Why Can't The Pope Be A Woman?

Because they'd pretty much have to change the whole way that they decide on candidates for popes. That would probably necessitate more extensive changes.
Like they would have to start making women (probably nuns) eligible for being considered for appointments of bishops. But that would be strange because nuns typically have not held prior leadership positions over a church like priests have. It is always theoretically possible to appoint nuns with leadership over churches in the same way that priests ordinarily are, and then appoint a separate priest to fulfill the spiritual functions.
But all that just to create a small chance that a woman might someday become pope?

Also the pope himself serves as a priest, in a more abstract metaphorical sense. So a female pope might not be able to quite fulfill all of the functions that a male pope does. It would just make it more complicated and a little bit awkward.

Not only that, but then there's the whole name itself. "Pope" translates as meaning "father".
So would you call this woman head of church "The mope"?
It would just sound kind of ridiculous.

 

And?

Are you suggesting that the church is just lazy and that righting this sexist policy would be 'a lot of hard work'?

 

If Anglicans can do it, so can Catholism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_Anglican_bishops

 

Depends what you mean by "equal". Women are told in the bible to obey men as men obey the Lord. That definitely puts men as superior in the authoritative sense. women are treated as chattel, which does make sense given the time period and society in which the bible was written. But women are also valued above men in the sense of men being disposable.

 

And they destroyed the American Episcopal Church doing it.

 

Or saved it.

 

It's obvious you don't know anything about this topic.

https://www.episcopalnewsservice.or...e-and-a-dire-future-for-the-episcopal-church/

 

For small churches it might be too inconvenient to appoint two separate people, one to lead the church and the other to lead the priestly duties.

Then there is also Paul's admonition, which might make things more awkward. The woman might be running the church, but she would not be giving sermons or really leading the sermons or sacraments in the conventional sense.

It would just start making things extremely complicated and inconvenient, and they would have to go back and rethink a lot of things that are the way things actually operate run on tradition. Just to create a possible opportunity for women that they would most of the time not even take.

It is definitely possible. But just not very pragmatic.
And you could go to all that work of trying to make it more "inclusive" for women, and still most likely you wouldn't see a female pope in the next hundred years. Simply because there would not be that many nuns that would be very interested in stepping up to these positions. Most of it would be drudgery and all the work it takes to manage the church from behind the scenes. Unless you are talking about affirmative action. Selecting a candidate for pope just because she happens to be a woman, using gender as a factor to make her a thousand times more likely to be chosen than if she was a woman.
I don't think that's something Catholics would approve of.

Again, we are not talking about ordinary women here, we are talking about women that have taken a vow of chastity, and who almost certainly are going to be nuns. (Because very few women are going to take a lifelong vow of chastity just to be the manager of a church's operations, and have some tiny infinitesimal chance of advancing in the hierarchy)

 

That the Pope "can't be a woman" (though technically could) because women can't be priests, isn't any less sexist. Why can't women be priests? It's because the church is rooted in another time when sexism was the norm.

 

I think your idea might sound pleasant, on the surface, but when we actually examine it in detail and apply logic, it just doesn't make much sense.

 

Okay, so you specifically want to turn this conversation into women being priests, rather than just a woman getting to be the pope?

 

This has been answered several times already.

 

"Equality" isn't always the best route to go when it carries a cost.

 

Look, I have no issue if you want to start making nuns eligible for positions of managing churches, in some situations.

But to do that just so that a woman might have some small chance of becoming the pope in the distant future seems ridiculous.

I will presume that you are not talking about affirmative action here, grooming a woman to become pope and making her rapidly rise through the hierarchy just because she is a woman.

 

There is a bigger issue at stake than your chromosomes. When you first enter into Holy orders, you are warned against pride, and told that your vocation is service, no matter what it is - visiting the nursing home, the hospital, serving meals (if you have that skill), plus your liturgical duties, reading the service, preaching, setting up the altar, picking up afterward.

A lot of guys think they are "the boss", and when you do that, you're doing it wrong. If you want to be a priest because you have something to prove, you're doing it wrong. Jesus said if you want to be first in the kingdom of Heaven you have to be a servant.

Which is why this whole conversation is ridiculous. People who think women should be Priests because it's "their turn" are too ignorant to be demanding anything and they make a mockery of the office.

 

I doubt this, this seems like some bull made up to keep the masses in check back when people didn't know better and the Roman Empire turned Christian.
The first Pope was the last Roman Emperor; so it stands to reason that Christianity is just a way to keep the masses under the thumb of the powers that be.

 

Not everyone can be leaders all the time. In fact there needs to be more people who are acting like servants at any given time than leaders.
Time to let go of that pride.

 

No, you do not need servants, that is the problem, we need people who think for themselves and question those who wish to be leaders constantly.

 

Matthew 20: 26, look it up. Do you guys even TRY to sound like you know what you're talking about?

 

These guys know NOTHING about Christianity.

 

Again, The Bible was written to control the masses.
Why would you use it to cite anything when it was written by men to keep masses in line back in the day when they thought the Earth was flat?

Try using common sense.
Accept that The Bible is a tool for mass control for a start and never use it if you want to win an argument.

You know the truth, it's in your heart, and it's undeniable unless you're perverse and wish to corrupt other lives.
We know there is no life after death, and we know virgins cannot give birth; how about insulting my intelligence less?

 

Then your god is an abject failure, since we were both brought up in a country with Christian schools and where the head of state is also the head of the church. Good leaders can get their message across. Ordained ministers are clearly not good leaders.

 

No danger of that happening.

 

Yeah but we know stuff.

 

You literally tried to use Bible verse to win an argument with me instead of accepting what we know to be true.