How can the Catholic Church be against same sex "marriage" yet not be against the marriages of infertile or sterile couples?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, 

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

The question is a valid one, I think, often posed by proponents of same sex "marriage" (SSM).  Their reasoning is correct: if the Church says that SSM is wrong because it cannot produce children, then why does the Church permit men and women who are past the age of childbearing (or who may have had hysterectomies) to marry?**

The answer is that the argument the Church presents against SSM is not that it is immoral because it can't produce children.  SSM is immoral because it is not ordered to the procreation of children.  The Code of Canon Law states that "marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation" (CIC 1096)

What does "ordered to" mean?  It means that all actions that are done must be done with the end result in mind.  So eating must be ordered towards providing nutrition to the body.  Thus, when a person eats, and then attempts to vomit the contents of her meal, this is called an eating dis-order, because the behavior is contrary to the purpose, or proper end, of eating:  providing nutrients to the body. 

For an act to be moral, it must be ordered to its proper end.

So the "marital embrace" must be ordered to its proper end:  procreation.  Sexual acts between 2 males or 2 females can never be ordered towards the procreation of offspring. Sexual acts between, say, an elderly man and woman are still ordered towards procreation, even if their actions will never ever produce a single child.  

How does this work?

Take this analogy borrowed from the wickedly funny yet orthodox and insightful Catholic blogger, Marc Barnes  at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/  

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the St. Louis Cardinals.  They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules, their play is still ordered to its proper end.  

But in the case of SSM, the play itself is changed.  It would be like 2 teams showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other so that even if they have the "intent" of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can't possibly be ordered to that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.

So some married couples (the elderly, post-menopausal women, women post-hysterectomy, etc etc etc) may have sexual relations that are infertile, but their acts will always still be ordered towards life.  While they have zero chance of conceiving, their marital embrace is still ordered towards the proper end of marriage:  procreation and union.

**(Note:  impotency is indeed an impediment to marriage and the Church does not allow a couple to marry if they cannot complete the marital act.  But that is a topic for another discussion.)

Who are the Mad Trads and why do they have to be so vitriolic?

http://www.catholic.com/blog/patrick-coffin/meet-the-mad-trads

Yeah, what Patrick Coffin said.

And my reaction to the posts of these Mad Trads on the Catholic Answers Forums:

How can the Church claim to have the charism of infallibility--wasn't the Church wrong at one point about slavery? Didn't popes once endorse slavery? Now the Church condemns it.

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, 

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

I recently read this question on Catholic Answers "Quick Questions":

According to theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether, infallibility of the pope is untenable because no human perception of truth can be stated in a manner that lacks error or inadequacy. All ideas must be open to revision. Besides, the Church has erred repeatedly. Example: slavery. (By the way, is this woman Catholic?)
Answer

No, she is not Catholic, but she still carries the label because it gives her legitimacy. She is about as extreme a feminist fanatic as I have ever heard about. (Other professors at Boston College note that she won't allow men to enroll in her classes.) Her first point really is silly. Ask any mathematician whether the truth of an equation contains "error or inadequacy." A correct equation is completely true, with no admixture of error. And if such truth is possible in math, it must be possible in other things. As to her "example," infallibility applies only to formal teachings on matters of faith and morals. The Church never taught that slavery was good, only, as Paul noted, that, in a society in which slavery is accepted, the slave should be obedient to his master.--Karl Keating, Catholic Answers

Regarding the original question above, at least the latter part of the question "the Church condemns it", is correct. From Vatican II:   "Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery . . . the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed . . . they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator" (Gaudium et spes 27; cf. no 29).

Regarding the first part, "didn't popes once endorse slavery", well, that part is incorrect.

No pope has ever endorsed slavery.

However, this must be understood with some nuance.  There have been no teachings from the Church/Chair of Peter/Papal Office that endorsed slavery.  Yet it is true, sadly, that there have been indeed some popes who owned slaves.  It is also true that there were popes who sired children with their mistresses, murdered people, stole, bore false witness.  In short, every single one of the 10 commandments has probably been broken by a pope.  Mortal sinners, a bunch of them!  (And, I would be remiss if I didn't add:  a whole lot of them were saintly, holy men living lives of intense prayer and service.)

