Ordaining women priests. What say you?

[SwizzleStick]

"Why Can’t Women Be Priests?
By Jason Evert

1. Why doesn’t the Church allow women to be priests? I know plenty of women who could give a more moving homily and be more understanding in the confessional.

There aren’t many issues within apologetics that require as much sensitivity as this one. In a culture where opening the door for a woman can be seen as an act of misogyny, it’s no surprise that male-only ordination strikes some as sexist on the Church’s behalf.

It can’t be denied that there are women who could be more moving orators than some priests and provide more consolation within the confessional. But the debate over ordination is not over who could be a better priest but over who could be a priest at all.

So, if a woman’s abilities are not in question, what’s keeping the Church from ordaining her? For one, it should be noted that Jesus did not ordain any women. He selected all of his apostles, and none were women.

Some say that he was bound by the cultural norms of his era to suppress the roles of women, but no one has been able to prove that this was his motive. Furthermore, this accuses Jesus of sexism and it paints an inaccurate portrait of Christ, who had no qualms about shattering the cultural norms regarding interaction with women (Matt. 9:20; Luke 7:37; John 4:27). The idea of priestesses was not unknown to him, since it was a common practice in religions of his time and culture, though not Judaism. (If Jesus had wanted women as priestesses, he would have had the ideal candidate in Mary. Here was a woman who could have spoken the words of consecration literally: “This is my body. This is my blood.”)

There were other roles that Christ had in mind for women. For example, they played a key role in the spread of the Gospel, being the first to spread the news of the risen Christ. They were also allowed to pray and prophecy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), but they were not to assume the function of teaching in the Christian assembly (1Cor. 14:34–38; 1 Tim. 2:1–14), which was restricted to the clergy.

Two thousand years later, no one—including the pope—has the authority to change the designs of the Church that Christ instituted. Specifically, the Church is unable to change the substance of a sacrament. For example, a person cannot be baptized in wine, nor may a substance other than bread be used for the consecration at Mass. If invalid matter is used, then the sacrament does not take place. Likewise, since the priest acts in the person of Christ, the Church has no authority to confer the sacrament on those who are unable to represent the male Jesus Christ."…
…
"…5. But isn’t it possible that the Church could come around on this issue?

Certain.aspects of the sacraments may change over time, such as the language of the liturgy or the manner in which penance is received. However, male-only ordination is something that has never changed, nor can it ever be changed. The Church’s attitude may appear archaic, but it is one of fidelity to a universal tradition in both the East and the West, extending throughout the history of the Church.

**In 1994, Pope John Paul II declared, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

One year after this was written, the Church ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).** For more on this, see cin.org/users/james/files/inter.htm and cin.org/users/james/files/w-ordination.htm

Excerpted from: catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201sbs.asp

 

[belorg]

belorg;7996825:

What does the basic human right to freedom from slavery have to do with the Catholic Church having no authority to ordain women priests?

Nothing whatsoever. But it was you who said that since Christ didn’t do something, the Bhurch cannot do it. If that is true, then the church has no basis to condemn slavery, because Christ didn’t comdemn it.
By your reasoning the following staement is true “Christ condemned lots of things, Christ did not condemn slavery, Christ is infallible. Slavery should not be condemned” But I think we all agree that this reasoning is fallacious.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Nothing whatsoever. But it was you who said that since Christ didn’t do something, the Bhurch cannot do it. …

No, I didn’t say that at all. I said Christ founded His Church and chose all male priests, no women. Nobody on earth has the authority to change that. My post is below.

Christ founded His Church, the Catholic Church. Christ chose His priests, all men, no women. Christ is infallible. 'Nuff said.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a49.htm

Your topsy-turvy view represents why so many even in the Church can’t understand the nature of the Church and thus the nature of the Sacraments and the proper matter through which they are to be celebrated.

