Fri 18th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Thu 17th Apr 2014 at 22:10pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Let’s end the obsession with women priests: the arguments are outdated and the question resolved long ago

Campaigners such as Baroness Helena Kennedy think priesthood is all about power

By on Tuesday, 1 November 2011

Campaigners for women's ordination in front of St Peter's Basilica in Rome (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

Campaigners for women's ordination in front of St Peter's Basilica in Rome (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

There is a lot to be said for being stuck in a traffic jam. This morning in the car I turned on BBC Radio 4 at Woman’s Hour, to stumble upon Jane Garvey hosting a discussion between Baroness Helena Kennedy QC and Madeleine Teahan, associate editor of The Catholic Herald. The subject: why can’t women be priests?

Somehow this debate seems very 1960s – the era of Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch, Gloria Steinem in the States and the slogan “Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle” (now why did I remember that?). In other words, it is dated. Baroness Kennedy came across as a bit of a feminist dinosaur in this regard, throwing out words like “patriarchy”, “oppression” and “misogyny”, phrases like “male exclusivity” and statements like “theology has been constructed by men”, “for too long the voices of men have dominated” and “The Catholic Church is an evolving institution”. It was as if she was rehearsing lines learnt from those hoary old feminists, yet deploying them in an arena in which they have become outdated and irrelevant.

Madeleine Teahan responded to all this annoyance and irritation with calmness and clarity, refusing to rise to the bait yet not allowing herself to be patronised by the older woman. She reminded Kennedy that the late Pope John Paul had never said, “I will not ordain women”; he had made it clear that “I cannot ordain women.” In other words, it was not within his power to do so. The priest has to represent Christ in His humanity; it was a question of magisterial teaching, based on the Gospels and mediated by the Church through the hierarchy.

The Baroness was having none of this: it was a debate in which the Church should show “transparency” and “openness”; there were many women who would make fine priests and “we are talking about the exercise of power”. After all, Baroness Shirley Williams and Mary MacAleese, the Irish president, both support the idea of women priests.

At one stage Jane Garvey politely asked her why she was still in the Church if she felt like this. The Baroness chose not to answer, thus implying that it was for the Church to change rather than for her to give way.

At intervals, Madeleine Teahan suggested that the Church is not a democracy. Describing herself as a feminist, she said that she, too, believed in a women’s right to vote – but that this was not what was at issue. “My generation believes it can flourish within the Catholic Church”, she stated, adding that she knew a lot of modern, emancipated women in the Church who definitely did not feel “oppressed”; it was not a question of “men versus women” but about those eligible to be ordained and those who are not.

The Baroness stuck to her hymn sheet: “Look at the people with power in the Church: where are the women?” she demanded to know. She told Teahan to “speak to the ordinary women cleaning the Church, doing the flowers”; they were not at all happy. Indeed, she is putting the case for women becoming priests in an open meeting in the House of Commons this afternoon.

I have two observations to make about this discussion. 1. It seems to me obvious that Baroness Kennedy is really arguing that women should have a slice of the “power” that she perceives priests enjoying. Yet, as I blogged recently about Una Kroll, once an Anglican priest and now a Catholic lay woman, the priesthood is not about power but about service; as Kroll put it, “I was called by God to move to a Church where I couldn’t exercise dominion of any sort, but where I could still learn what servant priesthood actually meant when put into practice.” 2. And as a corollary of this, Kennedy thinks it is demeaning for women in Catholic churches to do the cleaning and flower-arranging. This, too, was answered in the posts following my earlier blog: one person pointed out that they were not the only roles women could play at parish level while another said she was proud to fulfil these tasks.

I give the last word to Madeleine: as she said, there are many more important things to discuss in the Church today and it is sad to “obsess” about a question that has been decided long ago by God himself.

  • Brid

    You are  absolutely correct in what you say and the reason why you will not find much agreement here is because women who dare to question the issue of female priests have given up with outlets such as this. One only has to look at conservative catholic blogs such as that in the Telegraph to see that Christian spirit is well and truly missing as trad type catholics spew and spit vemon to such an extent that anyone accidentally coming to the blog to taste Christianity runs away disappointed and disillusioned 

  • Amos

    ” It seems to me obvious that Baroness Kennedy is really arguing that women should have a slice of the “power” that she perceives priests enjoying”

    I have a lot of time for what is said in this article: that priesthood is a gift from God and not a “human right”; no-one is “worthy” of the calling to priesthood, it is a grace filled gift.

