Oracle Online

There seem to be many such reasons one could pull out of the Bible to support this view that women are unfit for priesthood. How strong is that claim when you weigh the handful of passages that are degrading and belittling toward women, verses the vast number of passages promoting equality throughout all ages, ethnicities, colors, and of course, genders? Civilized people realized the equality factor years ago. So what are they saying, God is sexist?

It seems like Catholicism is in a sort of pre-women’s suffrage phrase still. Here’s the connection. African-American males had already been granted the right to vote by the higher-ups before women were allowed to. Similarly, African-Americans weren’t even allowed to preach at first, until eventually the church came around and granted them that God-given right. So it just seems fitting that it’s the women’s turn now, in every denomination.

A passage such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 might indicate one reason it’s common for people to believe in this particular doctrine. “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak... And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home,” says Paul, while talking about some of the rules of ordination. (Paul also forbids women from braiding their hair, or wearing jewelry, or expensive clothes.) This attitude obviously distances women from the infrastructure of the church. Not to say that the Bible is outdated, but it was written centuries ago, and since that time, many realizations of human equality and moral agency have come to light.

On the other hand, straight-shooting believers know to place more importance on verses like Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are one in Christ Jesus.” That was said pretty loud and clear, and it sounds a lot more like a loving and peaceful religion, doesn’t it? We have to keep in mind this was in a time where women were sometimes treated as property rather than loving wives, and “referred to on the same level of dogs,” says Jim Burns, a columnist for the Christian magazine Campus Life.

Therefore, I do believe it’s true that women would not have been very powerful prophets 2,000 years ago, since no one would listen to anyone but men. But supposedly this is why Jesus was different. Opposing the matter, “Christ was radical in the wonderful way he treated women,” Burns says. “Jesus gave us [examples] in the Gospels of treating both men and women with respect.” In fact, Jesus allowed women to travel with him in his preaching posse right alongside the males. Apparently Jesus was sort of a revolutionary in this respect, and apparently that’s partly what the religion is founded on. So it’d be a shame to miss an important component such as this in your dogma.

Why do all these contradictions exist in the Bible? Aside from the fact that there are so many different writers, the many different translations sometimes suggest different interpretations. Why would the Catholic Church interpret a few of these passages in such a negative way? There’s enough death and destruction in the Bible as it is.

There’s no rational reason a specific sector of Christianity would object to racism, yet permit sexism. They say that ministers and priests are called to the vocation. Except Catholic womenč-don’t they receive these callings? Indeed they do. But their callings go unfulfilled and the worsening priest shortage continues.

Oddly enough, married men are next on the list of who would be allowed to be priests. I’m sure deep down, the Catholic Church really feels the same way everyone else does about women, but sadly, changing the rules has never really been their cup of tea.