Criticisms of Pope Francis reassertion of Catholic dogma on female ordination

[goout]

I agree that a man and woman are required to procreate the species. Beyond that, I’d disagree that any further complementarity is required for the good of human existence. Men and women are all human beings capable of doing anything and everything the other sex is capable of doing beyond that procreative role.

I can also use my forehead to hammer a nail.


If you agree that it is good for human beings to exist and flourish…

And you agree that sexual complementarity, equipment and actions, are uniquely ordered to this good…

Why would you not respect that orderedness? Why would you use your forehead to hammer a nail?

I’m still not sure where we disagree.

 

[ericc]

Based on if those engaging in them are in committed relationships generally speaking. Of course I believe those same sex couples can marry and be in such a relationship.

Your Bible already defined same sex acts as abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Romans 1:26,27 …Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men…

1. It didn’t say there is exemption given if they are committed.
2. Are you trying to pass off these acts as something sanctioned by God? These verses have never been abrogated.
3. Before churches permitted these homosexual acts recently , weren’t they acknowledged as sinful previously? So by mere human processing (by voting I suppose. You just need to fill your population with enough of the suitable kind of people, you can vote anything in, regardless of whether it is expressly prohibited in the Scriptures) something vile has became something acceptable in the eyes of the Lord?
4. Romans say these relationships are unnatural. Doesn’t this bother you? Or you just go with the “committed, both adults consenting” chant.

Loving the sinner does not gives one the right to commit the sins. Jesus say to those sinners “to sin no more”. Not continuing sinning. But you are taking the stance that it is alright to continue to engage in these homosexual activities, just as long as one continue to “love” the other?

Same goes for divorce, adultery, abortion. Which in the not very distant past of Protestantism were all prohibited. What goes in the next century? Probably you can do away with the Bible. Because one can vote away all the inconveniences of following it.

 

[1ke]

How would you respond to each of these criticisms?

Barf.

 

[WilliamE]

Barf.

Are you in middle school?

 

[anthrogirl]

When our priests and our local bishops preach to us about how we so desperately need more priests, I just roll my eyes. Obviously, the Church is not desperate enough.

 

[BornInMarch]

Priests are supposed to represent Jesus Christ.

For better or worse, when God came down to Earth and became a human he became a male human and chose only male disciples. If Jesus wanted female priests, than he could have given The Keys To Heaven And Earth to his mother Mary instead of to Saint Peter (after all, Mary was conceived without original sin).

Additionally women CAN take an active role in The Church and hold leadership positions within it, specifically as Nuns. Nuns aren’t insignificant either; while heading the Missionaries of Charity, Mother Teresa was in charge of thousands of nuns across the world.

 

[BornInMarch]

Jesus Apostles were all men. Christ did not choose a women to be one of his Apostles. If he had then you would have a good argument. Jesus has given his authority to the Pope to make the decisions for his Church.

That’s just it: to let women be Priests would not say “women are just as competent as men” (which is true), it would say “women ARE men” and “God got it wrong” (which are both untrue).