CIVIL RIGHTS discrimination based on sex?

[Tantum_ergo]

Kendy, your perception that women are less “powerful” in the church is troubling.

The Church may exist “in” this world, but it is not “of” this world. Any sort of temporal “power” that exists does not exist to affect THIS world but the next.

Jesus Christ, the most POWERFUL BEING, CHOSE to be the most humble. GOD chose to become an infant, to live in poverty, to suffer a cruel death. . .for US.

Are we Catholic Christians because we seek to follow CHRIST? I think so.

Are we following Christ when we agitate for personal power, or complain bitterly that we think we’re getting a short end of the deal? Did Christ EVER agitate for personal power? Did He ever complain that Peter got to be Pope here on earth? Did He go around complaining about the Roman occupation? Did He go parading around asking for the best seat in the house?

Respectfully, I submit that the entire mentality that has seized upon the concept that the Church (and./or MEN in general) have been oppressing women for CENTURIES, and that women, in order to even the score, simply HAVE to be offered every single “role” a man has held, because if they don’t get it, they are being oppressed, denied power, and can’t be “full people” otherwise, is flawed at the core.

A “role” is something for an actor; it is something artificial, something that makes him into something he is not.

A “vocation” is not artificial. A vocation (literally a ‘calling’) is from God. Priests have vocations; they are called. Their so-called power is (whether society sees it that way or not) to be rooted in CHRIST, and carries with it an awesome responsibility.

You might not see it this way but a woman is actually quite powerful in the way the CHURCH sees it. St. Paul himself speaks of being powerful in his WEAKNESS. Women, lacking power in a TEMPORAL way, thus are more powerful in the ETERNAL way. They are closer to the humility of Christ. They are the peacemakers, they are the caretakers, they are the “poor in spirit”.

As a woman, I find the idea of sublimating my feminine gifts (valuable gifts bestowed on me by the Creator) and attempting instead to forcibly seize or DEMAND an incorrected perceived “worldly power” just because it is something I think I’m entitled to, as a woman, because “men had it for centuries so now it’s MY TURN”–is about as far from the teachings of CHRISTIANITY as can be.

 

[mercygate]

No, it’s not a sin to question, but when the answer it given, there is no longer a need to ask, now is there?

Perhaps because one always considers the source. No church is actually providing answers here, just members of the church with their interpretation of Scripture, doctrine, policy, etc.

And even if the church did answer, there’s nothing wrong with asking for clarification and exposition. Ever wonder why a child asks something repeately and then follows your answer with fifteen “why’s”? To be inquisitive and our thirst for knowledge and Truth is an inherent part of being human.

No one should settle until their thirst for Truth is quenched.

Maybe I missed it, but have you read *Inter insigniores? *

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Tantum ergo:

But if one never stops asking “why”, does one ever arrive at truth?

I think not. If one is constantly criticizing, responding to every question with “why”, one never really makes a decision.

Why does the church do X? Well, because the church teaches A. WHY does the church teach A and not B? B is not correct. WHY? Because A is correct. Well, WHY not C then? C is not correct. WHY? Because A is correct. WHY not C AND A. . .

Etc. Etc. Etc.

The original question was answered with the first statement, but some could spend the rest of their life arguing that there was no way to know “why does the church do X?”

You illustrate the circular reasoning addressed by my young friend here. He asks “why?” The answer is “because they said so.” He asks “why do they say so?” The answer is “because they say it is correct.” He asks “why is it correct?” The answer is “because they said so.” Etc, etc, etc.

It is circular reasoning that never actually answers the question.

Perhaps the question should be premised “let’s assume the church didn’t say so, then why…?” This would actually require some thinking and inspire some discussion of ideas.

I do not see questions seeking honest answers in search for Truth as criticism myself.

How is constant questioning useful? Actually, constant questioning can be a great way to arrive at Truth! Ever heard of the Socratic Method? Socrates was a pretty smart fellow.

