They don’t because they never have. When challenged, opponents of ordaining women will insist that it is not an issue of being “good enough,” simply a matter of different roles.
While I am usually fairly competent at presenting arguments of positions I oppose, I am hampered in explaining this one simply because I find it so uncompelling. You can look at the CDF position on the topic in the link I provided earlier:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/w-ordination.htm
Oy, there’s a tricky question. I’ll answer it as best I can, realizing that my short theological diatriabe here will probably fall far short of a satisfying answer for anyone.
It requires, from the start, an understanding that God did in fact create two sexes, and that like it or not, men and women are different. (It’s way back in Genesis: “God created them male and female.”) There’s certain things men can do that women can’t, and vice-versa, and even if we consider that marvels of medical science could eventually create child-bearing men, there’s a specific “role” capacity that makes a man a man and a woman a woman that is ingrained into the soul.
(And this will probably be the biggest sticking point here, due to the endless gender discussions I’ve seen on the boards and whether it’s an immutable trait or something chosen by the individual. Point being that from the church’s perspective, maleness and femaleness are not just physical characteristics, but spiritual ones.)
It’s been speculated that the gender division is meant to be a biological metaphor for God’s relationship to humanity. Seriously, some theologians refer to all of creation being “female” (because it produces) with God as “male” (as a creator). This, by the way, is why God is referred to in the Christian as a “He”: not because of biological function, but because of nature. (And that’s a whole other can of worms. This is not the argument you’re looking for. Move along.)
Then comes Christ, who again, is male. While the question is frequently raised that Christ could have been incarnated female, point is, he wasn’t. (Side note–I often see it speculated that Christ wasn’t female for “practical” reasons–i.e., nobody would listen to a woman back then. My best response is, gee whiz, the vast majority of them didn’t listen to him anyway.) Some of the Pauline letters again use the gender imagery: Christ is the bridegroom and the church (humanity) is the bride. Christ provides everything for the church as a good husband would, and the church is meant to return its full love as a good wife would.
The important point is that the priesthood–and this is tricky, but important–is meant to be a “duplication” of Christ. (I don’t have a better term here.) That is, the apostles and those to whom they passed their power have the authoritative powers of Christ. Yes, I’m aware that most priests don’t walk on water, but they nonetheless stand in Christ’s place. Hence, priests can forgive sins, transubstantiate bread into Christ’s flesh, etc. (There was a thread on sacraments a few weeks ago where I and some others did our best to explain the priestly powers.)
So why a male priesthood? The short of it, as best as I can explain without digging through every JPII book I have, is that priests are not just imitating the function of Christ, but his nature. “Maleness” was one of Christ’s essential features: it goes not just to functional fulfillment, but to the core of his being. (Best I can do to illustrate this on the spot–a single mother is probably going to have to play both father and mother to her children. Despite taking on a father’s function, she is not in and of herself a father by nature.) Women could, of course, fulfill the ministerial functions of the priesthood (preaching, teaching, etc.), but there would be a specific essence lacking.
I realize there may be a lot of flak in the responses to this posting. For a more detailed answer, I’d suggest reading anything on the Catholic church’s position on gender. John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” might be a good start, but papal writings tend to be thick, so look for some kind of supplement to go with it.
Thanks, Res. That’s an interesting answer and one I hadn’t considered before. It always seemed odd to me that Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. could accept women as priests or pastors, but that the Catholic church couldn’t. But it seems as though it comes down to very different views of what priest-hood actually means. If I were a Catholic, I’m not sure I’d find that answer satisfying, but you’ve definitely given me something to mull over.
The problem with this position is that it deprecates baptism. If one believes that baptism has any effect whatsoever, it is that it inaugerates one into the mystical Body of Christ. The RCC accepts baptism by other denominations, so there is a real problem with it not accepting my participation at the table. The fact is (and the RCC has implicitly acknowledged in by acknowledging my baptism) that the unity implied in the Eucharist is real and actual, and was made so by the power of the Holy Spirit. In I Corintians 1:13, Paul asks, “Has the body of Christ been divided?” The answer, no matter how hard we may try, is that it cannot be. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6, NRSV) That we fail to recognize and live out that oneness is a serious problem, but doesn’t affect the reality of that unity.
As a United Methodist, my beliefs on the Eucharist are as orthodox as Tom’s as far as I can tell. (That is, I believe Christ is present in the elements, but not being a moderate realist, I can’t accept transubstantiation as the philosophical underpinning.) However, there are serious problems, both practical (like the nominal Catholics you mention) and theological with trying to make communion rely on belief and understanding. St. Augustine addressed some of this. The sacrament is an opus operatum. (For the record, the Anglicans and Methodists may have rejected at least a strict interpretation of this [Article XXV of the Anglican/Episcopalian Articles of Religion; not part of the Methodist Articles (an abridgement of the Anglican ones), but implied by portions of other articles]. It is Catholic doctrine, as per the Council of Trent.) It is the divine and gracious gift of our Lord and Savior for all his holy people, not only that part of it who pass some doctrinal test or were baptized by the “right” person. (Cf. I Cor.)
It’s not that we want to disrespect you. It’s just that some faiths follow different doctrine (like whether or not the host IS Jesus). And in addition non-Catholics are not members of the RCC. Therefore, they may not have gone through the sacraments of Baptism, Confession and First Communion which in the RCC are necessary to take Communion. So in order to avoid conflict, we do not allow non-Catholics to take Communion. You can, however, go up in the communion line. When you reach the front, cross your arms over your chest and the priest will give you a blessing instead of a host.
Welcome to the SDMB, lil_faerygirl!
