Is it possible for the US gov to mandate Catholic church to ordain woman?

[Geist]

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Here give that a read through. Its not the preservation of tradition. Pope John Paul was quite clear that the Catholic Church does not possess the authority to ordain women. Period.

Aye, it was an informative (and blessedly short ) read, thanks.

It’s rather simple actually, souls have gender, but they don’t have race. Souls are male or female, but there is no such thing as a black or white soul

I am intensely curious to know how that works.
Inigo de Loyola:

But food for thought, it seems you are making a very fashionable but very wrong assumption. It seems you are assuming that there is no significant difference between men and women, and that they are no different from each other than a brown haired man and a black haired man.

Oh, no no no, you are making the very wrong assumption my friend. As my wife will tell you I am an incorrigible sexist. Men and women are radically different in body, mind, and soul. Do note I said I had no problem with the refusal to ordain women, just the logic behind it.

My reservations about the refusal to ordain women based on the gender of the disciples just seemed like shaky reasoning, so, I figured, why not take it to the next level and restrict it to Galilean jews? Its not that great a leap in logic.

However, the text Scott posted did do a better job of explaining things.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

How what works?

 

[GEddie]

The human soul is male or female because it us the soul OF THE BODY, and the gender of the body in intrinsic to who the person is.

Skin color is literally only skin deep. While it affects how someone is treated in most societies, it does not change who someone is, unlike gender.

Cultural ethnicity is even more superficial than skin color.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

However, the text Scott posted did do a better job of explaining things.

Lol Okay, but isn’t that what I posted to begin with?

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

From ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS Emphasis mine.

Yup that’s what I thought I posted.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Because the people pushing for this are against inequality and discrimination in any form.

It says youre a catholic, yet you think women should be able to be priests?

 

[sedonaman]

It says youre a catholic, yet you think women should be able to be priests?

You asked,

… Why not just be a nun?

My answer was,

Because the people pushing for this [women priests] are against inequality and discrimination in any form.

How do you get out of my answer that I think women should be able to be priests?

 

[Rence]

This HHS mandate has me thinking. Could the government claim that the Catholic church is discriminating against women and make them ordain woman priests?

No, because the ordaining of priests is a purely religious function and the State has no dealings with it at all. It can’t be compared to the HHS mandate because the HHS mandate deals with employees on a secular level, not as a religous function. The HHS has juristiction over health issues/employers/employees from a State perspective. There is no State juristiction over the religious institutions unless the religious institution is crossing over into State-run/funded territory (i.e. brokering adoptions).

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

No, because the ordaining of priests is a purely religious function and the State has no dealings with it at all. It can’t be compared to the HHS mandate because the HHS mandate deals with employees on a secular level, not as a religous function. The HHS has juristiction over health issues/employers/employees from a State perspective. There is no State juristiction over the religious institutions unless the religious institution is crossing over into State-run/funded territory (i.e. brokering adoptions).

Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to have jurisdiction over health issues?

 

[sedonaman]

No, because the ordaining of priests is a purely religious function and the State has no dealings with it at all. …

Just you wait.

 

[sedonaman]

Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to have jurisdiction over health issues?

“To promote the general welfare.”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

“To promote the general welfare.”

That is part of the Preamble, which also states “We the People…” not, “We, the Congress…” The Preamble doesn’t give any power or authority to anyone.

It also says,

“and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

Does that mean that Congress is obligated to secure our liberty and our posterity?

 

[Rence]

Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to have jurisdiction over health issues?

Where in the constitution does it forbid the federal government to authorize HHS to have juristiction over health issues?

 

[Rence]

Just you wait.

Ok, I’ll wait. But I won’t hold my breath while I wait…

 

[sedonaman]

That is part of the Preamble, which also states “We the People…” not, “We, the Congress…” The Preamble doesn’t give any power or authority to anyone. …

That’s strange. In the past, I’ve seen it used to justify the massive “welfare” spending.

The constitution also says lots of other things that are ignored or rationalized away.

 

[sedonaman]

Ok, I’ll wait. But I won’t hold my breath while I wait…

Don’t go without chocolate, either. That wait will definitely kill you.

 

[GEddie]

That is part of the Preamble, which also states “We the People…” not, “We, the Congress…” The Preamble doesn’t give any power or authority to anyone.

It also says,

“and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

Does that mean that Congress is obligated to secure our liberty and our posterity?

Liberty means whatever those who are in command says it does.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Where in the constitution does it forbid the federal government to authorize HHS to have juristiction over health issues?

Amendement IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Liberty means whatever those who are in command says it does.

ICXC NIKA

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

 

[Rence]

Amendement IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Obviously the meaning you get out of the two articles is in conflict with the meaning the government officials have gotten out of them. There’s more to it than thinking the government can’t do this or that. The government has had it’s hands in medicaid, medicare, insurance companies and employment laws for quite some time, and has given the HHS a lot of juristiction on behalf of the people.