Catholics only: should women be ordained as priests?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Go.

[Epaminondas]

How is this even a question?
Only a lifetime of brainwashing by the Church could possibly lead you to answer no.
Which I did, by the way, for a laugh.

[Small L]

No.

[Kingpoleon]

Go.

You know this is actually a majority opinion among non-Catholic Christians, right?

[TJ in Oregon]

How is this even a question?
Only a lifetime of brainwashing by the Church modernism could possibly lead you to answer no yes.

FIFY

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Nah, let progressive Protestant churches welcome them with open arms though!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I can't really provide a cogent answer to this question because my own sensibilities are sharply at variance with an official teaching that's been placed at a fairly high level of theological certitude.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ambiguously Catholic, emphatic yes. I'm willing to seriously consider that the Church might have understood things that I haven't when it comes to moral issues like abortion and euthanasia, but on this issue I'll never cede an inch. Any argument against female priesthood has to be rooted in a principle of inequality and discrimination (and yes, ~muh complementarianism~ is inherently inegalitarian and discriminatory just as "separate but equal" was).

How is this even a question?
Only a lifetime of brainwashing by the Church modernism could possibly lead you to answer no yes.

FIFY

If you think equality is an inherently "modern" notion, you and the modernists are really not so different.

[TJ in Oregon]

Ambiguously Catholic, emphatic yes. I'm willing to seriously consider that the Church might have understood things that I haven't when it comes to moral issues like abortion and euthanasia, but on this issue I'll never cede an inch. Any argument against female priesthood has to be rooted in a principle of inequality and discrimination (and yes, ~muh complementarianism~ is inherently inegalitarian and discriminatory just as "separate but equal" was).

How is this even a question?
Only a lifetime of brainwashing by the Church modernism could possibly lead you to answer no yes.

FIFY

If you think equality is an inherently "modern" notion, you and the modernists are really not so different.

My post quoted here was admittedly flippant, as it was a response to an equally flippant post in order to make a point. More broadly, yes, there are almost certainly multiple different belief systems one can hold that will lead to either conclusion in the case of most questions. However, I would argue that the primary reason why people would support womens' ordination is, as you describe, a belief that inequality and discrimination (which literally means "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another") are inherently wrong. I flippantly referred to this as a type of "modernism", which we might be able to debate, but I think that is probably not a discussion worth having.

Instead, it seems to me that a more productive topic would be what appears to be the root of the disagreement and that is whether inequality and discrimination are inherently wrong, in particular with regard to sex/gender. At least to me, the argument for complementarianism appears straightforward enough: it seemingly matches our observation of gender differences, the Scriptural account of Genesis, etc. But I am honestly bewildered at what the argument from metaphysics, Scripture, Tradition, etc. even is for the opposite view. Why are discrimination and inequality inherently wrong?

[RI]

I hold the Church's teaching as correct (especially as it is an internal matter which only affects itself), and I don't find it some great injustice that women can't be ordained, but I've never heard a great argument for why the doctrine is as it is. I get that Jesus never "ordained" women as his apostles, but he also never ordained a thousand other demographic groups; why are women special? I don't see that as a definitive reasoning to bar women from the priesthood, especially with the certitude with which the Church has proclaimed the lack of faculty. What is the natural law rationale? What is it about the female nature which makes it unsuited for ordination? Perhaps TJ or someone else knows.

[RFayette]

I hold the Church's teaching as correct (especially as it is an internal matter which only affects itself), and I don't find it some great injustice that women can't be ordained, but I've never heard a great argument for why the doctrine is as it is. I get that Jesus never "ordained" women as his apostles, but he also never ordained a thousand other demographic groups; why are women special? I don't see that as a definitive reasoning to bar women from the priesthood, especially with the certitude with which the Church has proclaimed the lack of faculty. What is the natural law rationale? What is it about the female nature which makes it unsuited for ordination? Perhaps TJ or someone else knows.

1 Timothy 2 seems to give the scriptural argument against woman's ordination.  I don't know if it counts as a natural law argument but it seems to argue it is a result of what occurred in the Fall. 

[TJ in Oregon]

I can't really provide a cogent answer to this question because my own sensibilities are sharply at variance with an official teaching that's been placed at a fairly high level of theological certitude.

One of the problems I've noticed with the Catholic left in general is an unwillingness to say things like this, so I have to take my hat off to you for sincerity.

