TV's Frink said:
RicOlie_2 said:
1. Priests very often live with other priests. It would be very complicated to have to have separate dwelling-places for priests for a single parish. There is a reason that people who struggle keeping their sexual tendencies under control aren't usually allowed to become priests.
2. Because men tend to have a harder time connecting with their Faith, it helps to have an important and special role for them that doesn't make them feel that religion is for women. This sounds silly when summed up like this, but it comes down to the way men and women differ.
3. You may note that men are almost always the leaders in history. This isn't in and of itself a reason, but an indicator that men may be better suited for public leadership, with women being better suited to direct things "behind the scenes" and taking care of people on a more personal level, rather than caring for large groups in a less personal way. Note that this is a different type of leadership than a government position, which is a job, unlike the priesthood which is properly a complete dedication and surrender to the will of the God and the Church. Monarchy is comparable in some ways, but one isn't chosen for monarchy based on leadership qualities but on birth, so it isn't a double standard to support woman monarchy but oppose woman priesthood.
1. There are different living quarters for university students. If they can make it work, why can't people of a holy nature? From a more secular point of view, people of opposite gender manage to live together as roommates without incident.
2. Yes, it does sound silly. Letting women be priests does not diminish men. That's like saying "we should only let men be on the board of our company, because they aren't as good at raising children and if we don't let them be the only ones on the board, they won't have any self-worth."
3. Men were always the leaders in history...so they should continue to be the leaders? Should there be no black leaders in America because they used to be slaves?
To help me answer your question properly, could you give me your reasons for thinking women should be allowed to become priests?
Because they can do anything a man can do that would need to be done?
1. It's a weak point, for sure.
2. That's partly true. However (here I am not really trying to defend the point I made), your misunderstanding is that you have the idea that the priesthood is a job, which it isn't. Women could accomplish the same things as men, so it's less about what women are capable of as it was priests are. I know that no explanation I give you will satisfy you, because you see things completely differently. But I will try to explain.
3. My point was more that men are obviously better equipped to be leaders in general, since it is the male sex that very predominantly holds positions of leadership.
One reason women can't be priests is that priests act in the person of Christ. This includes representing Christ himself, in the sacrifice of the Mass, in confession, etc. God is masculine in nature, especially in the form of Jesus. Priests representing him must therefore be male in order to properly stand in for him. There are further reasons along this line which without proper context and background would sound very silly to you, so I'll leave them out for now.
Ideally, the Church's hierarchy should be a hierarchy of service. Priests serve their parish, bishops serve their diocese, the pope serves the whole Church. Any people who think the Church ought to allow women priests because it's unfair that men get all the power have their priorities completely backwards. If that's really why women want to be priests then they certainly shouldn't be! And if they really want to give their lives in service to God and the Church, the best way for them to do that is to teach in the home, passing their Faith on to their children. Men have less of a role in this in the married life, since that is not their principle role. Their role is defending and providing for the family. Thus, it is they who are best suited for the priesthood, guarding and protecting the faith and ensuring that it people follow the teachings of the Church properly.
Note also that not all men can become priests. Very few men can. Should all other men be given equal opportunity? If they can manage the affairs of their parish with great expertise, for instance, and are excellent preachers, should they be permitted Holy Orders despite a lack of prayer life and personal holiness? The idea that the Church can just give out the priesthood to anyone who suits the expectations of the "job" is absurd (when the jobs of a priest are taken to be the administration of a parish, preaching, and performing other exterior functions which are associated with the priesthood). It is spiritual character that is most important, and part of our spiritual character is based on our sex (as in male or female--not our sex life :P).
Some accuse the Church of being sexist, yet the (non-divine) human it honours most is a woman. Mary had a hugely important role. Note that no man could have been the true father of Jesus because a woman would be necessarily involved in order to carry him in their womb, give birth to him, and then raise him. Now, there were women leaders in the early church (for example, Priscilla, and according to some sources, Mary Magdalene). They were not priests, however, yet they served God well. One doesn't have to be a priest to serve God and the Church, so there is no reason why anyone should demand the priesthood. Note that there have been many men who wanted to be priests but weren't called to that life. Why is their refusal any different than the refusal of women?