Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'm probably going to get a lot of hate for this... sweatdrop I know it's probably the PC thing to say "yeah, why shouldn't they?" but hear me out...

The reason that there are not female priests, in my understanding, is that the role of a priest is to represent Christ in performing the liturgy. That probably doesn't make sense if your church is not very liturgical, but it's not accurate to think of Priests as the Catholic equivalent of a protestant preacher. The rule against female priests has nothing to do with their ability or not to be spiritual guides or respected authorities. I believe that female spiritual leaders within the church should be respected equally with priests, but they should not be priests, because of the very specific role that priests play-- "role" not in the sense of "job" or "function" but literally playing the part of another, in this case Christ, who was obviously a man.

I feel like that's really hard to explain in a way that makes sense and doesn't seem like just a closed-minded or sexist worldview, but to me, tradition is really important. I think it's actually not up to us to question why Jesus and the apostles were men or why the Church tradition is the way it is. Most people today do think we should rework things within the context of modern times, but that's just going to be something I disagree with I guess. I can respect where the opinion is coming from, anyway.

Also, I kind of don't get why a woman would feel so deprived by not being a priest. She can still be a leader in the church, often more so than the priest, she can still be an administrator, she can still be a spiritual guide. Maybe they feel priests are respected more, and while that shouldn't be the case... frankly, it also shouldn't matter. If you want an office for the recognition alone, that's not really "in the spirit" of the thing.

I personally believe in the bible, and the bible is pretty clear on this issue and it's reasons for doing so. I would hope the Catholic church would uphold scripture over popular or postmodern thought.


"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.(1 Timothy 2:11-14).

The context of the greek words for man and woman are clear when compared with other uses of the same words in the book. Paul is most likely talking about all men and women rather than husbands and wives only. This doesn't mean that women cannot hold positions where they teach, but it should be focused on women's and children's ministries. It's simply the way that God designed his church to function, and the way it will work the most smoothy in this fallen world.

I have heard some women teach, they usually sound like their husbands... Heh.

If Adam was not deceived then he willingly and knowingly disobeyed God without care. According to your description Adam proved cowardice and weakness where women have time and time again proven strength and courage. Both genders are capable of all these things. I still see no reasoning in clinging desperately to illogical archaic beliefs. The only explanation is to do as the bible says and I will add to that later in this post.



Personally, I don't see the scripture as God-breathed. I do believe in God and I believe in Jesus, but the bible was written by humans and as Adam and Eve have proven (in different ways perhaps) humans are open to deception.



Oh, I beg to differ. One thing that really irks me is when people say "You can't do this because the bible says so, but you can ignore this part, nobody minds." No, if you're going to take the bible's advice literally don't hold back. Don't pick and choose what parts God was right on, that isn't your place to decide.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"

This means women should not add to theology, apologetics, teach, write books, etc. They must be silent. Although women are under authority in the church they are not less intelligent, not less worthy, but they cannot participate in Godly discussion with men because they must be silent.

I have been to many churches where men were in charge. I paid attention to how they managed things and how they lived, visiting them at their houses so I could see their true living environment as it is. Believe me when I say they were not using their authority correctly nor practicing what they preached. It was all about the money. I have seen women do better.

Knowing these things and seeing how foolish such a suppression is, why label it "bowing a knee to feminism"? I see it as opening eyes to reality. Men and women are capable of the same thing, in many cases women have proven to be superior, but still people cling to archaic beliefs of male superiority. For centuries in many cultures women were not allowed to fight in wars because they were "fragile." Last I checked a women held the world record for long range accuracy and according to my Pop, a Navy veteran, there were no fiercer warriors he had ever met than an all-female platoon of martial artists.

Close your eyes to reality and you embrace ignorance over knowledge, foolishness over wisdom, and mistakes over improvement.

Again, I believe females should be allowed to be priests. My words suggesting a belief against the idea is merely to prove my point.

