“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.”
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
What are you talking about? None of the Gospels were written by apostles. It’s very unlikely that any of them could read or write, before or after Jesus.
If Christians are people of the Book, why do they eat pork and shellfish, wear mixed fabrics, and why don’t they stone to death adulterers and children who disrespect their parents?
What’s that? The New Covenant, you say? Okay, then why, given the example of the Lamb and the Suffering Servant, do Christians fight in armies as opposed to turning the other cheek and loving their enemies? Why don’t they sell everything the own and give the money to the poor?
There’s always a justification for doing the opposite of what was explicitly commanded in the Bible. Before Constantine made Christianity the state religion, you could not be a Christian and serve in the Roman army. After Constantine, to serve in the Roman army you had to be a Christian. Hmmmm.
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 :)