I am of the understanding that women are not allowed to preach in church, which I suspect is the reason why we only have male priests in the Catholic church. In one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, he did say that women should keep quiet, not stand up to preach & if they don't understand anything, they should wait till they get home & ask their husbands. If this is the case, why then do we have women preachers in the world? It sounds silly, but I just want to know the truth, thank you.

-- Mucha Matambanadzo (chumielobb@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999

Answers

we must remember that Paul in his writings was reflecting some of the *customs and practices* of his day.

in the Jus Romanum (roman right) women were considered "res" (latin for object) . so their husbands could beat them, sell them, make them slaves, kill them. in a world with such vision of things, can you imagine what would have happened if paul had become a feminist?

and nevertheless the same paul in his letter to the galatians said that in christ there is no further greek and jew, slave and freeman, man and woman, because we are ONE in the lord.

ENRIQUE

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

Mucha, you have asked a question that every denomination has had to grapple with on an almost continual basis.

Paul seems clear in his statements that women should not be teachers or hold authority over a man, which is what many denominations use as the basis for prohibiting women from being ordained as priests/ministers. Of course those same scriptures seem to state that women should be completely silent in the church.

However, there are also scriptures that seem to "conflict" with such rigid interpretations. Scriptures that say "sons and daughters shall prophesy" (how can you be silent and still prophesy?) and "there is neither male nor female in Christ" (indicating their is no difference in God between man and woman) and the fact that Paul seems to acknowledge Priscilla as a Pastor and asked her to teach Apollo about the Lord (which conflicts with his earlier prohibition). Also, understanding that when Paul said that women should not be in authority over men, the original Greek could also be interpreted as meaning a woman should not have authority over her husband (since the word for husband and man is used interchangably in some cases). These points and more have led many denominations to interpret the role of women in very different ways.

Some believe that women should be silent in the church and do not allow them to hold positions of leadership or ministry. Others believe that women can function in the church in every way as a man except holding the position of priest/minister/teacher/preacher. Others hold that women can teach and preach to women and children, but not men. Still others believe that men and women are equal in the eyes of the Lord and are willing to ordain both men and women.

Hope this helps.

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), May 12, 1999.

Oops . . . bold off. Sorry.

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), May 12, 1999.

Dear Mucha

Women are not allowed to become Priests in the Church because Jesus only picked men as Apostles and everything God does is perfect and so only men can become Priests.And as for the scripture you read above I'd ask a knowledgeable Priest or Theologian to interpret for you what it means.

-- E.H.Weiss (weisse@bmts.com), May 12, 1999.

Dear Mucha

I would also like to add that women are considered to be the equals of men in the Church but they have different roles and I'd stress that you should really go to a Preist for the interpetation of that scrripture.

-- E.H.Weiss (weisse@bmts.com), May 12, 1999.

Dear EH, I wasn't trying to challenge the Catholic church's interpretation of any scripture in this matter . . . honestly. Nor was I necessarily endorsing one view or another. I was simply trying to explain to Mucha why there are women preachers which I presumed to be a question directed to practices outside the Catholic church. By mentioning a few of the points, among many, that drive the differences in the ways denominations have dealt with women in ministry. I didn't want to take the time to list the specific scriptures, name the Greek words that were used along with the acceptable interpretations or anything along those lines because I wasn't trying to prove a point or convince anyone of anything. Just wanted to make my motive clear.

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), May 12, 1999.

Dear Dave

I'm sorry if I got the wrong idea and came out a little strong.

-- E.H.Weiss (weisse@bmts.com), May 12, 1999.

Dear EH,

No need for apology, but thanks.

I realize that this is a Catholic forum and that you folks are constantly receiving ummmm, shall we say, aggressive posts that challenge everything you say and do. I do not wish to approach this forum in that manner. As a non-Catholic, it's obvious that I disagree with certain Catholic doctrines else I would have remained Catholic (I left the church when I was 22). BUT, that doesn't mean I view Catholics or the Catholic church as my enemy. Rather, you are my brothers and sisters. My purpose for visiting is to add a non-Catholic flavor to some of the questions and discussions in order to present a different but beneficial point of view. Hopefully, it will enhance the discussions rather than turn them into arguments. I will do my best to avoid posting to questions that are addressed just to or about the Catholic church (I wouldn't presume to answer for you). In addition, I will really try to avoid making the typical non-Catholic challenges (i.e., issues regarding Mary, prayer to the saints, challenges to the Pope, etc.) I suspect you get enough of this kind of posts without help from me :-)) I've found that it doesn't serve a purpose to try to convince folks (myself included) to change a position or belief that is so deeply rooted. It's a waste of everyone's time. If asked, I will certainly offer my opinion, but will try to present it in a loving way and avoid engaging in pointless arguments. In the end, I pray we can learn something about each other and strengthen our faith in the process.