I don't have a problem with women priests. The Episcopal Church has women priests. I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon but I do think that someday in the future Catholicism will have women preists. While it may not seem like it, politics plays a big part in Catholicism and the proper channels have to be followed before things change.

I don't put much credit in the Timothies since it's pretty much accepted as a psuedographes and it conveniently surfaced around the time when there were women teacher (no evidence of women priests since a formal priesthood was a later addition) but there is evidence of women teachers in the Bible. You have Mary Madelene who was the Apostle to the Apostles. You also have Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:19 praising Aquila and Prisca for their churches. "The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Prisca salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. " Much of the reason why Christianity spread early on (1st and 2nd century mind you) was because of women teaching and proselytizing.

The Adam and Eve argument really only holds weight if you take it literally. The narrative is typically held by most mainstream sects as not literal and describing something about us and human nature. Eve is a name meaning "Life", so Eve in this narrative is the instincts to live. Adam means "man" and represents human rationality. Eve's choice to take the fruit is symbolic of our innate narcissism. It's instinctual to seek to make itself better and is easily deceived. If the instinct gets the impulse to go for something that it thinks will make it better it will go for it. It's rationality's place to keep instincts in check, not accept instinctual impulses without question. The fall is that we are innately narcissistic and selfish since that the core instinct of life. We have to be trained and taught out of that mind set, but because of it being instinctual, it's always going to be with us.

Oh! I'm sorry I wasn't being specific enough. Women are not to teach with authority over men, but are definitely part of intelligent and godly conversation in women's and children's ministries. There is also a difference between women having a heart to heart conversation with a man (about theology, apologetics, what she is learning and growing in, etc), and teaching him with authority.

I also wonder what your opinion on the holy spirit is, if you believe in Jesus and God, but do not believe in the biblical validity of scripture outside of the Gospels.

I guess my point is that if catholics want to be consistent in their faith, then they are going to have to come under the authority of scripture, including the Pauline writings.

You have some good points though, and I understand your viewpoint fully. I really think this is a very important conversation to have, and am glad to have a place to do so intelligently and with respectful people. smile

I didn't see that much in the scripture. It seems pretty clear and blunt to me. I'm sorry if I sound rude in saying so, but this really sounds like a "pick and choose" argument. It isn't ok for women to teach as priests, but it's ok for them to do anything else that scripture implies they should not do. Maybe I'd have to read the rest of that part of the bible, not just the quoted lines, to understand it.



I'm not sure what that has to do with the bible. However, on the topic of the bibles, take two bibles from different Christian sects and compare the same lines. You may see the same thing at certain points, but eventually you're going to see different messages. Quote one part of two bibles and you can see two entirely different messages, in some cases as extreme as one saying a particular act is forbidden and the other saying it must be performed. This is because humans wrote the original and translated from that text. If I ever find a bible I trust every word from it will probably be the original text and to my understanding that is locked up thus out of my reach.

How can I trust a book with multiple versions that contradict each other? I think I would go insane trying. But onwards to other parts of our conversation, you mentioned curiosity of my opinion about the Holy Spirit.

It's been awhile since I thought about the Holy Spirit. God and Jesus tend to take the spotlight in my mind. From what my mother taught me the Holy Spirit is something that resides within us. Not that we are the Holy Spirit, but that a part of the Holy Spirit guides us. Something like that, as I said it's been awhile. What is your opinion or belief on the matter?



Absolutely, however the way I see it they have already strayed. Catholics are at a point where they have a choice to make. They can stick strictly to the scripture and stand against the rest of the world clinging to their traditional ways or they can accept the changes our world is going through and change with them to continue suiting modern mindsets.

If they choose to stick strictly to scripture they have allot of changing to do in order to get back on track. Fortunately, if they choose that path, the poor will be receiving allot more help as they sell the useless decorations they keep ornamenting their churches with.



I think I understand your viewpoint as well. My main thing is I don't believe there should be a middle ground on specific quotes. It doesn't make sense to decide to ignore 80% of one line then keep that 20% just because it provides something to use against people who disagree.