Question for Catholics on ordination

[IndigoChild5559]

It is not my intent here to create a big argument. I'm just interested in what your answers might be. I probably won't reply much except to seek clarification.

The Catholic Church does not currently ordain women. When I looked into this, the argument seems to be that Jesus and his 12 disciples were all men, so your church needs men to be priests, since they will be representing Jesus behind the altar.

If a priest needs to be superficially LIKE Jesus in order to represent him behind the altar, then why do you guys not also insist on only ordaining Jews and carpenters?

If you want someone who is LIKE Jesus in a significant way, why don't you only have priests who have the virtues that Jesus had? For example, if a priest has committed a crime or are shown to harass those who work for them, why are they not immediately defrocked?

It just seems to me that one of two things is going on here. Either I am missing something that would make sense of the requirement of a superficial trait, but allow those who are not a match where it counts. OR, the Catholic church is being irrational about this.

So explain this to me. What is it you think I'm missing?

 

[Altfish]

What is it you think I'm missing?

The Catholic Church is still in 19th Century

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Taking in persona Christi too literally in regards to sex always came off as a rather illogical and weak argument against female ordination even I was a Catholic.

 

[Jimmy]

Can men become nuns?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Can men become nuns?

They're called monks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you want someone who is LIKE Jesus in a significant way, why don't you only have priests who have the virtues that Jesus had? For example, if a priest has committed a crime or are shown to harass those who work for them, why are they not immediately defrocked?

There's two sides to this:

The Sacrament of Holy Orders can't be undone; in the eyes of the Church, once a priest always a priest, and a priest's ability to perform sacraments is a reflection of Christ's character, not the priest's.

This is a pretty long-standing position. During Diocletian's persecution of Christians, some Christians, including some priests and bishops, cooperated with the Roman authorities. This was seen by some, including a bishop named Donatus, to have been so heinous that it undid whatever sacraments the traitors had previously received: if they wanted to be readmitted to the Christian community, they'd need to get rebaptized and (for clergy) re-receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. He even argued that the ordination of some priests was invalid because they had been ordained by traitorous bishops.

The final decision of the Catholic Church on the issue was that Donatus was wrong and that "Donatism" was a heresy.

... so in the eyes of the Church, a priest is still a priest regardless of what they do.

OTOH, administratively, a priest can get reassigned or fired for bad behaviour. That being said, their tolerance for bad behaviour has been shown to be pretty high.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Catholic Church does not currently ordain women. When I looked into this, the argument seems to be that Jesus and his 12 disciples were all men, so your church needs men to be priests, since they will be representing Jesus behind the altar.

If a priest needs to be superficially LIKE Jesus in order to represent him behind the altar, then why do you guys not also insist on only ordaining Jews and carpenters?

From what I understand, the issue is tied to marriage: the Church - i.e. the laity - is the "Bride of Christ" and Christ is the "bridegroom."

The argument I've heard is that since the priest stands in for Christ - the bridegroom - during the sacraments, the priest must be capable of being a bridegroom... IOW, must be male.

However, they don't prohibit men from being part of the laity - i.e. the "bride of Christ" - so either there's a limit to how far the argument goes or the Catholic Church is implicitly okay with (male) same-sex marriage.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There's two sides to this:

The Sacrament of Holy Orders can't be undone; in the eyes of the Church, once a priest always a priest, and a priest's ability to perform sacraments is a reflection of Christ's character, not the priest's.

The Catholic church DOES indeed have a procedure to laicize a priest.

Grounds for laicization include:

1. Grave Misconduct (e.g., sexual abuse, financial corruption).
2. Violation of Celibacy (e.g., marriage or cohabitation).
3. Apostasy or Heresy (e.g., renouncing the faith).
4. Grave Scandal (e.g., behavior causing severe public harm to the Church's reputation).

My question, if I could rephrase it, is since the Church allows for laicization, why does it almost never do this?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Catholic church DOES indeed have a procedure to laicize a priest.

Grounds for laicization include:

1. Grave Misconduct (e.g., sexual abuse, financial corruption).
2. Violation of Celibacy (e.g., marriage or cohabitation).
3. Apostasy or Heresy (e.g., renouncing the faith).
4. Grave Scandal (e.g., behavior causing severe public harm to the Church's reputation).

This is a matter of the difference between validity and licitness: a laicized priest is still a priest (i.e. any sacraments they perform would be valid) but isn't permitted to act as a priest (i.e. any sacraments they perform would be illicit).

My question, if I could rephrase it, is since the Church allows for laicization, why does it almost never do this?

Because the Catholic Church experiences very little external accountability.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is a matter of the difference between validity and licitness: a laicized priest is still a priest (i.e. any sacraments they perform would be valid) but isn't permitted to act as a priest (i.e. any sacraments they perform would be illicit).

