“VATICAN CITY, June 23 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Tuesday reaffirmed a long-standing rule that only an ordained priest or deacon can give a sermon at a Catholic mass, rejecting a request from German bishops to broaden the practice and allow sermons by women or other laypeople.”
we do not allow women to become Priests not because we believe they are inferior, but because of the Bible and Church Traditions
for example, Mary, is the queen of Heaven and mother of God, and is prayed to for intercession
Hey I stumbled across this video and thought I should share it with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXwh9JpGL8g
Just because it is a tradition does not mean it is not sexist.
Your comments only do one thing: Showing that catholic traditions are sexist. And you argue that because it is tradition, it is okay. No. It’s not. If your tradition is sexist, then fuck your tradition, it has to fucking go.
"Today we hear the argument that “men and women are equal in Christ, so why can’t a woman be a priest? Jesus certainly didn’t discriminate in this way!”
The Church’s all-male priesthood doesn’t signify in the first place that women are inferior to men. It has nothing to do with that sort of nonsense. Galatians 3:28 teaches that “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” We’re equal. The view that men and women have different roles to play within the Body of Christ is not contrary to that."
One reason for the male-only priesthood is very straightforward: Jesus Christ was a man. During Mass a priest stands in place for Christ (since it is, properly speaking, Christ Himself, not the priest, who offers the Sacrifice and performs the supernatural consecration), thus it is fitting that men only are ordained. This view that women can be priests ultimately is reduced to designating our Lord Jesus and Paul as bigoted sexists."
"The very highest, most exalted and sublime of God’s created beings is Jesus’ own mother, the immaculate (i.e., totally sinless) Blessed Virgin Mary. Mary Magdalene first saw the risen Jesus (Jn 20:11-18), and several women were in the forefront of that event, too, while the men were slow to believe. Jesus saved a woman from being stoned for adultery, on the grounds that her sin was not — in the final analysis — greater than anyone else’s. Even Rahab the harlot is honored, because she helped the Israelite spies. Jesus greatly honored the woman who wiped His feet with her tears and rebuked his male host. Jesus showed extraordinary regard for women throughout His public ministry.
The Apostle Paul taught, “love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (i.e., He died for us). That’s from Ephesians 5:25"
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2025/12/no-women-priests-in-the-catholic-church-why.html
It took me over 60 years, but I have finally understood that the mistranslations, misunderstandings, and outright fabrications of a small group of people thousands of years ago maybe influential, but that doesn’t make them true.
The number of logical, philosophical, and moral backflips that you have to do in order to make any sense of it can only work if you have already decided that they are true. Without all that hand-waving, it’s ludicrous.
you can read the original hebrew and greek
and proof?
Do you want a list of the contradictions in the Bible? Or discrepancies in all the manuscripts that we have found, let alone all the translations?
There is an enormous amount of justification and adoption of bizarre interpretations, just to try and fit our theology (both current and past) into what the Bible says, and what supports people’s preconceived ideas.
After a while, I just got tired of difficult passages in the Bible being explained with, “oh, you have to interpret it like this for it to make sense”. Or, “it’s a mystery”. A few times yes, but over and over again? No, it seems obvious that we are making the Bible do things it was never created to do.
And, if you can, try to approach it without the implicit or explicit understanding that it is a divinely inspired text. If it can’t stand up on its own, it’s definitely suspect.
Dan McClellan has a good YouTube channel on biblical scholarship issues.
it is mostly in parables
just because you dont understand it doesnt make it illogical
and thats why we need the Church, to interpret it for us.
and contradictions
That sounds like a very Catholic interpretation (I grew up Catholic). Funny how we need to be told what to think, by people who have a vested interest in maintaining the existing power structures of the church, when the original teachings of Jesus were to illiterate farmers and fishermen.
they spend their entire lives studying the scriptures and God, so they can advise you on your life
and his teachings were so powerful that they turned those farmers and fishermen into scholars who could write testimonies and letters
So by the logic that only men can preach because Jesus was a man, do you also enforce the rule that only middle Eastern Jewish carpenters can preach?
If not, then it is clearly possible for people to “stand in” for Jesus when preaching, even without matching his characteristics perfectly. The decision to specifically exclude women based on that one particular characteristic is therefore obviously sexist.
You’re arguing over the intentions of men in a world that has been massively patriarchal for longer than your religion exists. Please.
With this fun mental gymnastic logic you could argue that priests can’t be white because Jesus wasn’t white :)
“It’s not sexist because it’s a sexist tradition.”
Religion is silly.
💭 To consider antireligion, not atheism; https://www.arscyni.cc/file/antireligion.html
suppression of rational thought? proof?
https://www.reuters.com/world/vatican-rejects-proposal-allow-sermons-by-catholic-women-2026-06-23/
Let me spell it out
the most common way to become a Priest is through a religious order
When in formation, you decide to be a Brother or a Priest if you are in a male order
and in a female order, you are a nun after formation
some become Brothers and not priests as they want to support the Order and have more time to dedicate to Theology, Writing, Reading, etc.
you just cannot be ordained into the Priesthood as a woman
Ah yeah the woman who was chosen to give birth without her consent. A model of femininity.
Luke 1:38 Then Mary said: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.” And the Angel departed from her.
Is handmaid a euphemism for concubine/sex slave?
Or is it more like “well he’s my boss so I guess I have to”
handmaid means servant
and its like “The Lord has decided this, I agree as its his will”
She was fourteen.
sources?
the Bible never mentions her age
Which Bible? Which translation, which council? Because most of the stuff in “the Bible” changes with every translation. An example would be the relatively recent changes to condemn homosexuality when originally they were condemning the Roman practice of pederasty.
Anyway, first century Jewish girls were usually betrothed during or immediately after puberty and as she was already promised to Joseph according to one gospel she would have been between 12 and 16. It’s possible she was an outlier but much more likely if she did exist she was pregnant around 14.
read the original greek and hebrew at this point if you hate translations this much
… And servant is a common euphemism for slave in the bible.
In modern language a servant is someone that is paid money to do work and can leave the relationship without fear.
A slave is someone that does work because of obligation and isn’t necessarily provided anything to survive (ie may also need to labour to provide themselves food/shelter) and cannot leave the relationship without fear of retribution.
Which word seems more accurate for what’s described in Luke 1:26-38? Was Mary’s consent sought, or was she just informed what was expected of her? To me it seems like she doesn’t say “Oh Elizabeth, remember how I’ve always wanted to have God’s baby, but now that I’m married to Joseph I can’t” instead she is informed of the plan and just says “if you say so”.
I think it would be more likely that a good god would obtain consent, but that Luke didn’t find evidence of it, and so he wrote his own account of what happened based on his cultural expectations of what that interaction would have been like. What do you think? Would the Gospel of Luke be better of it presented the importance of consent, like maybe that would help men to treat women with respect.
the Bible is full of metaphors and parables
The Lord serves us every moment we are alive, so we should serve him too
Mary was informed, and thus agreed to it
God, as he is onmipotent, knew of Mary’s obedience before she was even formed in the womb and thus chose her
Im sorry, my religion says your religion is all fabricated nonsense, so yes the church is sexist deal with it
Because of the implications… As his servant.
You really are just that annoying huh.
Damn son. Try not trying so hard. Honestly? Do anything different than what you’re attempting to rn. Nobody likes you.
So many traditions have changed over the years, why not change this one?
Slavery was American tradition for like 100 years. Does that mean it’s ok?
If you’re tradition is being sexist, even tho it’s a tradition that doesn’t automatically make it ok.
“I know it looks bad but we’ve been lynching people since my great grandad so it’s family tradition and therefore fine :D”