Further Suntime says:

Thankyou and I’m surprised with the very weak answer lacking in simple logic straying from Catholosism…

To explain: Lets have a look at what you suggest is the deepest problem for proposed female for the priesthood seen as follows…

FCEGM;7995268 says:

“To depict God or His priest in a female capacity is essentially to say that God is “receptive” and “incubative” rather than a Progenitor, and thus part of Creation, rather than its supernatural Originator. This is the deepest problem with a proposed female priesthood for Christianity.”

Further Suntime says:

The ordination of a priest is a sacrament…correct? In this sacrament the ordained Priest
makes his vows and becomes in fact… the “receptive” as well “incubative”

The ordination only… allows the Priest to give birth to God in man through the sacraments . Your logic un-questionably supports the absolute opposite of given platform…this is very surprising.
If anything the construction of thought to desired order , demands a female Priest.:thumbsup

FCEGM;7995268 says::

When God becomes Man, He makes everything about that Man revelatory, not only about God but about man. Thus that Man (Who is God) chooses water for baptism, oil for anointing of the sick, bread and wine for the Eucharist, and the Apostles for High Priests, definite men to take his place when He visibly exits; those and only those chosen material beings mediate the graces He wants mediated. We are not free to correct His choices. Thus a Tradition which is Divine in origin and Divine in being sustained by the Holy Spirit manifests the will of that Christ. Faith accepts that. Human perception and self-will do not respect that.

Further Suntime says:

By virtue of the fact that Jesus referred to God as “Father” it would be certain that gender male
is specifically implied. Since male is specific in gender we must conclude that “completion” of the Trinity would imply female by virtue of specific appreciation in gender. Thus the notion holding the Holy Spirit to be female would certainly be rational allowing for all balance in perfection.

As well, God chose only one to represent in Jesus, which ONLY implies a Oneness
in sole focus to his most loving word. We cannot infer a preference in gender by virtue of choice male…we can only assert focus in oneness. This idea that God preferred a male Jesus is illogical by virtue of the single choice. A presumptive …no question.

Faith is only to accept the message not social implications assumed out of the Devine Will to assert focus in becoming human. Choosing “One” demands a gender choice. Mans perception in Gods Will to be preferred in Gender is entirely a human interception and imposition of prejudice on God:thumbsup:

The insistence in the material medium being man discussed on your part is mans insistence
as clearly tutored above . God chose One. That does not mean God chose Male. The insistence is rationally prejudice on your part.

I grew up with 8 brothers and sisters. My Father had to choose “one” for executor of the will.
My Father chose a male brother. If the brother was indefinitely un-available due to an over seas work responcibility…are you telling me with your above logic that without question one of the females would not be chosen to administer the responsibilities? Sometimes examples help people who have trouble seeing prejudice. God has no prejudice…my goodness:thumbsup:

I’m going to re-assert my very noble and important viewpoint which is clear, obvious and
holds man in…“servitude to God”

Man in servitude and honor gestures the Male representative in Priesthood to God. “without prejudice” in keeping with a God who knows not…prejudice.

The honor to God is in the truest representation of Jesus who was male. A fitting gesture in putting God first where a simple choice out of gender 50-50 would convenience man.
Allowing for the finest man can do in servitude to God.

Representing humility, it is in our humility which God can reach us:thumbsup:

The good humble being places God first …in whole servitude…bereft of the human err in comparable importance which are expressed through gender abilities and talent.
and most of all Holy Countenance… in appropriate reception in the sacrament in ordination.

The receiving and incubating treasure of life. God.

I sincerely believe you owe me a serious apology for the tone, manner and intentional smear in my understandings:thumbsup:

 

[belorg]

No, I didn’t say that at all. I said Christ founded His Church and chose all male priests, no women. Nobody on earth has the authority to change that. My post is below.

IOW there is something that Christ (as far as we know) did not do (choose women), so the Church cannot do it.
TYhere is somethig that Christ (as far as we know) did not do (condemn slavery), so the Church cannot do it.
Perfectly logic, so it seerms, but pretty obviously fallacious too.

 

[belorg]

"Why Can’t Women Be Priests?
By Jason Evert

1. Why doesn’t the Church allow women to be priests? I know plenty of women who could give a more moving homily and be more understanding in the confessional.