Yet not a single heinous sinner of a pope has ever proclaimed, using the Chair of Peter, a false teaching.  So while they may have engaged in adultery, not a one ever penned an encyclical asserting that adultery was now moral. They may have lied and cheated, but none of them ever proclaimed that lying and cheating is permissible.

As Jesus said:  The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;  therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.—Matthew 23:1-3. That is, do what the Pharisees, yet sinners,  tell you because of their position of authority, even if they say and do sinful things themselves.

Incidentally, when discussing slavery it must be acknowledged that there are different forms of slavery.  Slavery in the ancient world (i.e. Biblical times) was a different animal, so to speak, than the relatively modern form of racial slavery that we're familiar with.  Slaves in Roman and Biblical times could own property, run businesses, earn their freedom, and were considered to be inherently worthy of human rights.  It was a form of indentured servitude that, while restricting the liberty of individuals, was of a different quality than that which we think of today.

Today, when we discuss slavery we mean enslaving an individual who is regarded as nothing more than the property of another, and as a being without inherent human dignity; in other words, as an object rather than a human person.  Under this definition, slavery is intrinsically evil, since no person ought to be reduced to the status of a mere object and property of another person. --from a previous 3 Minute Apologetics blog.

And the above question regarding slavery is often presented as a way of intimating, "The Church may also be wrong about this teaching _____________{fill in the blank with whatever unpalatable, unlikable Church teaching the presenter may wish to dismiss}."  That, I think, is the real reason slavery is often brought up.  It is a means for a person to be able to argue that the current teaching he finds distasteful may also change.


For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Is the "Law of Attraction" compatible with Catholicism?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, 

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

The "Law of Attraction", LOA, seems to be nothing more than this:  think positive thoughts and positive things will happen to you. i.e: "Think it, and make it so."  We "attract" good things by our good thoughts/feelings.

We are all familiar with its corollary:  if you think negative thoughts, then it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy and, indeed, negative things will happen to you.

The LOA is a New Age concept that can be found in Wayne Dyer's writings, the 2006 book/movie "The Secret", author Marianne Williamson's books, and, of course Oprah has been a big proponent of the LOA.

It may seen like an innocuous at worst and helpful at best philosophy to live by:  what's wrong with thinking positively?  Who does that hurt?...In fact, our common sense seems to tell us that there are indeed some truths to the LOA. As Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin maintains, "Our thoughts do affect our outlook, and if you have a positive outlook, positive things are more likely to happen to you."  However, he adds, "But that happens in a natural manner. You can't magically attract things into your life just by thinking about them."  This, he says, is superstition.

In fact, the LOA is indeed not compatible with Catholicism. In the 2003 Vatican document, "Jesus Christ, the Bearer of the Water of Life", the Church states, "The widespread New Age conviction that one creates one's own reality is appealing, but illusory...Our limitations are a fact of life and and of being a creature." 

There is no scientific evidence that the LOA is true.  There are no scientifically reproducible, demonstrable results that this phenomenon, or "law", is occurring. The only "proof" we have is anecdotal.  "I woke up thinking I was going to get a raise today, and it happened!"

Not very scientific.




The LOA is incompatible with Catholicism because its main axiom is that we are able to "manipulate the universe" and, in essence, control God.  Its philosophy seems to be borne from a Pantheistic worldview, in which everything is "energy" and all "energy" is God.  According to former New Age devotee Sharon Lee Giganti, the LOA seems to be a modern day form of ancient magic and sorcery.

Incidentally, how does the LOA work if, say, a teenager is using the LOA to attract a shiny new red convertible, and his parents are using the LOA to visualize him not getting a shiny new car, who's going to win this tug-o-war in the LOA world?

Another problem with the LOA is that it may serve as a catalyst for dismissing the poor and downtrodden.  Did they not attract these hardships on themselves, according to the LOA?  And, of course, this, too is contrary to Catholic social justice which mandates that we treat the poor and downtrodden as we would serve Jesus himself. "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me.--Matt 25:35

So if we ought to be cautious about entertaining this LOA, how is this different from prayers of petition?  Aren't we in essence doing the same thing as invoking the LOA when we ask God to, say, give us a raise?  I think the difference is that in our prayers of petition we surrender control to God, rather than to ourselves. "Please, God, help me to get the raise that I deserve", acknowledges that God is in control but where we understand that God gives us the "dignity of causality". That is, God allows us to "cause" this event by our asking for this event, while the LOA seems to be operating under the mantra, "My will be done" not "Thy will be done."