Blessings to everyone.

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), May 13, 1999.

dear EH: i'm not trying to start a debate, but i'm just thinking aloud: Jesus chose only men for Apostles and for that reason women cannot be priests, but Jesus chose married men as Apostles, so how is it that married men today cannot become priests?

ENRIQUE

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

Dear David:

i notice that even though you are not a catholic every time you refer to catholics and to the catholic church you do it in a most respectful way. i appreciate the postings you have made so far, and, if that means anything, i encourage you to go on posting.

i think one of the big problems when dealing with christians of different denominations is that we put too much emphasis on the things that separate us, instead of looking for the ones that unite us.

ENRIQUE

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

Dear Enrique,

Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. And I very much agree that we would be so much better off if we could try to keep our focus on the One in whom we have in common. It's difficult to remember that we're all aiming for the same goal, to follow after Jesus in the best way we know how.

Over the years, I've had the pleasure of being exposed to a number of different denominations through personal experience and through the eyes of friends. It has helped me to appreciate some of the different perspectives and to understand that there are many scriptures and issues that can have more than one valid interpretation. And while I recognize the need to remain fixed in addressing certain fundamental doctrines, such as those enumerated in the Apostles Creed, there are many issues in the church for which I believe God allows some flexibility and variety. Styles of worship, types of music, methods of praying, days of celebrations all can and should reflect our creativity and culture and as long as everything is directed at glorifying our Lord and Savior, then we can and should rejoice in our differences and embrace one another in love as a family.

Your brother in Christ

David

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), May 13, 1999.

Mucha, I do like the simple example of Christ only choosing males for the priesthood (Apostles). However, if one would like to dig futher into theology, we can see that Adam deliberately sinning against God"s personal revelation to him with his eyes open as opposed to Eve being deceived and falling into sin, bears the greater responsiblity in the transgression. Adam was responsible for his greater offense and God did not think much of his trying to blame Eve. Women give birth to the church through their faithfulness to raise men to take on the BURDEN of the priesthood for the dispensing the grace of salvation of all. The priests bear greater accountability to God . Women aren't burdened with this responsibilty. This is not a call for men to be arrogant or abusive it is a call for priests and male leaders of the church to be the slave of slaves for Christ. It is not a party, it is a grave responsibility. Women are protected from this (curse)? Instead they have pain in childbirth.

-- Pamela Brink (Rosylace@aol.com), June 28, 1999.

My two cents. The arguement about the culture in the time of Jesus' earthly life does not hold water. Scripture says that "in the fullness of time" God sent his only Son. An omniscient God knew that culture would develop, and could have solved this by waiting to send Christ in a less patriarchial era. Instead, in His Wisdom, He sent his Son in "the fullness of time". Perhaps precisely to emphasis the nature of the ordained Priesthood. He is wiser than I and I do not question Him.

Besides, if you believe with the assent of Faith what God revealed about the nature of the office of Vicar of Christ, then the matter is settled - it is revealed that it is beyond the authority of the Church to ordain women. No male nor female in the Lord, but distinct parts of one Body - each has a distinct role. Feminists have distorted this and they are blinded by their ideology, stumbling into severe error and leading others with them.

-- ubi (ubi@petros.com), June 28, 1999.

Yes, I agree ubi. The culture argument does not work. There was a long-standing practice among all the major religious groups of Jesus' day to have priestesses. All religions, that is, except one: the Jews. They were considered to be oddballs, for this and many other reasons. So culturally it would have been more acceptable for Jesus to appoint priestesses than priests only. But Jesus chose continuity between the Covenants.

There is another reason not yet mentioned why only men may be priests in the Church. The priest at the Mass represents Christ, in persona Christi. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Church is not a lesbian.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

Women in my church only get called on to do the things that the men do not want to do. The women cook, clean, teach sunday school, and even run our church during the day. But what I don't understand is that we can do all of that but not preach. Sounds a little unfair to me? I am actually writing a persuasive speech to persuade people to consider women preachers. Any feed back I might hear I would love it. Thank you.

