Catholic Ban On Women Priests

[Joshua]

A new report by the leading charity – backed by a legal opinion from a leading QC – says the Bill will make it impossible for all churches and faith-based charities to insist that their senior staff lead private lives in accordance with their religious beliefs.

CARE said that, under the Bill, which will be considered by the House of Lords on Monday, it would be illegal for a Christian charity to sack a senior manager for adultery or living an openly gay lifestyle.

The same rules would, it added, apply to Muslim and Jewish churches and charities.

However, the biggest potential showdown is likely to be between the government and Britain's 4.3 million Catholics over the church's tradition of an all-male, celibate priesthood.

Previous legislation in 2007, also backed by Ms Harman, the Commons Leader and equality minister, forced the closure of two Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to comply with new laws requiring them to place children with gay couples.

CARE's report – A Little Bit Against Discrimination? – warns that the proposals contained in the Bill are a serious threat to religious liberty in Britain.

John Bowers QC said in a legal opinion for CARE that the Bill could make it unlawful for a church to require a priest or minister to be male, celibate and unmarried, or not in a civil partnership.

When the Bill, which aims to wrap up all existing equality legislation in one piece of law, was debated in the Commons, ministers MPs tabled more than 100 amendments to it – but ministers imposed a "guillotine" on the Bill and prevented most of them being discussed.

The report's author, Dr Daniel Boucher, said: ''The Equality Bill is a direct assault on the freedom of all faith-based organizations, from churches to charities. This Bill will make it unlawful for those organizations to employ people who are committed to a particular set of religious beliefs.

"This Bill in its current form is a further blow to the faith-based voluntary sector and will leave many people unable to access services they always have.

"This legislation must be revised to recognize our plural society. It must recognize that there are many people in our country who have deeply held religious views and convictions, rather than trying to impose some modern day Stalinistic version of society where there is only ever one view that is right, the Government's."

Overall, the Bill is designed to deliver greater equality between people of different gender, race, religion and class.

However, it has attracted criticism, particularly from businesses. It paves the way for 'gender pay audits' in large companies, obliging employers to disclose the average hourly pay they award male and female workers.

The planned legislation would also allow employers to give preference to female or non-white job applicants over equally qualified white men.

Public bodies would have a legal duty to narrow the gap between the rich and poor in the provision of services. For example, local authorities would be expected to do more to help children from poorer backgrounds.

If passed, the Bill could also oblige public sector bodies to consider the "gender balance" among employees of companies bidding for all government contracts.

But Michael Foster, Minister for Equality on the Bill said: “The Equality Bill will still allow churches to hire only male clergy and will let faith-based charities continue to recruit people of the same faith where this is a requirement of the job, such as care staff who may also be asked to pray with the people they look after.

"We have been absolutely clear on this throughout the Bill's passage, but as there has been some misunderstanding around our intentions we will amend the Bill to make this clear beyond doubt.�


What is your opinion on this do you think this "Equality Bill" should be passed?

[McCulloch]

I, for one, do not quite understand why religious groups get an exemption from certain human rights laws. Should it be legal for religious groups to discriminate against the physically disabled?

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to Aaron, saying, 'No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles.
'No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the LORD'S offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the food of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy, only he shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, so that he will not profane My sanctuaries. For I am the LORD who sanctifies them.'"
So Moses spoke to Aaron and to his sons and to all the sons of Israel.

For me it would seem to be difficult to determine which of the human rights laws a religious organization should be allowed to ignore and break and which human rights laws a religious organization should be forced to be in compliance with. Should a church be allowed to be openly racist? If not, then why should they be allowed to be openly sexist? It should be rather obvious that those who are on the payroll as the spiritual leaders of a religious group, should adhere to the foundational beliefs of that group. Yet, if the beliefs of that religious group run contrary to the rights recognized as the law of the land, as in the case of the sexism in the Roman Catholic Church, who's rights should get the upper hand? Should a church be allowed to be sexist; a synagogue be allowed to discriminate against the disabled; a mosque be allowed to be racist; a temple be allowed to fire their leaders for their political stance?