There aren’t many issues within apologetics that require as much sensitivity as this one. In a culture where opening the door for a woman can be seen as an act of misogyny, it’s no surprise that male-only ordination strikes some as sexist on the Church’s behalf.

It can’t be denied that there are women who could be more moving orators than some priests and provide more consolation within the confessional. But the debate over ordination is not over who could be a better priest but over who could be a priest at all.

So, if a woman’s abilities are not in question, what’s keeping the Church from ordaining her? For one, it should be noted that Jesus did not ordain any women. He selected all of his apostles, and none were women.

Some say that he was bound by the cultural norms of his era to suppress the roles of women, but no one has been able to prove that this was his motive. Furthermore, this accuses Jesus of sexism and it paints an inaccurate portrait of Christ, who had no qualms about shattering the cultural norms regarding interaction with women (Matt. 9:20; Luke 7:37; John 4:27). The idea of priestesses was not unknown to him, since it was a common practice in religions of his time and culture, though not Judaism. (If Jesus had wanted women as priestesses, he would have had the ideal candidate in Mary. Here was a woman who could have spoken the words of consecration literally: “This is my body. This is my blood.”)

There were other roles that Christ had in mind for women. For example, they played a key role in the spread of the Gospel, being the first to spread the news of the risen Christ. They were also allowed to pray and prophecy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), but they were not to assume the function of teaching in the Christian assembly (1Cor. 14:34–38; 1 Tim. 2:1–14), which was restricted to the clergy.

Two thousand years later, no one—including the pope—has the authority to change the designs of the Church that Christ instituted. Specifically, the Church is unable to change the substance of a sacrament. For example, a person cannot be baptized in wine, nor may a substance other than bread be used for the consecration at Mass. If invalid matter is used, then the sacrament does not take place. Likewise, since the priest acts in the person of Christ, the Church has no authority to confer the sacrament on those who are unable to represent the male Jesus Christ."…
…
"…5. But isn’t it possible that the Church could come around on this issue?

Certain.aspects of the sacraments may change over time, such as the language of the liturgy or the manner in which penance is received. However, male-only ordination is something that has never changed, nor can it ever be changed. The Church’s attitude may appear archaic, but it is one of fidelity to a universal tradition in both the East and the West, extending throughout the history of the Church.

**In 1994, Pope John Paul II declared, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), **I declare ****that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

One year after this was written, the Church ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995). For more on this, see cin.org/users/james/files/inter.htm and cin.org/users/james/files/w-ordination.htm

Excerpted from: catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201sbs.asp

Yes, since one pope has declared it, now the church is stuck forever and, even if everybody came to realize that this is wrong, they will never be able to change it because one fallible man is considered infallible.

Sad, that’s all I can say.
Luckily lots of unchangeable facts have in fact changed.

 

[SwizzleStick]

IOW there is something that Christ (as far as we know) did not do (choose women), so the Church cannot do it.
TYhere is somethig that Christ (as far as we know) did not do (condemn slavery), so the Church cannot do it.
Perfectly logic, so it seerms, but pretty obviously fallacious too.

Apples and oranges. These two things are not at all related. What does the basic human right to freedom from slavery have to do with the Catholic Church having no authority to ordain women priests?

BTW, we seem to be having difficulty with the quote feature today. Somehow, in some cases, my posts are being attributed to you and vice versa. I think it has happened both when you have quoted me and also when I have quoted you. Then when one of us answers the other, the error is repeated. It is confusing. (Posts #116 and #118 are examples of the mix-ups and resulting confusion I am talking about.)

I’m going to try to pay more attention when I type so that posts are not so confusing.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Yes, since one pope has declared it, now the church is stuck forever and, even if everybody came to realize that this is wrong, they will never be able to change it because one fallible man is considered infallible. …

Not one Pope. Christ Himself. NO Pope, no person on earth, has the authority to change it. JPII simply affirmed that Truth, the Truth that he as Pope had NO authority to change it.

…Luckily lots of unchangeable facts have in fact changed.