My opinion is likely rather jaded on this, but it has seemed to me for years that the Catholic left tends to get sidetracked deconstructing doctrines, especially to justify sexual sins, rather than focusing on helping the poor. And it really is a shame, since the Church needs a healthy Catholic left that actually does care about poor people rather than virtue signaling. It's something that should exist.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My post quoted here was admittedly flippant, as it was a response to an equally flippant post in order to make a point. More broadly, yes, there are almost certainly multiple different belief systems one can hold that will lead to either conclusion in the case of most questions. However, I would argue that the primary reason why people would support womens' ordination is, as you describe, a belief that inequality and discrimination (which literally means "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another") are inherently wrong. I flippantly referred to this as a type of "modernism", which we might be able to debate, but I think that is probably not a discussion worth having.

Instead, it seems to me that a more productive topic would be what appears to be the root of the disagreement and that is whether inequality and discrimination are inherently wrong, in particular with regard to sex/gender. At least to me, the argument for complementarianism appears straightforward enough: it seemingly matches our observation of gender differences, the Scriptural account of Genesis, etc. But I am honestly bewildered at what the argument from metaphysics, Scripture, Tradition, etc. even is for the opposite view. Why are discrimination and inequality inherently wrong?

I mean, to be clear, I do not and cannot believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium or even of the Scriptures, hence the "ambiguously" in my post (I've been told by Catholics both on this forum and outside that I still "qualify" as one on account of practice, but you're free to make your own determinations on this point). So we are bound to talk past each other to some extent.

I don't doubt that there are passages in the Scriptures that can be interpreted provide a reasonable basis for inequality and discrimination (and even, depressingly, for slavery). But in many cases, there are also reasonable interpretations that avoid provide such a justification. It's clear that in the past century and a half, the Church magisterium has generally tended to privilege the latter interpretations over the former, with a few glaring exceptions like female ordinations (and there's no doubt that some of those change were a response to modernity, although responding is not the same as following). Quite simply, I want this process to continue until no justification for inequality is left in religious teaching unless absolutely necessary to the core of that teaching (and even then, finding out that inegalitarian logic was truly indispensable to a religious teaching would make me severely reevaluate that teaching negatively).

I want that to happen because I myself believe that inequality and discrimination are inherent wrongs. My reasons for believing so aren't directly a product of Christian thought (although no doubt Christian morality in its most abstract form has shaped my beliefs substantially), but I know many people who have come this conclusion as a direct consequence of their faith (there is a lot of egalitarian messages to find in the Christian tradition too, of course). They would of course be more qualified to conduct this discussion with you if you want a specifically Christian argument in favor of female ordination.

As for myself, since you already concede that complementarianism is inegalitarian and discriminatory, and your point of contention is that inequality and discrimination are actually good things (in this context at least), I'm happy to write this off as an irreducible moral difference between us and agree to disagree.

[TDAS04]

Option 4.  This is a major reason why I'll never be Catholic.  People are of equal worth; I'm aware of the "equal but different" argument, but you can't have equality with the "head and helper" nonsense.  

It does seem, however, that Catholics are generally more sensible than evangelicals.  Many individual Catholics are not that enthusiastic about complimentarianism.  Nonetheless, it doesn't look like the church is budging.  Maybe the egalitarian-minded Catholics should just become Episcopalian, or maybe Lutheran.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Maybe the egalitarian-minded Catholics should just become Episcopalian, or maybe Lutheran.

I know many magisterial Protestants in the US like to advertise their churches as "Catholicism without the sex discrimination", but that isn't actually the case, and it's insulting to the memory of the seminal figures of Anglican and Lutheran history to suggest that that's all those traditions boil down to.

[TDAS04]

Maybe the egalitarian-minded Catholics should just become Episcopalian, or maybe Lutheran.

I know many magisterial Protestants in the US like to advertise their churches as "Catholicism without the sex discrimination", but that isn't actually the case, and it's insulting to the memory of the seminal figures of Anglican and Lutheran history to suggest that that's all those traditions boil down to.

I didn't say that.

Perhaps I should have just said any tradition egalitarian Catholics might prefer.  I just mentioned those two since they contain the high church familiarity, but that's not necessarily what's important to them.  They can be whatever they want, and maybe they could find something in different denomination that appeals to them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Maybe the egalitarian-minded Catholics should just become Episcopalian, or maybe Lutheran.

I know many magisterial Protestants in the US like to advertise their churches as "Catholicism without the sex discrimination", but that isn't actually the case, and it's insulting to the memory of the seminal figures of Anglican and Lutheran history to suggest that that's all those traditions boil down to.

I didn't say that.

Perhaps I should have just said any tradition egalitarian Catholics might prefer.  I just mentioned those two since they contain the high church familiarity, but that's not necessarily what's important to them.  They can be whatever they want, and maybe they could find something in different denomination that appeals to them.