    However, and it pains me to say this, this is not how an awful lot of clergy in the country behave.  So many of clergy, perhaps especially at higher levels, alas, DO behave as though it is all about power.  And so many young men who put themselves forward for ordination leave as the culture is so unhealthy.  

    This, perhaps, is the impetus that will mean that calls such as that of Helena Kennedy will not go away.

  • Lynda

    To all the complacent men who are ”bored” and ”yawn” about this, yes we are leaving the Catholic church….and are taking our children with us. Buddhism for example has so much more to offer a spiritual being without the caveats of bored men. Dinosaurs become extinct. Evolve or be erased….

  • Carole

    Thanks so much for this!  I’m one of those emancipated women PHD’s who serves the church daily in my vocation as a lay person.  I’ve never done the flowers, and I have the biggest pulpit in the world–a Christian radio station! 

    I did once struggle with this question.  Manfred Haukes’ excellent book “Women in the Priesthood?  A systematic study in the order of creation and redemption” sealed it for me.  The Church is absolutely right on this issue. 

  • Anonymous

    @LyndaBuddhism may have much to offer but it doesn’t offer Jesus Christ, who offers us a share in his own life -in communion with that most annoying of communities: the Church.

  • Anonymous

    It’s not “a great injustice”. It’s just that women have a different vocation. The pope himself could lay hands on a woman, but she would not be a priest, for it is ontologically impossible for a woman to be ordained.

  • Anonymous

    “The Church used to say it “could not”  give the Eucharist  to non-Catholics; but that has been unsaid.”

    Er, no it hasn’t.

  • Anonymous

    What your church bulletin says is inaccurate, then, yorkshirejoe. In fact it is more than that – it is improper. The Vatican has banned the term.

  • Bob Hayes

    Your last paragraph – well said!

  • laudator temporis acti

    Considering that Christ never ordained anyone there is nothing he laid down about priesthood to be overthrown. It is man-made tradition, maybe traceable back to Christ and his apostles, but not in any direct way – so much is clear from the Gospels and the early history of the Church.
    The college of cardinals must be the ultimate example of cronyism. JPII made very sure that he would be succeeded by a like-minded confrere, so I think “self-appointed” is a just description.
    Churches with married and female priests show far fewer cases of sexual abuse of children. It is extremely rare for a woman to abuse children in that way. To confine priesthood to males and expect them to be celibate is asking for trouble. If for no other reason, the Catholic Church badly needs to reconsider the nature of its priesthood. There is no God-given mandate. It can choose to ordain whomever it likes.

  • Maryam

    That’s completely different. Voting is a right enshrined in any true democracy. No one has a right to become a priest, or even to receive Holy Communion. The Catholic Church isn’t forcing anyone to join or remain with her. There’s no injustice if a woman can’t become a “priest”. If you’re not happy with the traditions and beliefs of the Church, just leave. It’s really that simple.

  • Bob Hayes

    As Catholics we believe in the Holy Trinity and understand that by the power of the Holy Spirit we (people, priests and pontiffs alike) may be guided in righteous ways according to Christ’s teaching. We recognise and welcome the positive supernatural influence of God. Yet when issues such as the ordination of women are discussed, those challenging the Church overwhelmingly predicate their arguments on western liberal-democratic ideology and processes – ‘accountability’, ‘representation’, ‘equality’ and ‘rights’. 

    For sure, liberal democracy has brought many benefits, but also many disasters – such as its frequent receptiveness to abortion and antipathy to marriage and the family. Liberal-democratic values are less than two centuries old and its processes over the past century have a very chequered track record. I fear that for some these relatively recent political concepts are in danger of becoming a new idolatry. 
    Let us instead accept the wisdom of the Church built up over two millennia and pray that the Holy Spirit guides our Sovereign Pontiff and all the clergy and people. If you do not like the exclusion of women from the priesthood, do not – as some contributors have suggested – leave the Church, rather pray that you may come to understand why this is the case.

  • Anonymous

    While no individual of either sex has a right to become a priest, it would be a grave injustice to deny the priesthood to all the members of a certain race, just because of their race. Exactly the same principle applies to denying the priesthood to women. There is no good reason for continuing with this injustice since all the arguments against ordaining women amount to, “We have never done it before, therefore we cannot do it now.” That is an absurd argument.