No. Facts do not change.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=belorg;7996810]Yes, but your grandfather played the official role of the boss.

No he played as the Offical head My grandmother was the Boss and that was never in anyway disputed by anyone.

There is far too little information to call this a truth.

NOt really, peoples denial of it does not change it from being Truth.

Sure, they can have prominent roles, but not all the roles they want to have. That’s discrimination.

And as a white man I can not be the head of the naacp. As a catholic I can not be a muslim imam or a Jewish rabbi. even though I am christian i can not go into any church i choose and preach.
The point is we are who we are and just because we may want to do something does not give us the right to do it. It not discrimination in a negetive way.

Yes, compared to the way women were regarded in other societies (not all of thme, BTW), Christianity was more beneficial to women. But still, women cannot make up their own choices in Catholicism, so in that respect, they are still ‘property’

Because they can not hold the office of ministal preisthood, that makes them property?

I do not know whether the Jews ‘would never have considered the word of a woman word listening to’. That’s an often heard apologetic that’s suposed to prove the resurrection really happened, but whether it’s actually true is another matter. BTW who were the Jews in the 1st century?

?

IIRC, the title of this thread is 'Ordaining women priests. What say you?" Are you telling me I cannot give my opinion? Or is this question solely to Catholics? If that is the case, I shall withdraw. But I always find it interesting to hear what other people have to say on these matters, who knows I might learn something? And who knows you might learn something.

I learn all the time or try to. However I do not go into someone else home or onto the site of those with opposing views and tell them they are bigoted. I listen to what they say I ask question and if asked I offer my opinion, hopefully and prayerfully in a way that is not offensive to them.

There are lots of factors involved here, and yes, secularization may be one of them, I am not going to dispute this. Another factor is that when people are allowed to have their own opinion, conflicts do arise. In that respect being sheep in a herd has some advantages.

I would say seculariztion is the major factor. I have never been told that as a beleiveing Christian I am not allowed my own opinion. Nor do I know of any ( in main stream christianity that have been either). Again the condisending tone makes it hard to take you serious or resept your opinion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

IOW there is something that Christ (as far as we know) did not do (choose women), so the Church cannot do it.
TYhere is somethig that Christ (as far as we know) did not do (condemn slavery), so the Church cannot do it.
Perfectly logic, so it seerms, but pretty obviously fallacious too.

No, you have it wrong.

But I think you know that.

What part of

The Church has no authority to ordain women is still stumping you, after all the trouble I went through to explain it?

The Church --The Catholic Church, commonly called “Roman”, whose current headquarters is the Vatican and whose leader is Jesus Christ, and whose vicar is Pope Benedict XVI currently in AD 2011.

No: Zip, zilch, nothing, zero.

Authority: The power to perform an action.

Ordain: The process whereby the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred upon a man to make him a priest of the above Catholic Church.

Women: Female human beings.

The. Church. Has. No. Authority. To. Ordain. Women.

What IS your trouble???

 

[vsedriver]

That’s not the point. The point is that, since there have been bad popes, they can issue infallible teaching that Catholics must follow, no matter what. that means that in the future, one of those ‘bad popes’ issues as an infallible teaching that catholics must kill all unbelievers, you are obligated to do so.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

No, I seriously believe all of this.

And from what marxist handbook did you take the ideas that women ‘were considered inferior back then?’ I wonder also where you got your degree in history.

You probably were not exposed to the reality of the many Biblical heroines. But maybe you have heard that the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Earth, is a woman.

Any claim to intellectual rigor is not showing itself with assertions such as the ones you’ve made. Maybe you can do better than to simply look down your nose at a phenomenon you clearly do not understand.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Something that puzzles me.

Why is it that a person who accepts a teaching of the Church is always accused of ‘blind obedience’. . .

and it is only those who disagree and dissent from those teachings who are lauded as 'thinking for themselves"?

If I were in a classroom discussing the works of famous women authors and it was asked, "which author wrote the classic " and I answered, “Jane Austen”, isn’t that correct? (Yes, it is)
Didn’t I use my reason and intellect to come up with the answer? (Yes, I did).