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Fr. Mitch Pacwa comments on The Secret

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online


"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

What if I am being fed at a megachurch? And I really love the style of worship at the megachurch--there's something there for everyone! Doesn't God just want to be worshipped by His creatures, in whatever way speaks to us?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, 

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Short answer:  no, God doesn't just want to be worshipped by His creatures in whatever way speaks to us.  That is a man-made tradition. One can search the entirety of what God has revealed and never find anywhere that God has said we may worship Him in whatever manner we find personally pleasing and fulfilling.  

God has given us the highest form of worship:  the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Other churches, while prayerful,  lively and animated,  may indeed have Christ's presence there ("For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”); however, their worship is man-made, not God given.  

(This is not to say that the prayers and worship of members of these other churches are wrong or not pleasing to God.  I think they are indeed pleasing to God.  It just ought not be considered a worthy substitute for the Mass.)

This Sunday is the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, also known as the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.  It is for this reason that we go to Mass:  because He is present there in His Most Holy Body and Blood, at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where we partake in the Eternal Sacrifice of Calvary and stand at the foot of the cross with Him.  

God Himself has revealed to us how He wants to be worshipped.  The apostles received this revelation and then went on to proclaim to the early Christians this sacred, God-instituted form of worship. This Sunday we will hear the apostle Paul speak of this worship:

I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, 
that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, 
took bread, and, after he had given thanks,
broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you.
Do this in remembrance of me."
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood.
Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, 
you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes
 (1 Cor 11:23-26)

Although Paul was not present at the Last Supper, we can conclude that he received this from the Lord through the other apostles. And in this text above we read that he has already proclaimed it (presumably through Sacred or Oral Tradition, not through the written letter)  to the fledgling Church.  (This verse is also another verse which supports that God's revelation is not through Scripture alone, but rather through Scripture and Oral Tradition.)

From Apologist Jim Blackburn:

In an all-too-common tragedy these days, a poorly catechized Catholic attends a worship service at a megachurch, mistakenly believing the worship service simply to be a modern, non-Catholic version of the Mass. The Catholic feels emotionally drawn to the megachurch worship service and decides Mass, in comparison, is boring. A typical view might be, “Wow, I’m being fed here like I’m not being fed at Mass.”

The American Heritage Dictionary defines megachurch as “a large, independent, usually nondenominational worship group, especially one formed as an offshoot of a Protestant church. Also called seeker church.”

“Large” is right. Among the better known megachurches are Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston (attendance 43,500), Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago (attendance 23,000), and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church (attendance 20,000) in my backyard in Orange County, California.

Many megachurches are known for their concert-style worship services, consisting of passionate preaching accompanied by emotionally driven music.  I often hear stories about local Catholics in my diocese who venture into one of Saddleback’s worship services—only to be “sold” on this new style of worship, and never again to return to the Catholic Mass.

“Something for Everyone”
From a superficial perspective it’s easy to see why ill-informed Catholics can be drawn in so easily. A quick visit to Saddleback’s Web site (saddleback.com) reveals a veritable menu of Sunday worship services to satisfy the taste of just about any self-indulgent seeker. For example, consider these six offerings, as described on the site:

•         Worship Center Times: You’ll engage in an array of contemporary worship music and enjoy live teaching that is video cast to our other venues.

•         Fuel Times: FUEL is our newest venue for young adults ages 20s to 30s (but everyone is welcome). Join us in Refinery main auditorium for live teaching, worship, food, and relationship building. All of this and more, packed into a shorter service.

•         Overdrive Times: This service is filled with guitar-driven, rock-infused worship sure to amplify your experience. You’ll feel like you’re worshiping in a musical concert setting! The message will follow, video cast live from the Worship Center.

•         Praise Times: This venue is filled with inspiring gospel music that will move your heart and encourage your spirit. The gospel choir will get you up off your feet in whole-hearted praise to God. Worship is followed by the video cast message.

•         Terrace Cafe Times: Grab a cup of coffee and relax in this outdoor worship environment. Located on the top of the Plaza Building, the Terrace Cafe is a perfect place to bring your friends for fellowship and a casual worship experience.

•         Traditions Times: Enjoy a warm, small church community and a traditional approach to worship through hymns and choruses.