Then what about organizations which are not part of the various religions as such, but are auxiliary to them? Should the soup kitchen run by the Salvation Army be allowed to practice hiring policies that discriminate against Muslims? Should a school run by the Roman Catholics be allowed to remove a teacher for her lack of faith? Should a publicly funded Presbyterian hospital be allowed to remove a Roman Catholic physician?

I am sorry, but I have asked more questions than I have provided answers. Please note, that all of my examples are completely speculative and by no means indicate that I believe that any of the forms of discrimination are actually practices by the various groups named. Except that the Roman Catholic church is openly sexist with regard to hiring priests.

[Joshua]

It's not that were sexist, women can enter Holy Orders as nuns, just when it comes to priests and the Holy sacrifice at the altar we dont.

As Pope John Paul II stated that the Catholic Church does not have the authority to ordain priests, but that is left to the supreme ruler of the church. Christ Jesus.

But it's not only us who do not ordain women priest. Our Sister church the Orthodox Church does not aswell. These two chuches also being the oldest Christian denominations within the world, have never ordained women priest and never will.

To say the Catholic church is sexist is pretty laughable, you seen how many Women have become saints within Christ's Church?


Gen. 3:15; Luke 1:26-55; John 19:26; Rev. 12:1- Mary is God's greatest creation, was the closest person to Jesus, and yet Jesus did not choose her to become a priest. God chose only men to be priests to reflect the complimentarity of the sexes. Just as the man (the royal priest) gives natural life to the woman in the marital covenant, the ministerial priest gives supernatural life in the New Covenant sacraments.

Judges 17:10; 18:19 – fatherhood and priesthood are synonymous terms. Micah says, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest.� Fathers/priests give life, and mothers receive and nurture life. This reflects God our Father who gives the life of grace through the Priesthood of His Divine Son, and Mother Church who receives the life of grace and nourishes her children. In summary, women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers.

Mark 16:9; Luke 7: 37-50; John 8:3-11 - Jesus allowed women to uniquely join in His mission, exalting them above cultural norms. His decision not to ordain women had nothing to do with culture. The Gospel writers are also clear that women participated in Jesus' ministry and, unlike men, never betrayed Jesus. Women have always been held with the highest regard in the Church (e.g., the Church's greatest saint and model of faith is a woman; the Church's constant teaching on the dignity of motherhood; the Church's understanding of humanity as being the Bride united to Christ, etc.).

Mark 14:17,20; Luke 22:14 - the language "the twelve" and "apostles" shows Jesus commissioned the Eucharistic priesthood by giving holy orders only to men.

Gen. 14:10; Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - Jesus, the Son of God, is both priest and King after the priest-king Melchizedek. Jesus' priesthood embodies both Kingship and Sonship.

Gen. 22:9-13 - as foreshadowed, God chose our redemption to be secured by the sacrificial love that the Son gives to the Father.

Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19 - because the priest acts in persona Christi in the offering to the Father, the priest cannot be a woman.

Mark 3:13 - Jesus selected the apostles "as He desired," according to His will, and not according to the demands of His culture. Because Jesus acted according to His will which was perfectly united to that of the Father, one cannot criticize Jesus' selection of men to be His priests without criticizing God.

John 20:22 - Jesus only breathed on the male apostles, the first bishops, giving them the authority to forgive and retain sins. In fact, the male priesthood of Christianity was a distinction from the priestesses of paganism that existed during these times. A female priesthood would be a reversion to non-Christian practices. The sacred tradition of a male priesthood has existed uncompromised in the Church for 2,000 years.

1 Cor. 14:34-35 - Paul says a woman is not permitted to preach the word of God in the Church. It has always been the tradition of the Church for the priest or deacon alone (an ordained male) to read and preach the Gospel.