But judging by the screams of “brainwashing” and 'blind obedience", it sounds to me as if you’d rather I’d said, “Maria Edgeworth”, or “George Elliott” or “Anne Bronte”. All of THOSE are wrong.

So what makes dissent from the truth of the Catholic Church any different from claiming that Maria Edgeworth, George Elliott, or Anne Bronte wrote “Persuasion” and refusing to believe that it could have been Jane Austen?

 

[belorg]

No, you have it wrong.

But I think you know that.

What part of

The Church has no authority to ordain women is still stumping you, after all the trouble I went through to explain it?

The Church --The Catholic Church, commonly called “Roman”, whose current headquarters is the Vatican and whose leader is Jesus Christ, and whose vicar is Pope Benedict XVI currently in AD 2011.

No: Zip, zilch, nothing, zero.

Authority: The power to perform an action.

Ordain: The process whereby the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred upon **a man **to make him a priest of the above Catholic Church.

Women: Female human beings.

The. Church. Has. No. Authority. To. Ordain. Women.

What IS your trouble???

Of course if you define ‘ordain’ that way, you are right. But that’s question-begging…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Of course if you define ‘ordain’ that way, you are right. But that’s question-begging…

No, it’s simple truth.

The Church also defines what it means by ‘bread and wine’ and insists on those for the sacrament of the Eucharist. . .you don’t have a problem with that, so why a problem with ordination?

You know, back in the 1st century AD, not only did most societies have women priestesses, but there were many very holy and capable women. Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus. Mary Magdalen. Mary the mother of Christ. Phoebe and Dorcas whom St. Paul spoke of.

But none of them were ordained. Not because women were considered lesser in the early Church. (the early Church was very ‘socialist’ in this way, if you read the Bible and study the early Church fathers. The position of women in the Catholic Church was very equal. The Catholic Church was and has always been attractive to women because women are honored as much as men.)

But the Church has always followed the teachings of Christ. Some of those teachings weren’t exactly popular. Some have been popular at some times, and less popular than others.

Right now the idea that Christ taught male-only priesthood is very UNPOPULAR with a segment of very vocal people.

150 years ago the idea that Christ taught that black people and white people were equal was VERY unpopular with a segment of very vocal people. The Church still kep teaching it though. Equality, once unpopular, is now practically the 11th commandment. . .true equality will not disappear but in time enough people will wise up and see that male-only priesthood has nothing to do with equality of the sexes but is simply a given truth, just as equality of black and white isn’t trying to deprive the white people or elevate blacks, but is simply a given truth.

The teaching that human life is sacred from conception until natural death is unpopular today as well. But the Church will keep teaching it. . .no matter how many will try to twist the teaching into ‘oppression of women’ and ‘forcing women to have babies’, and ‘forcing poor old people to totter on in pain’ blah blah blah.

Truth can be hard to perceive unless it’s looked at squarely. Too many today are looking at it cross eyed, squinting, in too dim or too bright a light. . .and so they aren’t seeing clearly.

 

[belorg]

And as a white man I can not be the head of the naacp.

The naacp is, AFAIK an organisation specifically for coloured people. It does not claim to be open to all people, like the Church does.

As a catholic I can not be a muslim imam or a Jewish rabbi. even though I am christian i can not go into any church i choose and preach.

Tou can become a muslim if you want to, but you cannot become a man if you are a woman.

The point is we are who we are and just because we may want to do something does not give us the right to do it.

In many ways it does give us the right to do something.

Because they can not hold the office of ministal preisthood, that makes them property?

If males decide that for them, yes, that makes them sort of property in that respect.

?

I repeat my question: who were **the **Jews? You seem to think in the 1st century they were a homogenous group. Is that true?.

I learn all the time or try to. However I do not go into someone else home or onto the site of those with opposing views and tell them they are bigoted.

I don’t tell you, I argue for my views.

I listen to what they say I ask question and if asked I offer my opinion, hopefully and prayerfully in a way that is not offensive to them.