-- Ashley Kantor (littlebit6678@hotmail.com), April 23, 2001.

Dear Ashley:

Women in the Catholic Church can preach. I've heard them. So can married men. What women cannot do is be ordained as priests, so they do not perform the Sacraments. This fact really used to bother me, but it doesn't so much anymore now. I have found my own rationale for the male-only priesthood, which is almost completely different from the ones offered in previous posts, and one that probably no one else would like very much, but it works for me.

Where are you planning to present your essay? Apologetics are pretty fun; enjoy and pray for the Holy Spirit to give you wisdom. You will have to answer a lot of Bible verses, and if you are Catholic, a lot more than even those. Let me know how it goes. If you want to bounce ideas off me, go right ahead.

-Hannah

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), April 23, 2001.

Hi Hannah- Actually as I understand it it women (or married men or any other man unless he is a priest or a deacon) cannot "preach". Certainly they can "speak", but this is a different thing. Preaching as I understand it is to give a homily on the gospel text (as well as the other readings). Speaking on other subjects (or even THESE subjects in any other context but as part of the mass) is certainly allowed. But only those properly ordained to do so may preach within the context of the mass itself.

I'm sure someone else here will give all the particulars.

It doesn't bother me anymore either.

Jane

-- Jane (JaneUlrich80@hotmail.com), April 23, 2001.

Well, I went to church when the priest was gone, and a woman led the service. She talked about the gospel a little bit, and then she took out the Consecrated Host from the tabernacle. We skipped the whole consecration part, obviously. It was the same thing when the male deacon did the service.

-Hannah

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), April 24, 2001.

Hi Hannah, hmmm, I don't know about that. I really don't.

Maybe it has something to do with actually being part of a mass and not a "service". ???

What the heck IS the technical definition of "preaching" anyway? I would look it up but I'm too lazy and also busy right now. I'll try later.

Have a good one.

Jane

-- Jane (JaneUlrich80@hotmail.com), April 24, 2001.

Women and married men (who are not ordained priests/deacons) cannot “preach” a homily in the course of a Mass or Liturgy of the Word celebrated in the Catholic Church. That function is reserved for ordained ministers only (priest, deacons). What some priests have done to allow someone to circumvent the regulations and “preach” to the congregation is to keep their homilies brief and allow the “guest preacher” to “preach” at the that time of the Mass/Liturgy where announcements are usually made. In thier absence some priests have permitted the laity to give the "homily" at its regular place in the liturgy but have cleverly disguised them by referring to them as “talks” or “reflections”. They are intentionally not called homilies to deflect any criticism that the pastor/priest may receive for not following the proper guidelines established by the Church for liturgical procedures.

Hannah, I am interested in your comment about how you rationalize a woman’s role in the Church from a woman’s perspective. The subject comes up quiet often and it might be helpful to learn more about what you think on this matter.

St. James and Mary, Our Blessed Mother, pray for us!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), April 24, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, gang.

The fact that there existed confusion and cases of liturgical abuse on this subject of "preaching" was just one of several reasons that the Vatican published a major, authoritative document in 1997 called INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST. It was signed by the heads of eight curial "dicasteries" and was formally approved by the Pope. However, four years ago, it got must too little publicity in North America (where every priest, bishop, and layperson should have read it and followed its directives, in my opinion).

I will quote parts of Articles 2, 3, and 7 from the Instruction. Though the language is a bit technical and complex in spots, I hope that it will clarify the situation about "preaching" for all of us. If it remains cloudy, we can discuss it.
[In other articles, the Instruction touches on proper use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, the Common Priesthood of the Faithful and the Ordained/Ministerial Priesthood, terminology/titles, ministry to the sick, etc.]

--------------- BEGIN QUOTE FROM INSTRUCTION ------------

Article 2 -- The Ministry of the Word

§ 1. The content of that ministry consists in "the pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place".
The exercise of its respective functions is properly that of the Bishop of each particular Church since he is the moderator of the entire ministry of the Word in his Diocese and it is also properly that of his priests who are his collaborators. In communion with the Bishop and his priests, this ministry also belongs to deacons.

