# JustinH on Women Clergy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2001, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justinh-on-women-clergy/93386 "2001-11-14T21:18:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justinh-on-women-clergy/93386/21 "2001-11-15T19:46:47Z")
Sound answer, Phil, **if** : You believe that that passage was the Word of God literally given, or that Paul had authority to legislate for the church, and You believe that what was true for a First Century society where women were rarely educated for roles outside the home applies in a 21st Century society where sexual equality is the rule. Two quick points, Justin. First, “the church” in your usage applies to the RCC – legitimate from your POV, but hardly true for the vast majority of us who are not Roman Catholics. Second, only tradition (or perhaps Tradition in the RC theological sense) makes the sexual division valid: while a man can become a religious (“monk” or “lay brother” rather than “nun” or “sister”), the reverse is not true; a (Roman Catholic) woman cannot become a priest or deacon as a man can. And that last line is in reference to **God** ’s call. Lorraine, Geri, Kathy, Keith Elizabeth, and the other women priests I’ve known certainly felt God called **them**. Fortunately, they found themselves with bishops and screening committees that agreed with their sense that they were indeed called. Perhaps Sr. Jonathan of the mean metal whistle felt called as well, but in a church that sets the rule that only men may be priests? Worth thinking about… As for the other stuff: As you may have noted from my notes on confirmation, it’s what one receives in ordination that makes the difference what one can licitly do. (Technical term is “faculties” – while a bishop might order a priest not to hear confession or celebrate Mass, for example, by his ordination he still possesses the “faculties” to legitimately absolve of sins and celebrate Mass.) You could conceivably ordain some or all nuns as deacons and include in their “faculties” the right to celebrate Mass, hear confessions, preach sermons, and such. But it wouldn’t be traditional. Of course, neither would ordaining them as priests – but at least that would keep the tasks with the office, simply expand it to cover a larger group of people. ---
**Author:** ![Katisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bcef8e/32.png) [@Katisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katisha)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justinh-on-women-clergy/93386/22 "2001-11-15T21:48:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by philsGT500 \* > \*\*Simple answer to “why not allow women to become priests”. > > Well, in a sense of scripture…1 Timothy 2:12 can be read to suggest that women should not be placed in authoritive positions such as priesthood. > > “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man” > \*\* Paul also writes in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35: “As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.” And yet today women speak in church services all the time – we certainly don’t take that passage literally. Or am I just pissing off God every week by serving as a cantor? As **Polycarp** says, context plays a huge role in how you read these things. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justinh-on-women-clergy/93386/23 "2001-11-16T01:53:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Priest/deacons/monks for men and Nuns for women. False dichotomy. The actual “organization chart” would be listed as: Lay person - male and female member of religious order - male (brothers/friars/monks) and female (sisters/nuns) recipient of Orders - male (deacon/priest/bishop) and NO female Sisters/nuns are simply members of religious orders. They already have their male complement in brothers and monks. If you don’t happen to live near one of the larger Franciscan or Benedictine outfits or go to an order-run all-boys high school, you don’t run into as many brothers as you do sisters. However, that is because the men have more opportunities: that is, they may choose to be _either_ a brother _or_ a priest. To the extent that a certain number of men entering religious communities choose to study for the priesthood, the number of brothers is diminished. (A male member of a religious order may choose to additionally seek Holy Orders, in which case his path would be deacon/priest/abbot. A brother is a different _choice_ than the priesthood.) Sisters are not the female (lesser) equivalents of priests. They have a separate vocation with its own charisms. It is, however, the only position open to women, so more women avail themselves of that choice. (I have left out priors, monsignors, cardinals, etc. as they are positions of (political) authority, not religious callings. A woman may become an abbess, but unlike an abbot who has episcopal powers, an abbess is simply a position of (political) authority within the religious order.) ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justinh-on-women-clergy/93386/24 "2001-11-16T02:44:45Z")
Also, IIRC, religious orders are not a Sacrement. A few devout Catholics feel that they should participate in as many sacrements as possible - choosing either ordination or marriage. This question was the original reason I left the RCC. I discovered it impossible to both be true to myself (believing, as I do, that except for the obvious differences, men and women are equal) and Catholic. By saying women cannot be priests, the church is, in my mind, saying they are unfit to be priests. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justinh-on-women-clergy/93386/25 "2001-11-16T15:51:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Priest/deacons/monks for men and Nuns for women. > > False dichotomy. The actual “organization chart” would be listed as: > > Lay person - male and female > member of religious order - male (brothers/friars/monks) and female (sisters/nuns) > recipient of Orders - male (deacon/priest/bishop) and NO female > > \*\* Also, AS IS, there are ways (subject to ecclesiastical red tape and personality/power issues of heads of parishes) for a committed layperson or a vowed religious bro/sis to take up some non-sacerdotal workload WITHOUT “empowering” them as some sort of "deacon-_lite"_(example: eucharistic minister). But this is strictly on a _volunteer_ basis, as a calling in itself and NOT an entry-level position nor a way to get “one foot in the door”. Myself, just from how I’ve seen the Church behave, I believe we’ll first see as much expansion of those roles available to the non-ordained as the RCC can handle; and an expansion of the deaconate by relaxing some requirements (such as post-order celibacy/non-remarriage). In the LONG run, if the actual mission of the Church becomes unsustainable in the manpower sense under the celibate-male-priest model, the main choices may be doing away with celibacy at Priesthood level while keeping it all-male, and preserving celibacy but admitting women. Maybe as an intermediate step there will be deaconesses, but they will not be the same thing as “nuns” (though a Sister could become _also_ a deaconess in that scenario, while retaining her primary calling) . (IMO, celibacy + gender-neutral priesthood would be more cost effective to the Church [no family housing allowances, easier personnel transfers]; however, the already-extant tradition of Eastern Rite churches would point more in the direction of male-married priesthood, maybe retaining celibacy --or unremarried widower status-- for becoming Bishop.) ---
**Author:** ![Embra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@Embra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Embra)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justinh-on-women-clergy/93386/26 "2001-11-16T16:35:56Z")
[Blackadder intrusion] Private Baldrick: My old dad was a nun. Captain Blackadder: No he wasn’t Baldrick. Private Baldrick: 'E was, cos when 'e was up in front of the judge they asked 'im what 'is profession was, and 'e said “nun”. [/Blackadder intrusion] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justinh-on-women-clergy/93386.md?page=1)