I ask you if “because I said so” has EVER been a satisfactory answer in the history of mankind? Maybe if you’re six! LOL

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Pardon me, john, but you misunderstood my post. No doubt at this hour it was not as clear as it should have been.

When I said, “the original question was answered with the first statement”, I was refering back to my little demonstration of the eternal WHYS.

The original question was thus, “What does the church teach?” And the original answer was, "The Church teaches A.

Does that make sense? I was not answering YOUR original question. That’s why my last statement was, “people could spend the rest of their life arguing that there was no way to know L”.

See below.

Why does the church do X? Well, because the church teaches A. WHY does the church teach A and not B? B is not correct. WHY? Because A is correct. Well, WHY not C then? C is not correct. WHY? Because A is correct. WHY not C AND A. . .

Etc. Etc. Etc.

The original question was answered with the first statement, but some could spend the rest of their life arguing that there was no way to know “why does the church do X?”

 

[ReformedCatholic]

mercygate:

Maybe I missed it, but have you read *Inter insigniores? *

Nope, sure haven’t. I’m just rattling off the top of my head. LOL Is it a useful work?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

For those who say that women do not have power with in the Church I like to point out all the religious order, both male and female, who have founders that are females.

I also like to point out the parochial school system in the United States of America which was founded by St. Elizabeth Ann Seton.

And lastly. I challenge everyone who says this to go to Mother Angelica and tell her this. The woman who started the only national Catholic Television Network and formed a group of male religious.

 

[johntkd]

Tantum ergo:

Pardon me, john, but you misunderstood my post. No doubt at this hour it was not as clear as it should have been.

When I said, “the original question was answered with the first statement”, I was refering back to my little demonstration of the eternal WHYS.

The original question was thus, “What does the church teach?” And the original answer was, "The Church teaches A.

Does that make sense? I was not answering YOUR original question. That’s why my last statement was, “people could spend the rest of their life arguing that there was no way to know L”.

See below.

I am sorry about that its been a extremely long last 2 days for me
and dont look like i am going to get any sleep again tonight as well, tomorrow is D-Day ( “forced” pre marriage class)
that i can think of 2 zillion and more things i would rather do,including get run over by a truck or having all my teeth pulled out without and novocain or pain meds lol.
but to make the marriage sacremental I have to pay the fine and do the penal class lol…
sorry i mistook your post

God bless
John

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I ask you if “because I said so” has EVER been a satisfactory answer in the history of mankind? Maybe if you’re six! LOL

Well, maybe if I HAD used circular reasoning your critique would have been justified, but I did NOT.

NOR did I ever use the terms “Because I said so”.

YOU did.

My example started with A, moved to B, then C, then C and A, then an etc. etc. etc. Perhaps I should have continued on with D, E, ad infinitum (though I rather thought the continous progression of the equation was fairly obvious).

So. . .what I attempted to point out was that the original question of “why does the church do X” was answered with “Because the Church teaches A”–which is NOT the same as “because I said so”.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

mercygate:

Teresa of Avila is a Doctor of the Church. So is Catherine of Siena. Therese of Lisieux. It’s about sanctity, not about the hat.

Okay, that’s three. But there are and have been exponentially more monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and so-forth whose primary duties are leadership and administration rather than the forbidden priestly duties that would “prevent” women from assuming the roles.

I’m not saying that some women have not been revered in the history of the Church. What I’m saying is that women are not viewed as equal to men in the eyes of the “men” who would be running the Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

God bless you, john, it’s not like I’m the most understandable person on a good day myself!

Best of luck to you, now and always.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What I’m saying is that women are not viewed as equal to men in the eyes of the “men” who would be running the Church.

Actually, it appears as though YOU are saying that women are not viewed as equal to men in the eyes of the “men” running the church.

Since I don’t think you yourself are one of those men, how do YOU know how they view women? And even if they DID view women as not equal, does that make the women not equal?