§ 2. The non-ordained faithful, according to their proper character, participate in the prophetic function of Christ, are constituted as his witnesses and afforded the "sensus fidei" [perception of faith] and the grace of the Word. All are called to grow even more as "heralds of faith in things to be hoped for (cf. Hebrews 11, 1). Today, much depends on their commitment and generous service to the Church, especially in the work of catechesis. Therefore, the faithful, especially members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life can be invited to collaborate, in lawful ways, in the exercise of the ministry of the Word.

§ 3. To ensure the effectiveness of the collaboration mentioned in § 2 above, it is necessary to note some conditions relating to the operation of this same collaboration.
Canon 766 of the Code of Canon Law establishes the conditions under which competent authority may admit the non-ordained faithful to preach in a church or oratory [chapel of prayer]. [Canon 766 says: "The laity may be allowed to preach in a church or oratory if in certain circumstances it is necessary, or in particular cases it would be useful ..." -- provided that Canon 767 is not violated. That canon states that the homily during a celebration of the Mass is reserved to a bishop, priest, or deacon.]
The use of the expression "can be allowed" makes clear that in no instance is this a right such as that which is specific and proper to the Bishop or a faculty such as enjoyed by priests and deacons.
The terms in which these conditions are expressed — "If in certain circumstances it is necessary..., ...if in particular cases it would be useful..." in canon 766, make clear the exceptional nature of such cases as well as the fact that such must always be done according to the provisions of the local bishops' conference. In this final clause, this Canon establishes the primary source for correct discernment with regard to necessity or useful in specific cases. The prescriptions of the Conference of Bishops in this matter, which must receive the "recognitio" of the Apostolic See, are obliged to lay down those opportune criteria which may assist the diocesan Bishop in making appropriate pastoral decisions, proper to the nature of the same episcopal office.

§ 4. In some areas, circumstances can arise in which a shortage of sacred ministers and permanent, objectively verifiable, situations of need or advantage exist that would recommend the admission of the non-ordained faithful to preaching. Preaching in churches or oratories by the non-ordained faithful can be permitted only as a supply for [i.e., substitute in the absence of] sacred ministers or for those particular reasons foreseen by the universal law of the Church or by Conferences of Bishops. It cannot, however, be regarded as an ordinary occurrence nor as an authentic promotion of the laity.

§ 5. Above all in the preparation for the sacraments, catechists take care to instruct those being catechized on the role and figure of the priest as the sole dispenser of the mysteries for which they are preparing.

Article 3 -- The Homily

§ 1. The homily, being an eminent form of preaching ... also forms part of the liturgy. The homily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister, Priest or Deacon to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful, even if these should have responsibilities as "pastoral assistants" or catechists in whatever type of community or group. This exclusion is not based on the preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm, since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.
For the same reason, the practice, on some occasions, of entrusting the preaching of the homily to seminarians or theology students who are not clerics is not permitted.
Indeed, the homily should not be regarded as a training for some future ministry. ...

§ 2. A form of instruction designed to promote a greater understanding of the liturgy, including personal testimonies, or the celebration of eucharistic liturgies on special occasions (e.g. day of the Seminary, day of the sick etc.) is lawful, of in harmony with liturgical norms, should such be considered objectively opportune as a means of explicating the regular homily preached by the celebrant priest. Nonetheless, these testimonies or explanations may not be such so as to assume a character which could be confused with the homily.

§ 3. As an expositional aide and providing it does not delegate the duty of preaching to others, the celebrant minister may make prudent use of "dialogue" in the homily, in accord with the liturgical norms.

§ 4. Homilies in non-eucharistic liturgies may be preached by the non-ordained faithful only when expressly permitted by law and when its prescriptions for doing so are observed.

§ 5. In no instance may the homily be entrusted to priests or deacons who have lost the clerical state or who have abandoned the sacred ministry.

Article 7 -- Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest

§ 1. In some places in the absence of priests or deacons, non-ordained members of the faithful lead Sunday celebrations. In many instances, much good derives for the local community from this useful and delicate service when it is discharged in accordance with the spirit and the specific norms issued by the competent ecclesiastical authority. A special mandate of the Bishop is necessary for the non-ordained members of the faithful to lead such celebrations. This mandate should contain specific instructions with regard to the term of applicability, the place and conditions in which it is operative, as well as indicate the priest responsible for overseeing these celebrations.

