What a miracle the priesthood is! The fact that any human being can stand in for Jesus is enough to leave me faint in the pew. Second, I don\u2019t feel excluded because I trust Jesus. I know that, should women have been meant to be priests, He would have made it so. I believe in His power and the power of the Holy Spirit. I am sure that it would have been something that Jesus would have instituted specifically. And finally, I see it as a trade off.. We ladies get to grow babies and men get to administer the Sacraments. I\u2019m cool with that! \ud83d\ude42 Though I wish the stretchmarks were a bit more evenly distributed.. <\/span>Caitie<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Caitie,<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know much about the female deaconess argument, but I have seen it mentioned on several comboxes throughout the vast expanse of internet-land.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know if there really were female deaconesses, as the evidence seems shaky. But if there were, they were not priests. And as our understanding evolves, and the deaconate is realized as something that does not simply \u2018stand on its own\u2019, as a task within the Church, but also points and leads to the priesthood, then we begin to understand why women are not deaconesses.<\/p>\n <\/p><\/span><\/div>\n More to come!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n In which Caitie Beardmore and I continue our brilliant discussion, and become more and more convinced that we are right, and that the idea of a female priest is (rushes to thesaurus.com to find a more polite word than \u2018stupid\u2019) simply puerile. That\u2019s not \u00a0becoming Jesus\u2026 Marc \u2013 Don\u2019t want you to think that I\u2019m […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-destupidification"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nCaitie<\/p>\n
\nMarc<\/p>\n
\nHow about you? What do you say to those who claim there were female deaconesses back in the day?<\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n
\nWhat\u2019s great is that I know enough about it to know that it\u2019s a stupid argument. Because a deacon, though alike in collar, black dress and mood, is not a priest. The fact that there were female deaconesses only heightens the more blindingly obvious fact, that there weren\u2019t female priests. It\u2019s an alright emotional argument, I suppose, but doesn\u2019t hold water logically. Would I point to the small number of apples that look like pears to argue that apples should really be pears after all? No. People would laugh at me, and I have a delicate ego.\u00a0\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n