> Your views on this subject (Women Priests) are certainly outdated.
> An opener like like almost always means the person is not interested in the
> arguments at hand. Imagine her reaction were you to tell her that her "views
> on tis subject are certainly faddish."
> To merely go by what the Bible says, is to deny how far we as a people have
> come. The Bible was written in a time when women had no rights or position.
> It was
> natural for the authors of the Bible to speak in terms of male priests
> and disciples. But the world is a different place now.
> Again, I don't want to appear rude, but these assertions reveal only an
> ignorance of biblical theology (albeit a remediable ignorance!) The old "but
> the world is a different place now" argument is also used to slip away from
> the grasp of the moral demands of the Ten Commandments. Uncomfortable Fact
> No. 1: The authors of the Bible were inspired by God to write what they
> wrote. In fact, God is the primary author. This person could probably stand
> to read Dei Verbum, Nos. 9-12) and the section in the Catechism on
> But back to the point. Jesus Christ was both a staunch traditionalist and
> a radical revolutionary, both an entrenched conservative and a progressive
> liberal. In other words, he utterly transcended all political labels. Let's
> look at the priesthood question: Jesus did things that were shocking,
> unlikely, distressing, unpredictable, and socially and culturally radical. He
> ate with sinners, he healed on the Sabbath, he reported his resurrection to a
> woman, he enjoyed the company of women, he revealed his messianic mission to a
> Samaritan woman, HE SAID HE WAS GOD, etc. For Jesus to have ordained women to
> the priesthood would have been a piece of cake by comparison. The surrounding
> religions all had priestesses -- except Judaism.
> Uncomfortable Fact No. 2: That he did not call women to ordained ministry
> is highly significant, and lasting in importance. Since he was God, Jesus was
> most definitely NOT limited by the confines, mores, and taboos of his, or any,
> culture. The decisions he made regarding the foundation and governance of the
> Church are binding and perpetual in all that concerns the essence of the
> faith. Accidentals (fasting regulations, married or celibate priests, incense
> usage, many Mass rubrics, the language of the liturgy, vestments, feast days,
> seminary programs, bells at Mass, altar boys/girls, the agenda of Councils,
> permanent/transitional diaconate, episcopal regalia, where the Pope lives,
> church design, art, architecture,) are all subject to alteration as the
> Church, guided by the Holy Spirit sees fit.
> Clearly, the most basic (and highest) element of Catholic life is the
> Eucharist, and the gender of the persons who perpetuate and render present
> Christ's one sacrifice is a foundational (ie essential) element of the
> Catholic Church. Matter matters! The gender of a priest (like anyone else)
> is fundamental to his identity. Gender is the first datum you notice when
> someone walks into the room. Here is where priestess advocates fall into a
> contradiction: Borrowing from their secular cousins, they insist that if a
> woman can "do a job" as well as a man, then she should have access to the job.
> The premise here is that gender is inconsquential. But if it's really
> inconsequential, then what could be wrong with an all-male priesthood? What
> could be wrong with Christ being incarnate as a male and not a female? It had
> to be one sex or the other, right?
> The very objection to the all-male priesthood rests on the supposition that
> gender IS essential. Also, the priesthood is a call and a gift, not a
> political right to be grabbed by the faithful. Similarly, God chose only the
> Levites to be the Old Covenant priests. Can you imagine the people of the
> Tribe of Judah protesting before the Jewish leadership, "Hey, this is
> discrimination! Uncle Saul here is a better homilist/counsellor/leader than
> most of those crappy Levites who have all the Temple power." So God is an
> unjust discriminator, huh? So Jesus Christ is a sexist, huh? (This claim is,
> of course, a blasphemy.) Is nature unjust for not allowing men to gestate and
> give birth? Are women discriminated against because they can't make
> Additionally, your comments that women are distresed by the dictate
> that women will never be allowed to be priests merely because that would
> mean they are discriminated against in one particular "job" is very
> Oh yeah? Well, you're a big poopy bum, and my dad can beat up your dad!
> (Sorry, I just had to.)
> Don't you believe that there are women who love Our Lord to
> the extent that they want to do his work? Not as nuns, but as priests,
> allowed to celebrate the Mass, allowed to celebrate the mystery of the
> Holy Eucharist? I see no good reason for a woman who truly has the
> calling, for after all, the priesthood is not just a job, it is a calling, a
> vocation, to be denied the opportunity to do the Lord's work.
> A) How sad to limit "the Lord's work" to the priestly ministry. What about
> making Christian-themed movies, counselling abused women, lovingly changing
> diapers, breast-feeding, tending wounds, arguing court cases on behalf of
> justice, teaching, washing the clothes of the poor, serving soup at a kitchen,
> forgiving your parents, taking your nieces bowling, singing carols at an old
> age home, advising the bishop, writing articles, fixing a sandwich for the
> spouse who just hurt you in an argument, having a spirit of cheerfulness at
> work, teaching NFP classes, babysitting, cooking for an infirmed neighbour --
> or a hundered thousand other works of mercy?
> B) The priesthood is never (or should not be) entered into as a "power
> play." Real power, as our Lord shows so well, resides in service to others.
> Was the Blessed mother discriminated against because she was pased over by her
> Son in favor of better-qualified men? Again, ironcially, the actual teaching
> of the Catholic Church can be argued to suggest a pro-feminine bias: Above
> every single male in 2000 years, the Church has held up one person as the
> ultimate model of Christian discipleship and holiness, and preminently worthy
> of veneration.
> And she doesn't go by"Father" or "Your Holiness."
> She goes by "Mom."
> The Blessed Virgin Mary. A woman. THE Woman.
> In Jesus's time, women had little status. Yet a good number of his most
> faithful followers were women. Anyone He touched and who believed,
> became a disciple, spreading the good news.
> Well, in the face of question-begging assertions like this one, all l I can
> urge any openminded questioner to do is pick up, and drink deeply from, Peter
> Kreeft's - Alice von Hildebrand's book. Everything else is begging the
> As for the other letter, there's an irony to be savored that a Presbyterian
> couple would quote a non-authoritative Catholic source to a priest on behalf
> of a position that will never be accepted by the Church. What
> 222,678,398,790,101,258 "Catholic" Bible associations think about this or that
> is not binding to anyone. Their points don't add anything to Heidi's letter.
> They only make me wonder why they feel the need to change the practice and
> teaching of the Catholic Church. I'm sure they're good and sincere people,
> however. Catechetics is such an aching need in the Church today, no?
> In Christ Jesus,
> - Patrick