Now, each of these forms of worship can be perfectly fine. The problem arises with the gross misconception that such worship is in any significant way comparable to the Catholic Mass. The truth is there really is no comparison at all.

The Day of Obligation
Down through history, the Church Fathers attest that the Eucharist has been the constant and most sacred form of authentic Christian worship. In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the Catholic Church continues this form of worship and obliges Catholics to participate.

The authority to oblige Catholics in such a way was endowed to the Church by Jesus himself. He said first to Peter and later to all of the apostles, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19, 18:18).

The Church has always recognized in these words the authority to enact disciplinary laws which the faithful must follow. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter . . . (CCC 553, emphasis added)

Today the obligation to attend the Mass is found in the Code of Canon Law: “Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation . . . On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass” (CIC 1246 §1–1247).

Symbol or Reality?
Not long ago, Rick Warren announced, “We’re adding the Lord’s Supper . . . to 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm Sunday evening services every week!”

Some people have wondered whether “the Lord’s Supper” at Saddleback Church is the authentic Eucharist. The answer is no. The power and authority to consecrate the Eucharist has never been available to just anyone; it has always been necessary to be appointed by one of the apostles or their successors. Luke provides evidence of this: “[T]hey [Paul and Barnabas, in this case] had appointed elders for them in every church . . .” (Acts 14:23). As does Paul: “This is why I left you [Titus] in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you . . .” (Ti 1:5).

The term “elders” in these passages is translated from the Greek word presbyterous, from which we derive the English word priest. It is clear in the passages just cited that priests were necessarily appointed in every Church. In part, this was for the valid consecration of the Eucharist.

Since megachurches like Saddleback Church do not have priests ordained by successors of the apostles (i.e., Catholic bishops), they do not have the power or the authority necessary to consecrate the Eucharist changing its substance into the body and blood of Jesus.
Also, I’m not aware of any megachurches that recognize the life-giving presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, for Catholics the “source and summit” of the faith. In describing its Lord’s Supper, Saddleback Church’s Web site states: “The elements of bread and wine or juice are symbols of Christ’s broken body and shed blood. Communion is not a means of salvation.”

Mass Is Not Optional
There is no comparison between a modern megachurch worship service— however entertaining it might be—and the Eucharist instituted by Jesus. A person should never mistake such megachurch worship as any sort of alternative to the Mass. And, if he’s a Catholic, he must never neglect his obligation to participate in the Mass.

If a Catholic wishes to indulge in megachurch worship, and he can do so without endangering his own faith or scandalizing others, he is not explicitly forbidden from doing so. Even so, he cannot licitly participate in a megachurch communion service. This is forbidden by the Code of Canon Law: “Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone . . . ” (844 §1).

The bottom line is this: Jesus didn’t instruct the apostles to perpetuate megachurch-style worship services, nor did he indicate that such worship would be life-giving. But he did institute the Eucharist, commanded the apostles to perpetuate it, and promised life to those who participate in it. Don’t we owe it to him to worship as he commanded? 
source:  http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/worship-the-way-god-commanded

And this youtube video brings a smile to my face:  a parody of these Sunday worship services, posted with a wink and a smile, with no disrespect intended.  Again, there is no doubt that God is pleased with worship and praise offered to Him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RJBd8zE48A

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Haven't some popes claimed to be God on earth?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, 

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

A cursory search on google came up with these quotes:

"As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth"

Pope Nicholas I said that "the Pope, being God, is judged by no man."

Pope Piux X said of himself, "Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks."

Pope John XXII says that it is heresy to deny the power of "Our Lord God the Pope."

Is this what Catholics believe about our pope?  

Answer:  No.  Catholics believe that Jesus Christ alone is God on earth.

When Catholics are presented with these quotes the best thing we can do is ask for a source.  There will be, of course, some sort of citation that will be provided, but it ought to be from the pen of the pope himself, not what a book or website claims a particular pope proclaimed.

Here is one source from the internet:

http://biblelight.net/claims.htm

but you will note that not a single document is cited that has the actual encyclical or writing from a pope.  No primary sources are provided.

All of the above quotes are second-hand, (or even umpteenth-hand), taken out of context, mistranslated, embellished, fanciful contortions.

Catholic apologist Phil Porvaznik responds:

A Protestant paper, the "Church Review," in England, October 3, 1895, charges Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having uttered those words at Venice. Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in 1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice, and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscript of his discourse. And this is what he actually did say:

"The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, that is, the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven."