I think we are quibbling over semantics. I don't care if anyone says they are still ordained. I only care that they are not being removed from their positions after committing offenses, and just continue harming people.

Because the Catholic Church experiences very little external accountability.

Thank you for the honesty.

 

[Glaurung]

The simple answer is tradition. The Church is meant to be the custodian of sacred tradition. And that tradition has never allowed for female clergy.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The Catholic Church is still in 19th Century

I don't suppose any institution survives for millennia, by rushing to embrace modernity. Particularly not one which wishes to remain true to the message of it's founders.

 

[Altfish]

I don't suppose any institution survives for millennia, by rushing to embrace modernity. Particularly not one which wishes to remain true to the message of it's founders.

Institutions can certainly die if they refuse to embrace change.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The simple answer is tradition. The Church is meant to be the custodian of sacred tradition. And that tradition has never allowed for female clergy.

I'm no expert on Catholicism, but I can think of a number of traditions that the Catholic church has changed, beginning with the fact that priests and bishops were originally allowed to be married. It is celibacy that is the new way of things.

 

[Glaurung]

I'm no expert on Catholicism, but I can think of a number of traditions that the Catholic church has changed, beginning with the fact that priests and bishops were originally allowed to be married. It is celibacy that is the new way of things.

Clerical celibacy is hardly new. The difference is that unlike celibacy, the male only priesthood is considered a dogma of the Catholic faith. None of the ancient churches allow female ordination. They never will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm no expert on Catholicism, but I can think of a number of traditions that the Catholic church has changed, beginning with the fact that priests and bishops were originally allowed to be married. It is celibacy that is the new way of things.

There are still churches in communion with Rome that allow priestly marriage. It's a standard thing in the Eastern Rite churches.

Also, recently when the Vatican reached out to Anglican priests to convert to Catholicism, the Vatican granted a dispensation to allow married Anglican priests to become Western Rite (i.e. "Roman" Catholic) priests.

Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. The Pope is free to modify or nullify the rule as he sees fit.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are still churches in communion with Rome that allow priestly marriage. It's a standard thing in the Eastern Rite churches.

Also, recently when the Vatican reached out to Anglican priests to convert to Catholicism, the Vatican granted a dispensation to allow married Anglican priests to become Western Rite (i.e. "Roman" Catholic) priests.

Absolutely!

Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. The Pope is free to modify or nullify the rule as he sees fit.

Correct. In the post that began this discussion, the word "tradition" was used, which refers to things like disciplines.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Clerical celibacy is hardly new. The difference is that unlike celibacy, the male only priesthood is considered a dogma of the Catholic faith. None of the ancient churches allow female ordination. They never will.

It is certainly, certainly newer than the tradition that priests could be married. It establishes that traditions can and do change.

Other traditions that have changed:

• Women are no longer ordained as deacons.
• Confession is now private rather than public.
• The early church had no formally recognized canon, and today it does.
• The Lord's Supper was originally a communal "agape feast," where today it is only the bread and wine that is served.
• Originally the language of the church was Greek, but then changed to Latin, and now Mass is said in the vernacular.
• The early church met in homes, unlike today when church buildings are used.
• The early church had no fixed calendar of holy days and seasons, whereas today it does.

I'm sure there's more, but those are the ones I remember.

 

[Kathryn]

There's two sides to this:

The Sacrament of Holy Orders can't be undone; in the eyes of the Church, once a priest always a priest, and a priest's ability to perform sacraments is a reflection of Christ's character, not the priest's.

This is a pretty long-standing position. During Diocletian's persecution of Christians, some Christians, including some priests and bishops, cooperated with the Roman authorities. This was seen by some, including a bishop named Donatus, to have been so heinous that it undid whatever sacraments the traitors had previously received: if they wanted to be readmitted to the Christian community, they'd need to get rebaptized and (for clergy) re-receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. He even argued that the ordination of some priests was invalid because they had been ordained by traitorous bishops.

The final decision of the Catholic Church on the issue was that Donatus was wrong and that "Donatism" was a heresy.

... so in the eyes of the Church, a priest is still a priest regardless of what they do.

OTOH, administratively, a priest can get reassigned or fired for bad behaviour. That being said, their tolerance for bad behaviour has been shown to be pretty high.

Not in the diocese I just left, where a priest was fired as a priest for sleeping with an underage girl.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not in the diocese I just left, where a priest was fired as a priest for sleeping with an underage girl.

Sounds better than my ex-wife's church, where one of the priests was still doing all his regular duties despite the lawsuit from his victims.

The priest died peacefully in his bed before the case went to trial.