Unfortunately, it is not I to whom the RCC (or any denomination) shows disrespect when they deny Holy Communion to a baptized Christian. It is Jesus Christ, who through his Holy Spirit has bound us together as his Body in the holy sacrament of baptism, and has given himself to us in the Eucharist, regardless of what doctrines we may profess. There is one body and one Spirit who calls us to the Christ’s Table. It is a grave sin to turn away for human reasons those whom Christ our Lord would invite!
I hope it is obvious that I have the highest possible respect for the Roman Catholic Church and its long and rich tradition. It pains me to recognize the brother- and sisterhood I share in Christ with my Roman Catholic friends and neighbors, and yet be unable to share with them in the sacrament through which Christ proclaims that unity.
(emphasis added)
However, in the case of the Orthodox, most of the Anglican communion, and some groups within the Lutheran/Evangelical tradition, both their beliefs and their practices are close enough to those of the RCC that they very likely have received the sacraments, yet the RCC continues to exclude them without distinguishing among the various differences in belief among those who are not Catholic.
(BTW, First Communion is an event, but it is not a separate sacrament.)
Hey, Tom, am I right that although Catholics are obliged to recieve Penance at least yearly, that it is only required in order to recieve Communion if a person has commited a mortal sin?
I have often heard as a justification for “fencing the table” that non-Catholics are not in a state of grace necessary to recieve Communion, since we haven’t recieved Penance.
True.
As to your second point, I have never heard the explicit lack of Penance/Confession/Reconciliation in smoe churces given as the reason (which does not mean there are no Catholics out there saying it). The most common reason that I have heard for excluding non-Catholics from communion was the one I provided earlier–that the Catholic Church holds that communion is an expression of community that is not currently true among the “separated brethren.”
I am not offering that as a good explanation and I recognize the hurt (and scandal) that Polycarp and cjhoworth have commented upon, but that is the explanation I have most frequently encountered (aside from a few grumblings about “damned heretics” that were uttered by mossyback old cranks).
“Fencing the table” is, obviously, not a frequently heard expression in Catholic circles.
Well, I’m not sure it’s “frequently heard” in any circles. I believe it comes from the Reformed tradition and didn’t originally have a negative connotation. Reformed churches would fence the table by requiring congregants desiring communion to undergo careful examination, with the intent that only those surely in the elect would finally recieve. Of course it’s used more negatively now than posatively, but you can still find some conservatives who advocate it. A google search will pull up many sermons on why we no longer fence the table, and a couple on why we should, including at least one church bullitin that includes it (in those words) in the order of service!
“We” being Reformed Christians and Presbiterians, presumably, of which I am neither! 
I’d guess the next pope will be “as conservative” as John Paul II, but you really never know how people will vote.
There are 2 reasons for my guess:
John Paul II unilaterally mucked around with the election rules (which is apparently his perogative as pope), thereby making it easier for a simple majority to elect the next pope after him; and
John Paul II has, over the course of his reign (wrong word?) now appointed more than a simple majority of the College of Cardinals (the bishops who vote for the pope).
This leads me to believe that we can expect more of the same.
As mentioned in point 1 above, the supermajority is no longer required in all cases. That is, if a supermajority fails to elect a pope after a certain number of attempts (I want to say 20, but I’m not sure my recall is 100% correct), then a simple majority can decide that a simple majority vote is enough. This contrasts with the old system in which a super-majority was required to elect the pope no matter what, and the Cardinals had to sleep on cots in the Vatican until a supermajority agreed. The solution for past dead-locks was to elect someone considered to be old and weak, and agree to meet back at the Vatican soon to try again. John Paul II’s changes eliminiate the need for that.
This is not necessarily good, in my opinion. I would rather that the leader of the largest Christian denomination and of a 2000 year old Church be selected by a supermajority.
As others have mentioned in the past, the papal guessing game is a dicey one. On “paper”, the deck looks stacked for the conservative cardinals, especially black conservatives (see Cardinal Arenze as “my” front runner)
OTOH…popes can be like Supreme Court appointees…they don’t always perform as expected.
Just out of curiosity, who thought JPII would be elected? Did anyone call it? I’m guessing not. “Dicey” seems like quite an understatement in this context.
Was John Paul I (the first) one of those, “we don’t have a supermajority, so let’s go home and come back next year/month” popes? Any one know?
Indeed.
LOL, Pope Earl Warren the First, eh?
The Catholic Church believes that some Anglican ordinations are valid. The validity depend upon what Bishop performed the ordination, what Bishop ordained that Bishop, and so on down the line.
For the sake of certainty, all Anglican priests are re-ordained, though it is acknowledged there is a possibility their original ordination was valid.
I don’t believe so. He was only in his 60’s, after all.
Pope John XXIII was widely perceived as such, and he called Vatican II.
I believe he was 77 at his election.
Well, he did only last a month.
This is largely inaccurate. Canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law states:
§1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861 §2.
§2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.
§3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and annointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Cahtolic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgement of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.
§4. If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgement of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.
The following churches are reconginzed as having valid communion (I’m going from memory here):
• all Orthodox Churches
• Coptic Church (1)
• Assyrian Church of the East (2)
• Polish National Church (3)
• Probably a few more rather obscure ones
(1) The egyptian church. Very ascetic in nature, excommunicated for monophysitism (which it denies).
(2) Originally much of the Persian Empire, today it exists in parts of Syria, Iraq, and in immigrant lands. Excommunicated for monophysitism (which it doesn’t affirms.)
(3) An American schism, Polish nationalist in nature. Very small and getting smaller.
I see where the law is making the usual compassionate exceptions to the general rule. I do not see where the law is different from my statement as a general rule.
If you are indicating that the RCC is distinguishing among the various groups, I will concede that–in the context of extraordinary circumstances (which was not my perception of the topic).