I have heard most of the arguments trying to support women’s ordination, but in the final analysis we are to follow Jesus’ example and the fact is that He did not select any women to be Apostles, but He did send them off as missionaries (e.g. the woman at the well and Mary at the tomb who He sent as a messenger to the Apostles).

In the most recent Assembly of FiF, N.A. we had many discussions re the Oxford movement, and it appears that a renewed Oxford movement is necessary. We do not need to be conforming to society, but we need to be looking back to what Jesus did and taught, and the theology of the early Fathers; but, most particularly, His example. The argument ends there with me. He did many other things (such as speak to women in public and teach women), so there is no reason, culture or no, that He could not have chosen a woman Apostle had He wished to do so.

Ireland’s Edel Quinn was a profoundly influential lay-person; co-founding the Legion of Mary with Frank Duff. Whether she was helping hundreds of Dublin’s prostitutes escape the snares of ‘the street’ or spreading love to Our Lady in isolated parts of Africa, this mere ‘laywoman’ bequethed a legacy of motherly love.
PS – I have just been asked to write for an Irish newspaper on why I may not pursue a priestly vocation, and why I do not support women priests. Reading this has affirmed me in my Catholicism – well done Fr. Edward!

the deacon is a role which is open to women in most churches but seems to be forgoten by many which i think is why so many women who are called to the deaconate end up as priests as noone thingks to point out the option of distinctive deaconal ministy. there is a larg scope for womens minstery in deaconte and serving if people would only recoise the validity of the call to sevice, there were many female deacons and monatic leaders but they did not feel the need to become or press to be priests as they exerised their gifts under the athaority of men as the church is under Christ.

1) Deborah was a prophetess, judge and singer who ruled the Jewish northern tribes of Israel c. 1150BC. Esther was another very powerful Jewish woman as was Jezebel, Queen Athalia and others. Furthermore the Roman world was awash with women in priestly roles- think vestal virgins- and in positions of influence and power. Cleopatra is another name Jesus would have probably heard of and he was happy to afford women great influence and respect thus Magdalene is made the first evangelist at the resurection. This ‘patriarchal’ argument is often put forward but doesnt really hold much water not least because the emergence of a more liberalised and feminine culture is not evidence in itself that Jesus would have acted any differently. And finally ponder what it might mean if we claim that Jesus words and actions depend on cultural setting. It could soon render him entirely pointless.

2) There was a CLEAR distinction between the Apostles and disciples and the priesthood flows from that distinct ministry…..all ages of Christians have claimed as much

3) nor do I always go against women. Not sure I see your point but it is clear Pauline teaching affirms a notion of man and woman as equal but different.

4) Paul a self described apostle was himself single which rather refutes this argument. Secondly he tells us that chastity in marriage or the single life is deemed acceptable to God. And in any case celibacy within RC is not a matter of doctrine and discipline and several popes were themselves married as are many current priests in the Eastern rite and converts from Rome. It is quite reasonable for the Latin rite to set its own disciplines.

So your final point is completely off track imo!

1. The society in Jesus lived was a patriarchal society. It would have been unthinkable to put a woman in a position of power over men in any way and to do so would have meant the whole cause would have been lost. Thus the fact the disciples were men was hardly surprising.

2. There was not the distinction between lay and clergy for quite along time and the majority of the NT hardly supports such a distinction. In fact it is around the work of Augustine that we see the now entrenched role of the clergy as against the laity leaving the laity with no power or influence.

3. Paul does not always go against women. hew rites ‘When women are teaching…’ going on to discuss the hair or hat style they should wear. He acknowledges this happening to the extent it was worth commenting on.

4. Paul taught Timothy how to chose bishops priest and deacon – they should all be married with children. The decision in the 8th century CE to make priests celibate went against the teaching of Paul and ought to be condemned then and now. There should not be unmarried clergy in the church if the church really respects Traditional Christianity.

So a view should be taken that if, on the basis that Traditional Christianity should reign, then the era of the unmarried clergy should be over – unless Paul was wrong when he told Timothy… Of course he was wrong too to encourage women preaching but…..

This is of course simply untrue – such statistics are clearly false. I am a Catholic and I am far from alone in taking the stance that in the highly unlikely event the Church falls into the error of ordaining women then I will join the SSPX, a bastion of true tradition forced into regrettable schism by the excesses of the Church’s own liberals.

I would point out that the letters “RCWP” indicate that she is a member of an heretical group which “ordain” women – they stand for “Roman Catholic Woman Priest”. Of course, there is no such thing. As such, she is not a Roman Catholic, and is not in communion with the Church, and as such her comments misrepresent reality in pursuit of her own agenda and are not to be taken as representative of Catholic opinion in any way.