The point I'm making is that Catholics who are uncomfortable with the sex-discriminatory aspects of Catholicism might have other reasons, even other theological reasons, to stay Catholic rather than seeking out another tradition at all. Obviously plenty of Catholics do decamp to various mainline Protestant denominations for these sorts of reasons, but it's not a resolution that's for everyone, especially not for people who object to Catholic teaching on some sex- and gender-related issues but agree with it on others.

[TDAS04]

Maybe the egalitarian-minded Catholics should just become Episcopalian, or maybe Lutheran.

I know many magisterial Protestants in the US like to advertise their churches as "Catholicism without the sex discrimination", but that isn't actually the case, and it's insulting to the memory of the seminal figures of Anglican and Lutheran history to suggest that that's all those traditions boil down to.

I didn't say that.

Perhaps I should have just said any tradition egalitarian Catholics might prefer.  I just mentioned those two since they contain the high church familiarity, but that's not necessarily what's important to them.  They can be whatever they want, and maybe they could find something in different denomination that appeals to them.

The point I'm making is that Catholics who are uncomfortable with the sex-discriminatory aspects of Catholicism might have other reasons, even other theological reasons, to stay Catholic rather than seeking out another tradition at all. Obviously plenty of Catholics do decamp to various mainline Protestant denominations for these sorts of reasons, but it's not a resolution that's for everyone, especially not for people who object to Catholic teaching on some sex- and gender-related issues but agree with it on others.

Of course they can stay Catholic too, especially if the issues they disagree with the church on aren’t as big a priority as the ones which they agree with it on, sure.

[Georg Ebner]

Women cannot be priests, already because intelligence - what the pagans had to rest on - is against it: A woman can be a passive guard (of the holy fire aso.) or be the passive mediatrix of the Divine, but not a priest, i.e. an active actor.
Woman is, man does.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Women cannot be priests, already because intelligence - what the pagans had to rest on - is against it: A woman can be a passive guard (of the holy fire aso.) or be the passive mediatrix of the Divine, but not a priest, i.e. an active actor.
Woman is, man does.

Good grief. On the whole, I think I prefer the "Jesus never ordained women" rationale to this claptrap.

[Georg Ebner]

Women cannot be priests, already because intelligence - what the pagans had to rest on - is against it: A woman can be a passive guard (of the holy fire aso.) or be the passive mediatrix of the Divine, but not a priest, i.e. an active actor.
Woman is, man does.

Good grief. On the whole, I think I prefer the "Jesus never ordained women" rationale to this claptrap.

Ah, i see: Natural sexes don't exist, only genders artificially constructed by the PreJudices of "unenlightened" societies.
Obviously my brother, the primitive StoneAge-pagan adoring Mother Nature, and i have had a very different level of intelligence...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I mean, to be clear, I do not and cannot believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium or even of the Scriptures, hence the "ambiguously" in my post (I've been told by Catholics both on this forum and outside that I still "qualify" as one on account of practice, but you're free to make your own determinations on this point).

I mean, I would argue that not believing in God might just be a disqualifying factor...

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I mean, to be clear, I do not and cannot believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium or even of the Scriptures, hence the "ambiguously" in my post (I've been told by Catholics both on this forum and outside that I still "qualify" as one on account of practice, but you're free to make your own determinations on this point).

I mean, I would argue that not believing in God might just be a disqualifying factor...

Eh.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Women cannot be priests, already because intelligence - what the pagans had to rest on - is against it: A woman can be a passive guard (of the holy fire aso.) or be the passive mediatrix of the Divine, but not a priest, i.e. an active actor.
Woman is, man does.

Good grief. On the whole, I think I prefer the "Jesus never ordained women" rationale to this claptrap.

Ah, i see: Natural sexes don't exist, only genders artificially constructed by the PreJudices of "unenlightened" societies.

That's a false dichotomy, and I'm not going to play this game.

[RI]

Women cannot be priests, already because intelligence - what the pagans had to rest on - is against it: A woman can be a passive guard (of the holy fire aso.) or be the passive mediatrix of the Divine, but not a priest, i.e. an active actor.
Woman is, man does.

Good grief. On the whole, I think I prefer the "Jesus never ordained women" rationale to this claptrap.

Ah, i see: Natural sexes don't exist, only genders artificially constructed by the PreJudices of "unenlightened" societies.
Obviously my brother, the primitive StoneAge-pagan adoring Mother Nature, and i have had a very different level of intelligence...

I suspect Nathan knows a bit more about gender than you do.