1 Tim. 2:12 - Paul also says that a woman is not permitted to hold teaching authority in the Church. Can you imagine how much Mary, the Mother of God, would have been able to teach Christians about Jesus her Son in the Church? Yet, she was not permitted to hold such teaching authority in the Church.

Rom. 16:1-2 - while many Protestants point to this verse denounce the Church's tradition of a male priesthood, deaconesses, like Phoebe, were helpers to the priests (for example, preparing women for naked baptism so as to prevent scandal). But these helpers were never ordained.

Luke 2:36-37 - prophetesses, like Anna, were women who consecrated themselves to religious life, but were not ordained.

Isaiah 3:12 – Isaiah complains that the priests of ancient Israel were having their authority usurped by women, and this was at the height of Israel’s covenant apostasy.


As I said it's not that the church is being sexist its just that the Eternal Father commands a "fatherly" priest hood.

Hence the Catholic church as no authority to ordain women. Nor will it go against God's will, because of change of culture.

[McCulloch]

It's not that were sexist, women can enter Holy Orders as nuns, just when it comes to priests and the Holy sacrifice at the altar we dont.

As Pope John Paul II stated that the Catholic Church does not have the authority to ordain priests, but that is left to the supreme ruler of the church. Christ Jesus.

To say the Catholic church is sexist is pretty laughable, you seen how many Women have become saints within Christ's Church?

[...]

As I said it's not that the church is being sexist its just that the Eternal Father commands a "fatherly" priest hood.

Hence the Catholic church as no authority to ordain women. Nor will it go against God's will, because of change of culture.

This is the typical kind of evasion made by theists for millennia. "It is not us who have this or that policy that you criticize, it is our god or god(s)," claim the self-appointed spokespersons for this invisible and silent deity.

I speak however about occupational sexism. Occupational sexism refers to any discriminatory practices based on a person's sex that are present or occur in a place of employment. The Roman Catholic Church will not hire someone for the post of priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal or pope who happens to be a woman. To claim therefore that the Roman Catholic Church is not sexist is laughable. To be sure, some other Christian and non-christian religious organizations are also sexist. This fact does not change or mitigate the conclusion.

If a corporation were to say that they are not sexist, even though their charter and by-laws prohibit women from being managers, senior managers, vice presidents, president or CXOs, because they allow women shareholders (but no women on the board), have a women's auxiliary and have awarded employee of the month recognition to women, it would be about as laughable as your claim that the Roman Catholic church is not sexist.

At the meat of the issue is what kind of justification is acceptable for an organization to operate in violation of a society's commonly recognized human rights code. Your justification of the blatantly sexist hiring practices of the Roman Catholic church is that God has said that it should be that way. Imagine he mayhem if such a principle were to be implemented consistently in our society. Could you prove in a court of law that God does not ordain women?

[JoeyKnothead]

It sure seems to me that religious organizations are the most opposed to anti-discrimination laws.

I have no compassion for those who discriminate against otherwise good people. Let these folks face the same laws I'm expected to follow.

[cnorman18]

I was okay with that bill until I got here:

"The planned legislation would also allow employers to give preference to female or non-white job applicants over equally qualified white men.

"Public bodies would have a legal duty to narrow the gap between the rich and poor in the provision of services. For example, local authorities would be expected to do more to help children from poorer backgrounds."

That makes it pretty clear; this bill isn't about equality, it's about a liberal political agenda. If it were truly about equality, neither of those provisions would be there.

Don't get me wrong; I'm in FAVOR of both of those ideas. But I'm in favor of "truth in labeling," too, and calling this an "equality" measure is a falsehood and deeply hypocritical. Pass the bill, but admit up front that it's intended to cure one form of discrimination with another in order to make up for the "sins" of the past.