    I can remember when people were taught that it was a mortal sin to attend a funeral of a friend in an Anglican church. I remember when we were told that the Mass had to be in Latin because it always had been in Latin (yes that is what I was told) and that those who supported a change to the vernacular were disloyal cranks. I cannot, however remember anyone who argued for a vernacular liturgy being told that they should leave the Church: the devil really is making his presence very obvious nowadays.

  • JC

     I am sorry but this comment is totally full of errors and misconceptions.  You obviously know nothing about the real Catholic Church, the Church of the Apostles which began at Pentecost and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.  St. Peter was the first Pope, appointed by Christ and gave him authority on Earth  “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19).”Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19)  You need to read about Apostolic succession.  You also need to realise that the Catholic Church is the only, true Christian Church and your statistic on clerical abuse is almost certainly erroneous.  For a start, read the Bible (the Catholic Bible) and then go away and think about the rubbish which you have been posting on here.

  • Anonymous

    Look, it’s blindingly obvious. It is not the Church that chooses men to be priests. It is Jesus who chose men to be priests. He picked his 12 apostles. All male. There were plenty of fine women around. His Mother. Martha of Bethany. Mary of Cleopas. Mary Salome. Mary Magdalene. He didn’t choose them. He chose men. There were only men present at the Last Supper, which is the blueprint for Mass (the male celebrating priest being a successor of the male apostles). There were only men present when the Resurrected Lord reappeared and instituted the sacrament of Confession, as the second thing he did after resurrecting. (First thing was to calm them down “Peace be with you”. Second thing, saying “the sins you forgive will be forgiven, the sins you retain will be retained”. Thus confession established.) So when the Church now says that it is unable to ordain women as priests, it is quite right. It is being faithful to the example of its founder. “If Jesus makes women priests, we do. If Jesus doesn’t, we don’t.” It is a decision that has been taken out of the Church’s hands. It may well be that women object to the fact that Jesus did not appoint women as his priestly successors. If so, they should address their complaints to Jesus, but not to his Church, which is only following his example. If these angry women put as much emphasis into becoming Saints as into railing against the obviously correct decision of the Church, they would soon discover that these very men whom they are so adamant are ignoring them would swiftly be raising them to the altar, singing their praises, and basing their liturgy and devotions around their teaching and examples, as the Church does indeed do with Saint Bridget of Sweden, Saint Theresa of Avila, Saint Theresa of Lisieux, and Saint Faustina. As Padre Pio said when presented with the idea of women priests, “Would you demean the Mother of God?”

  • Anonymous

    Jesus chose JEWS to be priests. He picked his 12 apostles. All JEWS. There were plenty of fine gentiles around. He did not chose them. He chose JEWS. There were only JEWS present …. etc.

    Get the point? Even though Jesus chose only Jews it does not mean that the the Church could not innovate and choose gentiles. Once you realise that Jesus gave his Church the authority to decide whom it could choose to be priests, even if that means going directly against the precedent that he himself set, your argument is demolished.

  • theroadmaster

    Of course the first twelve disciples were Jewish, as Jesus was operating very much in a Jewish milieu over 2000 years ago.  His teachings went global through the missionary efforts of His disciples inspired by the spirit-filled Pentecost outpouring of Faith.  They spread right across the gentile world and have become embodies in the Universal Faith that we know today as Christianity.  So what profound point are you making about the ethnic makeup of the followers of Christ and discrimination? How does this relate to Jesus’ deliberate choice of only men to make up the first team of disciples who would continue on His mission on Earth?   Jesus was not influenced unduly by the social mores of His time or future sociological trends that would develop in our modern world.  He was the complete fulfillment of all pre-existing O.T laws and practices and the Harbinger of the world to come.  Thus popes do not have the mandate to contradict 
    His verbal teachings or actions.

  • laudator temporis acti

    I am sorry but this comment is totally full of errors and misconceptions. You obviously know nothing about the history of the Church, especially its early history, nothing about the history of Scripture and how it came to be written, nothing about the difficult questions of how the structures of the Church developed from the example and words of Christ himself. The statistics on clerical abuse speak for themselves: the Catholic Church is far more riddled with it than churches with married male and female priests. It is disgraceful and shameful of you to call this erroneous. Try reading some reputable history and then go away and think about the rubbish which you have been posting here.
    As for my statistic

  • theroadmaster

    As the late Blessed pope, John Paul 11 stated categorically in his Encyclical “Sacredotalis Ordinatio”, the Church does not have the mandate to contradict the actions of Christ, in choosing only men for the first twelve disciples.  The priesthood is modeled on the Person of Christ and cannot be disassociated from Him.  Thus candidates to the priestly office can only be of the male gender. In a biblical, figurative sense, Our Saviour is wed to the Church in the manner of a bridegroom, and this is” relevant to the priesthood today.  Your wish fulfillment regarding this and “gay” marriage will not come to fruition in relation to changing Church teachings.  Marriage will always be recognized for what it has always been, based on the Natural Law and Judaeo-Christian belief, as being the sacrosanct union between one man and one woman which is open to procreation.

