So you did. Well, it's quite alright to think it odd. Sometimes I find it odd. C.S.Lewis, if I remember right, admitted that it struck the modern mind as unfair in a way that it did not strike the ancients or medievals--though he argues against it all the same.
No, I did not falsely imply in any way that the sexual organ was the only difference between men and women. I implied that is was a basic criteria for eligibility, which it is.
Okay, but I don't even think we can say that genital makeup is a basic criteria for eligibility. If you somehow gave a woman working male genitals, could she be a priest? Absolutely not. Even a materialist would say that genital makeup is only an expression of the genome. You are male or female way before the genitalia begin to differentiate. As Catholics, we believe that the distinction in fact goes all the way down to the soul--and here's where, I think, the eligibility criteria lies.
At any rate, the world certainly had a backward view of women two thousand years ago (and the Middle East STILL does). It is not unreasonable to assume the frail humans in charge of church structure and assembly of the holy scripture allowed this to color their judgment.
Ok, so let's grant your premise then that frail churchmen of the early centuries allowed their "backward view" on women (and I reject that characterization by the way) to color the way they read Scripture.
Then it all comes down to ecclesiology, Flightdeck: what do you believe about the Church?
If the Church is a human institution, then yeah, it could have screwed up on this, and it could have screwed up on everything else as well--sacraments, the divinity of Christ, etc. I would respectfully argue that once we have come to this position we become, for all intents and purposes, Protestants in our outlook.
If the Church is a divine institution who cannot err in the essentials, then it is impossible to imagine that God wanted women priests but didn't provide for it since the beginning. He didn't add sacraments. He didn't add members of the Trinity. So why would he now add women to the priesthood? Who would have been more fit to be a priest than the sinless All-Holy Mother of God? Or the women disciples who stood by the cross when the Apostles ran away? There is a reason there. We may think it odd, and we may not understand that reason, but there *is* a reason.
Not to mention, the Church was known in ancient times as opposing the world's views on so many things--it seems odd that a Church that fought the world on so many things would go wrong on this one little point.
” Flightdeck: what do you believe about the Church?”
As far as what’s relevant to this conversation, I believe that the Church has the noblest of original intentions: to spread the same message that Jesus did while alive. It also constructed of people as sinful as you and I, and as ignorant as any human. In the time when Church doctrine was made, this ignorance likely included chauvinism where men either didn’t believe women were intellectual/spiritual equals or didn’t want them in a position of power.
I could be wrong, but I doubt Jesus would have a problem with a woman spreading his message in official capacity. And even then, Jesus was also human and failed on at least two occasions by his own admission. So maybe I should say that I doubt God would have a problem with a woman spreading his message in official capacity.
Either way, I’m glad you chose the route of civil discussion, as opposed to the other fool who is too thick to realize his “defense” of the church (now deleted) was the only thing anti-Christian posted on this thread.