Who are we trying to impress here, men or GOD?

Whose view are we trying to uphold, society’s or God’s?

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Tantum ergo:

Well, maybe if I HAD used circular reasoning your critique would have been justified, but I did NOT.

NOR did I ever use the terms “Because I said so”.

YOU did.

My example started with A, moved to B, then C, then C and A, then an etc. etc. etc. Perhaps I should have continued on with D, E, ad infinitum (though I rather thought the continous progression of the equation was fairly obvious).

So. . .what I attempted to point out was that the original question of “why does the church do X” was answered with “Because the Church teaches A”–which is NOT the same as “because I said so”.

You might want to go back and re-read my post. You could have continued with D, E, and so forth, but you just would have had a bigger circle.

Yes, your answer was “because the church teaches A…” and then to the next question “why?” you said “because B is not correct…” and to the next “why?” you went back and said “because A is correct…” which infers that it is “correct” because the “church teaches it” and is therefore “because they said so.” That’s circular reasoning.

My whole “because I said so” comment was meant to be humorous and represents figuratively the argument used to answer all of the “why’s”… sorry if you didn’t get that.

Why do some people have the need to become hostile during a simple conversation?

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Tantum ergo:

Actually, it appears as though YOU are saying that women are not viewed as equal to men in the eyes of the “men” running the church.

Since I don’t think you yourself are one of those men, how do YOU know how they view women? And even if they DID view women as not equal, does that make the women not equal?

Who are we trying to impress here, men or GOD?

Whose view are we trying to uphold, society’s or God’s?

LOL, well, being that no woman has ever been one nor shall they ever be one, and I don’t see any of those “men” advocating for women to be brought into those roles, the thing speaks for itself.

I’m not trying to impress, I’m trying to understand.

God’s true view is what I’m trying to discern, which I think could stand for itself without the need to be upheld by anyone.

 

[johntkd]

Tantum ergo:

God bless you, john, it’s not like I’m the most understandable person on a good day myself!

Best of luck to you, now and always.

I need all the Luck I can get right now, Thanks

I am not either,I posted this thread as a real question last night when I was going over My RCIA and I had so many PMs calling me a sinner, antichrist,atheist etc the list goes on and on, I was even told I should not be in RCIA as I have little to no faith,they also wondered why I was converting when it seems all i do is question the Church.

oh well some I got a laugh at and laughing is good for me right now havent done much of that in a few days,

God Bless
John

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You think I’m hostile? Maybe it is too late at night, but I certainly did not intend to be. If the couple of “all cap” words bothered you, I do them for emphasis, having grown up with typewriters, and I still have trouble adjusting to the idea of all -cap = shouting.

I still don’t see the circularity, but then again, I’m just giving my take. That “A” could cover an awful lot of ground (so could the “X”).

Like, "why does the church do the rosary (with the rosary being X), and "the church teaches that the rosary prayer is both scriptural and valuable for private devotion, based upon the teachings of St. Dominic, further developed by ***(too tired to look up, sorry), used in its current format by ***.

Ok, so it’s a pretty straightforward question and answer, right? WHY does the church do a rosary? Because of This, This, and This, taught by this, developed by this, codified by this. Reasons.

It don’t THINK that equates to “because I said so” (after all, who am I?) I THINK that equates to you, “you asked me why the church does something, and I told you what the thing was, how it started, how it relates to scripture and tradition, etc.”

Now, if people start bringing up B (but why not just use the bible) or C (why does your Our Father not end like OUR Our Father) or goes on into questions about whether Mary was sinless, or a Virgin, or whether the tradition of “beads” isn’t really pagan, etc. . .
These might peripherally touch on the idea of the rosary, but they are just continual sorts of “yes, but” questions that attempt to cut down “why does the church do the rosary”. When the original question of “why does the church do the rosary” is sufficiently answered with the first A, "Because the church teaches that the rosary is scriptural, that St. Dominic brought it forward, it was developed, codified, etc.