  • Bob Hayes

    Patrick, your argument seems to based on a presumption that Jesus’ selection of Jews, not Gentiles, (cited above) was of no significance – it just happened that way. From that position you then conclude that his selection of males, not females, likewise had no significance – it just happened that way. That is a great deal of presumption without any Scriptural support for your case. 

  • Anonymous

    Look, it’s blindingly obvious. It is not the Church that chooses men to be priests. It is Jesus who chose men to be priests. He picked his 12 apostles. All male. There were plenty of fine women around. His Mother. Martha of Bethany. Mary of Cleopas. Mary Salome. Mary Magdalene. He didn’t choose them. He chose men. There were only men present at the Last Supper, which is the blueprint for Mass (the male celebrating priest being a successor of the male apostles). There were only men present when the Resurrected Lord reappeared and instituted the sacrament of Confession, as the second thing he did after resurrecting. (First thing was to calm them down “Peace be with you”. Second thing, saying “the sins you forgive will be forgiven, the sins you retain will be retained”. Thus confession established.) So when the Church now says that it is unable to ordain women as priests, it is quite right. It is being faithful to the example of its founder. “If Jesus makes women priests, we do. If Jesus doesn’t, we don’t.” It is a decision that has been taken out of the Church’s hands. It may well be that women object to the fact that Jesus did not appoint women as his priestly successors. If so, they should address their complaints to Jesus, but not to his Church, which is only following his example. If these angry women put as much emphasis into becoming Saints as into railing against the obviously correct decision of the Church, they would soon discover that these very men whom they are so adamant are ignoring them would swiftly be raising them to the altar, singing their praises, and basing their liturgy and devotions around their teaching and examples, as the Church does indeed do with Saint Bridget of Sweden, Saint Theresa of Avila, Saint Theresa of Lisieux, and Saint Faustina. As Padre Pio said when presented with the idea of women priests, “Would you demean the Mother of God?”

  • Anonymous

    No Bob. It is “Jeremy” who used the argument that the Church cannot deviate from the pattern set by Jesus in deciding whom it should ordain as priests. I proved that his argument was false. There was no scriptural support for ordaining gentiles until it happened, but why not read what St Paul wrote to the Galatians “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ”

    Therefore the successors of the Apostles do have the right to make important decisions about the way the Church should be run, including deciding who should be chosen to become a priest. Jesus did not create the office of cardinal, nor establish a state like the Vatican to be his Holy See, he never celebrated the Eucharist in Latin, nor did he insist on celibacy for priests. The whole basis of the Catholic Church is that Jesus gave it authority to make those sort of decisions.

    Since there are no other arguments against ordaining women priests that means that it is just a matter of time until women are ordained.

  • Bob Hayes

    Patrick, we seem to be at cross purposes. I think you will find that it was you who posted, ‘Jesus chose JEWS to be priests. He picked his 12 apostles. All JEWS. There were plenty of fine gentiles around. He did not chose them. He chose JEWS. There were only JEWS present …. etc.

    Get the point? Even though Jesus chose only Jews it does not mean that the the Church could not innovate and choose gentiles. Once you realise that Jesus gave his Church the authority to decide whom it could choose to be priests, even if that means going directly against the precedent that he himself set, your argument is demolished.’
    Is that not so? 

  • Lynda

    @rtj1 ; yes you are right, Buddhism does not offer me Jesus Christ and I truly believe in Jesus Christ and Our Lady. I feel no difficulty in my relationship with Our lady but feel that the egocentric church is blocking Jesus from me, strange as that may sound.
    However i also believe that any nation, organization, and socio-religious group that treats ‘the hand that rocks the cradle’ as a second class citizen will only learn to crawl. I am saddened for the church that my grandmother said was my birthright, and my daughters birthright, that my ancestors had fought and died for, has no place of equality for us solely because of our gender. It is up to US to do god’s will.

  • Anonymous

    If you read “Jeremy”‘s post you will see that I disproved his argument that because Jesus only chose men the Church must do the same, by copying some of his sentences and replacing the word “men” with “JEWS”.