I find it annoying when someone gives a bill a label that is the dead opposite of what it actually stands for. The "Patriot Act" is another example, since a real patriot MIGHT object to selling our Constitutional protections down the river, and the "Assault Weapons" bill, which had nothing whatever to do with assault weapons (they have been illegal since 1933); and as are all the "Truth in Lending" bills that I've ever seen - they all seem to have loopholes where the truth can be conveniently concealed.

If you want an "equality" bill, let it be about equality, not just a different kind of inequality.

[Sir Rhetor]

If you want an "equality" bill, let it be about equality, not just a different kind of inequality.

That reminds me of one of the rules in Animal Farm, which I will paraphrase: "All animals are equal, but some are just more equal than others."

Affirmative action is wrong, in my opinion, because it is biased. What is necessary to combat discrimination is a 'blind' law. Discrimination is biased, but affirmative action just pushes up the other side of the scale with the same force, without regard to the situation. I know that was a bad illustration, but hopefully y'all can unweave it.

[TheCatholic]

I can say this with absolute certainty: There will never be female Catholic priests: Never.

In 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, "Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching "requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)" (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).

Now I am not going to debate Papal Infallibility in this thread. Suffice to say that when a pope or council makes an infallible statement, the matter is closed for all ages to come. Period.

The pope and the Church do not answer to earthly governments. If the day ever comes that the US government tries to sue the Church over this, you will see the sleeping giant of Catholic power awaken and assert itself in full.

If anyone supports this notion, I warn that you take care: If they come after Catholics today, they will come after protestants tomorrow, and no protestant church can wield the power that the Vatican can in order to defeat such an attack on their rights.

[McCulloch]

I can say this with absolute certainty: There will never be female Catholic priests: Never.

[...]

The pope and the Church do not answer to earthly governments. If the day ever comes that the US government tries to sue the Church over this, you will see the sleeping giant of Catholic power awaken and assert itself in full.

If anyone supports this notion, I warn that you take care: If they come after Catholics today, they will come after protestants tomorrow, and no protestant church can wield the power that the Vatican can in order to defeat such an attack on their rights.

Should secular governments make an exception for the Roman Catholic church and a handful of other religious organizations?

Many countries have constitutional protection of human rights expressed in Canada

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

If I were an accounting firm, it would be considered a violation of human rights if I were to refuse to hire women as auditors, merely because they are women. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church and other groups, feel that they are justified in refusing to hire women as priests, merely because they are women.

Look at it another way. It is also considered a violation of human rights to refuse employment on the basis of race. Do you think that a church or religious group that refused to consider Chinese people for their ministry be allowed to operate in a country that otherwise protects human rights?

The pope and the Church do not answer to earthly governments. If the day ever comes that the US government tries to sue the Church over this, you will see the sleeping giant of Catholic power awaken and assert itself in full.

Yes, it has been far more effective to threaten force when backed into a moral corner than to offer a reasonable refutation.

If anyone supports this notion, I warn that you take care: If they come after Catholics today, they will come after protestants tomorrow, and no protestant church can wield the power that the Vatican can in order to defeat such an attack on their rights.

So many violators of human rights express the notion that it is their rights that are being threatened. Should we not trample on the rights of those who believe that they have the right to perform female genital mutilation on their women? Slaveholders in the American South argued that their rights were being threatened by emancipation.

[TheCatholic]

Should secular governments make an exception for the Roman Catholic church and a handful of other religious organizations?

Many countries have constitutional protection of human rights expressed in Canada.......

Frankly, I don't give a tinker's damn what Canada has. The Pope is the sovereign of Vatican City. He does not answer to Canada or anyone else. If other little churches want to sell their souls on the altar of "progressivism", they do so to their own demise: And many have.

But we will not. Women do not have any "right" to be a Catholic priest. Since when is being a Catholic priest a human right?

And besides, you cut out the entire reason why it won't happen from your quote.

I said: "In 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, "Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching "requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)" (Response of Oct. 25, 1995)."

Go away, and take that drivel with you.