You see, I guess I just get tired of giving an answer and having people basically seem to ignore it on the basis of it being just “something the church brainwashed you into thinking”, and attempting to try to draw false analogies, or digress into other topics. (BTW, this is not directed to you personally. A further BTW, I am the mother of three, ages 24, 22, and 20. Perhaps I have been shell shocked from the last 13 years or so of just this sort of 'continuous question" tactic!

Regards, hope this clarifies where I am, and certainly I am no opponent of the Socratic method. I just say that there has to come a point where the questions stop, and the ACTION STARTS. (oops, sorry, not yelling here).

God bless.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Ahh! I see your point now. That clarifies things quite a bit. I see where you’re coming from and I respect that. Sorry about the misunderstanding. And yes, CAPS scare me! LOL The leftovers of a traumatic childhood, I suppose. And good grief, it sounds like you’ve probably been questioned to death over the past 13 years! LOL

Take care.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

RC–Thanks. I wouldn’t have traded those years for anything. . .but I might have considered a discreet pair of ear plugs, now and then. . .

Good night, God bless. . .and take care.

TE

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Amen to that. Thanks.

Blessings.

 

[mercygate]

ReformedCatholic:

Nope, sure haven’t. I’m just rattling off the top of my head. LOL Is it a useful work?

I would suggest that anybody addressing this subject needs to read it. It addresses all of the questions posed on this thread. But it is short: only 9 pages. The whole natural law/sacramental theology side of this question is elucidated exhaustively in JP2’s *Theology of the Body. *The way the OP reduces the matter to “rights” – and civil rights at that – is like trying to get the “right” answer to the question, “What kind of sound does the color blue make?”

This is kind of an important issue to leave to “rattling.”

 

[I_A]

Kendy:

I_A_:

Is the fact that Jesus is a man important?

I don’t see why it should be?

Genisis 2:

…none proved to be the suitable partner for the man. So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.

John 19:

But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out… For this happened so that the scripture passage might be fulfilled: “Not a bone of it will be broken.”

So this first bride came from Adam’s side. So who comes forth from Jesus’ side born in water and his blood?
1 Cor 11:

Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.

Ephisians 5:

For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body…Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

Sin was born in Adam. Eve ate of the forbidden fruit first, yet the bible still calls it Adam’s sin.

Adam must make ammends for his sin.

This new Adam is male. His bride is the church. The church comes from his side.

IanS:

One reason for the male-only priesthood is very straightforward and (should be, anyway) uncontroversial. Jesus Christ was a Man. Given the fact that every validly-ordained priest functions in Persona Christi at Mass (since it is Christ Himself who transforms the elements and performs the supernatural consecration, not the priest, who “stands in” for Him), it is altogether appropriate that men only are ordained.
…
Even though Jesus was a celibate male He does have a bride (and NO it’s not Mary Magdalene :whacky: ) it is the Holy Catholic Church He founded. That is why the Catholic Church is called the “Bride of Christ” with Jesus Christ as her Bridegroom. That is why the Catholic Church is always referred to as “her” or “she”, because the Church is feminine and Jesus is masculine.

When a man is ordained as a priest he becomes alter Christus. Therefore, he does the same as Christ and makes the Church his bride. So if a woman became ordained wouldn’t she become a bride of the “Bride of Christ”, and thus make it a **lesbian ** relationship?

Jesus is male, he is in heaven and is male in heaven, as you and I will be male or female in heaven too.
Kenedy:

Well, I think one of the things I struggle with is the lack of comparable roles for women. Sure, women serve in the church as lay people and religious, but those are not female equivalent of the priesthood. And of course, there is the fact that only men have authority. It’s like women can’t be trusted with authority.

Have you seen Mother Angelica? She controls one of the largest and most influential media foundations in the world. The first true feminists in the US were nuns running schools and hospitals, long before the rest of society caught on! How many doctors of the church are women? How many saints are women?

My two cents.