Well, a lot.An exception to what?
And I didn’t say you said that. We’re both Catholic and all for the veneration of Mary.I’m not saying the veneration of Mary is a problem at all.
No, I actually struggle with it. But I’m as good as tarred and feathered if I try to have a frank discussion about it here. It gets shut down pretty quickly.It is patriarchal, obviously, as governance is firmly in the hands of a male-only hierarchy. Catholics, will of course, accept this. Non-Catholics may or may not.
Not quite, the problem is not in putting a man at the top. It’s putting men everywhere in the system of governance. The problem is putting woman no where in the system… other than the sideline when it comes to decision making.?Even though the Church has a woman as the highest example of the level of holiness that a lay person can achieve in a lifetime, the Church is still patriarchal since …the woman they picked is too exceptional? The Church can’t win either way - Either they make Mary the supreme example of what humans can achieve and are told they’ve set the bar too high or they make a man the supreme example of what humans can achieve and are told they’re sexist because they put a man at the top.
It’s putting men everywhere in the system of governance
Not the definition of patriarchy. See Merriam Webster. Requires system of male lineal descendants. Clergy can’t have kids so not a patriarchy. Definitions matter. In fact, that’s one of reasons priests can’t have kids is to avoid a patriarchy of passing Church assets along familial blood line.It’s a patriarchy for the purposes of power and governance
Not true… a patriarchy is defined as more than simply tracing the lineal descendants.Not the definition of patriarchy. See Merriam Webster. Requires system of male lineal descendants.
Its the latter, because if its the former, no doubt there will be concrete examples. For example, that a certain act is a venial sin for men but a mortal sin for women. Or that Cathecism requires women to attend mass more than men, etc. Of course there is no such examples.but does the hierarchy treat women unfairly? Or is it perceived as being unfair because women cannot serve in this hierarchy?
That’s a fair question… Women were most certainly treated poorly prior to the equal rights movement… for instance, a hundred years ago, a priest would typically counsel a woman to go home to an abusive husband rather than telling her to leave… one example.What I’m trying to get it, to really understand, is if women are actually treated poorly.
but he’d also tell a man to go home to an abusive wife rather than telling him to leave, so that’s not an examplea priest would typically counsel a woman to go home to an abusive husband rather than telling her to leave… one example.
I don’t think they’re excluded from all decision making. They express themselves to their Church leadership who then convey that to the hierarchy. Hence they’re not excluded. Now that would be true, if for example, priests and bishops only took requests from male parishoners and not female.Is it poor treatment of woman to exclude them from all decision making?
I think you’re being disingenuous… the vast majority of physically abuse is the male abusing the female… this is a legitimate, concrete examplebut he’d also tell a man to go home to an abusive wife rather than telling him to leave, so that’s not an example