    The argument that the Church cannot go against the example of its founder is shown to be false. 

  • parasum

    “Of course the first twelve disciples were Jewish, as Jesus was operating very much in a Jewish milieu over 2000 years ago.”

    ## So why, if Gentiles were not chosen, but only Jews, are the vast majority of Catholic priests Gentiles ?

    Either the argument from  the example of Christ is thought to be valid – or it isn’t. One cannot use the argument to bar women from the priesthood, because the disciples were all (allegedly) non-female, and in the very next breath ignore the very same argument in order to protect the practice of ordaining non-Jews: even though the disciples were Jews.

    “Jesus was not influenced unduly by the social mores of His time or
    future sociological trends that would develop in our modern world.”

    ## That depends on what one thinks “being influenced unduly…” amounts to. The argument makes no sense anyway: St. Paul was not influenced by JP2, but what of it ? Why should Jesus, a first-century Jew, be influenced by events *in the future* ? Jesus did not have the opportunity to vote, but that does not make voting, or representative democracy, bad things. Though there are probably some who regard the fact that the Incarnation did not take place in 5th-century Athens as a knock-down argument that God hates representative democracy.

    Jesus nowhere speaks in praise of the medical profession – does it follow that the practice of medicine is a blasphemous abomination ? It would not be too difficult to “prove” that medicine is a blasphemous denial of Divine Providence, and that Christians commit blasphemy & apostasy by resorting to physicians, thereby committing the sin of Asa; for Jesus healed only by miracles. Therefore, Christians muist trust only in miracles wrought by Christ for healings. If this seems strange, we must remember that “Jesus was not influenced unduly by the social mores of His time”.

    “Thus popes do not have the mandate to contradict His verbal teachings or actions.”

    ## It would extremely naive to suppose they have not done so. Christianity can be made to mean anything one likes – it’s useless to say “But Jesus said…”, because that can always be explained away. Sorry, but I can’t see Jesus approving torture, massacre, slavery, persecution, racialism, the witchcraft mania – yet Popes have approved all of these things. The fact is that a great deal of Christian life has often been a long way from anything recognisable as Christianity. And this is still the case, as in the US, which is a modern Arabia, “fertile in heresies”.

  • Bob Hayes

    I suppose it boils down to whether we trust the Magisterium or whether we believe the Church and her teachings should be shaped by a liberal-democratic form of representative democracy.

  • Maryam

    As another commenter said, the Church *will* not alter the priesthood because she *cannot* alter the priesthood.

    The Church is neither the author or the editor of the priesthood.  God is.

    The Catholic Church doesn’t arrogate to herself the authority to change the deposit of faith, unlike other Protestant churches for example.

    The priesthood on earth was established by Christ on earth. And He chose only males to be apostles. Those who might accuse Christ of being sexist clearly don’t have an understanding of Christ and who He was. In His time on earth, Christ never succumbed to prejudices. He didn’t fear offending his contemporaries, for example when He and His disciples ate with unwashed hands.

    But on top of all of this sits almost 2,000 years of Church teaching and practices. G.K. Chesterton called this “the democracy of the dead.”

    As Peter Kreeft writes in his article about the reasons why the Catholic Church *cannot* (there’s that word again! it’s not will not. It’s *cannot*) ordain women, “if we don’t understand the reason for  some ancient
    tradition or institution, that is a good reason for not abolishing
    it.  If you come across a strange building in an unexpected place, it
    is really foolish to knock it down because you don’t understand its
    purpose.  Take it down only if you understand its purpose, and why it’s
    no longer needed. ”

  • Anonymous

    The Latin Rite Church made quite a radical change to the priesthood when it insisted upon celibacy after about a thousand years. I suppose that the leaders of the Church looked at the more ancient tradition, namely married priests, and decided to knock it down because they had good reasons for doing so. Pope John Paul and now Pope Benedict have looked at the thousand year tradition of celibacy and knocked it down by allowing the ordination of married men, and presumably they had good reasons for doing so. Just because a tradition has been going for a thousand years or more, it does not mean it cannot be changed.

  • Anonymous

    “Trad type Catholics”.  Is there another kind?  If you are not a Catholic in the full tradition of the Church, you are not a Catholic.

  • Anonymous

    Mr Hadley, you yourself have already left the Catholic Church in spirit.  Don’t call others sinners when you have no right to do so, your own conduct not being above reproach!