Pope Nicholas I. said that the Pope, being God, is judged by no man.

REPLY: Never did Pope Nicholas I say that the Pope is God. What he does say is this:

"Since those in higher authority are not judged by inferiors, it is evident that the Apostolic See, than which no earthly authority is higher, is judged by none."

And that is perfectly sound reasoning. Even in civil law, the king is "above the law," and not subject to his own laws. Hence the legal axiom, "The king can do no wrong." Italy itself has acknowledged the justice of the Pope's claim to be independent of all civil jurisdiction, and subject to no earthly authorities.

In the "Extravagantes" of Pope John XXII, Roman Canon Law says that it is heresy to deny the power of "Our Lord God the Pope."

REPLY: That remark is attributed, not to Pope John XXII, but to the Canonist Zenzelinus, in his commentary on Title XIV of the "Extravagantes." But an examination of the original manuscript of Zenzelinus, preserved in the Vatican Library, failed to reveal the words attributed to him; and it has been definitely proved that the reference to God is an interpolation in later copies of his commentary.

Often, a nebulous, vague reference will be given such as, "a distinguished theologian has stated..." or "a Catholic writer maintains..." without any concrete evidence of these claims.

Note:  Even if a Catholic writer did proclaim such nonsense, we ought not confuse the writings of a Catholic with what the Church, as a teaching authority, actually proclaims.  For references to what the Church teaches we look to the Catechism and to the encyclicals of the popes and documents of the various Church councils throughout her 2000 year history.  Those are the writings that we deem to be authoritative.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Why isn't it a sacrament when women become nuns, but it is when men get ordained?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, 

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

 From Catholic Answers website:  http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-isnt-a-sacrament-when-women-become-nuns-but-it-is-when-men-are-ordained-priests

If a sacrament is an outward sign of grace, then why is the process of being ordained a sacrament for a priest but not a sacrament when women become nuns?  How is this fair?

A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ.  Jesus determines what a sacrament is and who will receive it.  As for the priesthood, it is not comparable to religious life.  In fact it it's not comparable to any other thing on the earth.  It is a share in Christ's priesthood which he himself established.  No one is worthy of it.  A Catholic priest actually ministers in the person of Christ.  That Jesus ordained only men would be unfair if all human beings had a right to such an honor.  The fact is, we don't.

Religious life, on the other hand, is a way of living that is based on the evangelical counsels that Jesus preached. The vows of religious life represent the totality of human existence.  We are all called to be chaste (both married and single), we are all called to obey lawful authority, and we are all called to be poor in spirit.  Religious life accentuates these by going a step farther, thereby drawing attention to them.  It acts as a beacon, reminding people that we all owe God the oblation of all that we are. Religious life is opened to men and women alike.

Answered by:  Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

I have heard it said that when an ordination occurs, the universe is changed forever.  What existed 30 seconds prior to ordination exists no more for eternity!  The man who stood before God and the Church is no more.  

Ordination confers on his soul a new ontological (that is, at its essence or at our very being) participation in the ministry of Christ.

This is why the priesthood is so very different from the ministry of Protestant churches.  Protestant ministers are about what they do.  The Catholic priesthood is who he is. Ontologically.  At his essence.  

As such, ordination is not the "deputizing" of someone to perform an assignment. It is NOT the admission of someone to a profession such as medicine or law.

And this is why women can never be ordained as priests.  For the priesthood is not about what he does--clearly, a woman can "do" everything a man may "do" in his job as a priest: a woman could indeed sit in a confessional, hear someone's sins and say the words--the same as any man can.  And perhaps offer more nurturing, counseling and better insight than a man...

and a woman could indeed say the words of consecration--perhaps with even more emotion, better diction, more sincerity, etc etc etc...

That is, women are quite capable of the doing part of what a priest does. 

When someone has an impoverished understanding of the priesthood he cannot see why women can't be priests--because he sees it as akin to being a counselor, or a manager, or an evangelist.  And who in the right mind would say that a woman can't be a counselor, or manage a business, or preach the good news?  But we understand that the priesthood is not about what he does, but about what he is.

So even if a woman were "ordained" to the priesthood, she would not be, at her essence a priest.  It's just not ontologically possible.  

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online
Catechism of the Catholic Church online

  

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15