§ 2. It must be clearly understood that such celebrations are temporary solutions and the text used at them must be approved by the competent ecclesiastical authority. The practice of inserting into such celebrations elements proper to the Holy Mass is prohibited. So as to avoid causing error in the minds of the faithful, the use of the eucharistic prayers, even in narrative form, at such celebrations is forbidden. For the same reasons, it should be emphasised for the benefit of those participating, that such celebrations cannot substitute for the eucharistic Sacrifice and that the obligation to attend mass on Sunday and Holy days of obligation is satisfied only by attendance at Holy Mass. In cases where distance or physical conditions are not an obstacle, every effort should be made to encourage and assist the faithful to fulfil this precept.
----------------------- END OF QUOTATION -------------------

God bless you.
John
PS: Let's not forget that women "preach informally" outside of church buildings -- in a most marvelous way and much more often than lay males do. I'm thinking of the way that, as mothers, they teach their children the faith at home, and I'm thinking of the way that some of them, as educators, teach millions of children the faith in Catholic schools.

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 24, 2001.

You guys need to take what the Word of God says. Paul said " I suffer not a woman to speak in Church".

-- mike (theword@cbs.com), April 25, 2001.

Dear Ed:

I rationalize it this way: the Church is led by the HOly Spirit to do the will of God. If the Church will never let women be priests, then it is the will of God. In the Old Testament, God also rigidly defines the priesthood-- only sons of Aaron can be priests. This is interesting not so much because only sons can be priests, but because only sons of a certain family can be. The sons of Aaron probably did not have obvious differences from the other Israelite males. It seems to have no logical basis.

Why would God define his priesthood so rigidly? Well, the priesthood is made up of individuals called by God to be priests. God, the omniscient creator, gave certain abilities to individuals. He can know who is meant for the priesthood. In the Old Testament, he would have known, while giving the laws to Moses, that all of the individuals called to the priesthood would be sons of Aaron. My belief is that He limited men of other tribes from being priests to narrow down the field so that His plans might be more easily fulfilled.

That's basically my explanation of the male-only priesthood today; only people God has called to the priesthood should be priests. God sees people as individuals, and probably does not constantly categorize people, as we do. He knows individuals even better than they know themselves. Now, if the individuals God is going to call to the priesthood all happen to be men, then it would be a good idea to have a rule limiting the priesthood to that group into which the "called" individuals can be combined. This helps ensure that God's plan for His individual humans is fulfilled.

To me, this explanation of individual personalities, rather than collective differences, makes more sense, especially in light of the tribal requirements in the OT. I could be wrong, of course, but it's what I use to rationalize the Church's rule.

-Hannah

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), April 25, 2001.

No, Mike. It is you who has to be more careful.
You wrote: "Paul said, 'I suffer not a woman to speak in Church.'"
Notice that St. Paul did not write: "Jesus [or God] has forbidden women ever to speak in his Church."

Acting as a bishop, the strict rule you quoted -- no speaking at all -- was St. Paul's personal discipline where he presided over an assembly. It is not binding on all Christians, everywhere, for all time. St. Paul was not a pope (universal shepherd of Jesus's Church), so his power was limited.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 25, 2001.

Thanks, Hannah, for your reply to Ed.
I found your comments very interesting and helpful.
JFG

-- (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 26, 2001.

You know this is an interesting question and one that I have thought about a great deal and I have considered actually responding on this thread. But the last time I did so I was crucified, even though I was defending the magisterial teachings. So I won't. This board is way beyond anything I can deal with. I give up.

J.

-- Jane (JaneUlrich80@hotmail.com), April 26, 2001.

Jmj

Please take courage, Jane, and tell us what is on your mind.
Just about every one of us here has taken one or more thrashings -- some deserved, some not -- and most of us have administered beatings, some justified, some not.
I hate the pain of being mauled, but I have learned (the hard way) not to try to flee from it. We can't be Christians and escape the persecution that the master suffered.
I'll also ask you to post your thoughts as a favor to us. Knowing you, I can't help but conclude that we would probably be impoverished by not receiving your insights.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 27, 2001.

It is the same reason why we should not have racism, slavery etc The bible has been utilized as a form of control to keep people in their place; the male dominated society expected such primitive views of the past to be acknowledge;but, you need to realize that god want all people to do the work he/she was call for, regardless of gender,race etc. Who are men to place limitation on women? They like to have power, don't they?

-- P. Rowl (RKOKIMO@carolina.rr.com), September 20, 2002.