  • Maryam

    So why aren’t these people leaving the Catholic Church for another one of the many churches that ordain women as priests, support abortion, homosexual “marriage”, etc?

    I think what this really comes down to is that, on some level, they recognize that the Catholic Church holds religious legitimacy. 

    Perhaps they truly believe what they are advocating for (women priests) is right and are honestly trying to protect the Church from what they perceive as her errors. Yet at the same time, they seek the legitimacy of the Catholic Church, her history and traditions.

    Thus they want what the Church offers but yet are unwilling to do what she requires.

  • Scotchsnap

    Not really a fair analysis. The role of priest does include power of varioius kinds, and is clearly the principal leadership role in a parish, diocese etc. I would welcome the sharing of these roles among men and women who have a vocation.
    Women share in the image of God and the humanity of Christ no less than men, and we know that many prayerful women believe they are called to serve in priesthood. I think many Catholic people, both men and women, would be overjoyed if this restriction were removed. 

  • Phil E

    So how come 75% of Austrian priests are in favour of women priests then. Presumably they have a very good idea of what priesthood is and they also know the existing theology but also recognise that theology is not static.

  • Anonymous

    @Lynda   Thank you for your testimony of faith. I would ask one question: do you think that Our Lady is a second-class citizen in the Church? I wonder if it is too daring to say she isn’t equal to our priests – she’s way above them as the mother of Our Lord. Perhaps there’s something to be explored in spritual motherhood and spiritual fatherhood. What could you be ‘mother’ to in the Church?

  • An English Guest

    You state “St. Peter was the first Pope, appointed by Christ and gave him authority on Earth “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19).”Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19) ”

    Exactly right. Therefore Jesus has given the authority to Peter the first pope to change things – thats why catholic men are not circumcised, and why catholics do not eat kosher food. Then surely the pope could allow women priests.

  • Aropiski

    you mean “decided by the men who wrote the bible”. You do know that the first translation of any religious law was funded by a patriarch, RIGHT? hahahahaha. This website makes no sense whatsoever. There is no truth to this. MONEY MONEY MONEY

  • Tomcarty

    This issue won’t go away.my impression is that most Catholics would welcome female priests but fatalistically assume that is not going to happen for a long time. The arguments against are really very weak:
    1, ” The priest represents Christ at the altar”: Why must the person representing Jesus Christ be the same sex as him?I’ve never heard a convincing reason.2, ” Jesus chose only men as Apostles”: He also chose only Jews but we don’t see that as an obstacle. Given the nature of the society and the times in which he lived, it was inevitable that he would choose only men.3. ” The Word became incarnate as a man”: Since human beings come in two formats, it had to be one or the other. The question is, does it matter ?4. “The church has never done it before” The lamest argument!

    As an LMS member I look forward to attending the extraordinary version of the mass celebrated by a woman in my lifetime and I’m 65!

  • David

    Why can a men become nuns?
    Why can men be Mother Superiors ?
    beacuse a man cant be a Mother or play a mothrers role
    Feminism is all about power, not to mention misandry and hatred of anything male.
    It is a hate movement. As for the church why should the church change Its
    not about noveltism, its about the teaching  of Jesus Christ
    “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. ”

  • Mason Minell

     Patrick if we go along with your argument that the successors to the Apostles have the right to make the important decisions, then it has already done that.  It has decided that woman cannot be ordained  to be priests.  If it’s  just a matter of time until it happens, then reply back in another 2000 years to bring back the good news

  • Mason Minell

     This is the right thing to do then. If someones beliefs are incompatible with doctrine and teachings  then finding another path that suits your life and beliefs is the way to go. People who are against the teachings of our Church forget that it is not a democracy. The rights that are justified in democracy do not supersede or should ever supersede Church teachings.
    If you lay down strict rules for your child and your child continues to question and defy you, you’ll understand why the Church won’t bend

    While I’m not as conservative and orthodox as my Catholic brothers and sisters, I respect the teachings, wisdoms and the authority of our Church.
    People should remember that the most revered person in the bible is a woman named Mary, and I don’t think the world would question the importance of another woman named Mother Teresa. it’s Catholics who keep this tradition alive, who tell everyone that God is the Father, and it’s mother is the Church. If Buddhism will give you the Truths you seek than that’s what’s important. Many Catholics like myself view the Church and teachings like a great dramatic play.  There are leading actors , and supporting actors, everyones role is important, the director is Jesus, I’m perfectly ok with being the stage crew and mopping up, I’m enjoying the drama of life lol