Well, if I offended you, I apologize. I am not attacking people, I am attacking ideas thta, IMO are incredinly one-sided.

I would say seculariztion is the major factor.

Well, it seems top be a bigger problem in e.g. the US than in more secular countries, so I doubt it’s the only factor. But religion can have a stabilizing effect on things, you won’t hear me dispute that.

I have never been told that as a beleiveing Christian I am not allowed my own opinion.

Well, if this opinion happens to be that women are allowed to become priests, an opinion that lots of Catholics share, BTW, you may be allowed to have it, but since you are not allowed to act upon it, you can’t do much, can you?

Nor do I know of any ( in main stream christianity that have been either).
Again the condisending tone makes it hard to take you serious or resept your opinion.

I did not mean to be condescending. I really think being a sheep in a herd has advantages in that respect. The number of divorces, e.g. is saddening, also for me. But one of the reasons why there are more divorces is because women have more rights nowadays. If a woman is not allowed to do anything, there won’t be a divorce, but is is a good thing to live under a husband’s tyranny e.g.? Freedom does have its disadvantages, but does that mean freedom isn’t valuable?

 

[belorg]

No, it’s simple truth.

The Church also defines what it means by ‘bread and wine’ and insists on those for the sacrament of the Eucharist. . .you don’t have a problem with that, so why a problem with ordination?

Oh, I think the refusal to allow gluten-free bread and alcohol-free wine for people who have allergies is an issue. For the rest it does not involve any discrimination, so unless beer and potatao chips feel discriminated against, I don’t have a problem with wine and bread.

You know, back in the 1st century AD, not only did most societies have women priestesses, but there were many very holy and capable women. Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus. Mary Magdalen. Mary the mother of Christ. Phoebe and Dorcas whom St. Paul spoke of.

Sure

But none of them were ordained.

Are you sure of that?

Not because women were considered lesser in the early Church. (the early Church was very ‘socialist’ in this way, if you read the Bible and study the early Church fathers. The position of women in the Catholic Church was very equal. The Catholic Church was and has always been attractive to women because women are honored as much as men.)

They are honoured, yes, but their opinion is not respected as much as that of men.

Right now the idea that Christ taught male-only priesthood is very UNPOPULAR with a segment of very vocal people.

Because Christ did not teach it. We only know of male apostles, but we do not know there were no female ones, and if there weren’t, what reason Christ could have had not to choose any.

150 years ago the idea that Christ taught that black people and white people were equal was VERY unpopular with a segment of very vocal people. The Church still kep teaching it though.

Correction: there was a time when the Church did not teach it.

Equality, once unpopular, is now practically the 11th commandment. .

.

Equality was not popular in the Church either, but that also changed. Thank goodness.

true equality will not disappear but in time enough people will wise up and see that male-only priesthood has nothing to do with equality of the sexes but is simply a given truth,

It is not ‘a given truth’, it is a particlular interpretation.

just as equality of black and white isn’t trying to deprive the white people or elevate blacks, but is simply a given truth.

This is a given truth.

The teaching that human life is sacred from conception until natural death is unpopular today as well. But the Church will keep teaching it. . .no matter how many will try to twist the teaching into ‘oppression of women’ and ‘forcing women to have babies’, and ‘forcing poor old people to totter on in pain’ blah blah blah.

Maybe, but I have my doubts on that.

Truth can be hard to perceive unless it’s looked at squarely. Too many today are looking at it cross eyed, squinting, in too dim or too bright a light. . .and so they aren’t seeing clearly.

Or maybe it is actually you who isn’t seeing clearly. Time will tell.

 

[belorg]

Something that puzzles me.

Why is it that a person who accepts a teaching of the Church is always accused of ‘blind obedience’. . .

He isn’t if he has reasons to believe it. He is if he never questions anything about whatever teaching. That happens to be the definition of blind obedience.

and it is only those who disagree and dissent from those teachings who are lauded as 'thinking for themselves"?

Because, even if they are wrong on that particular issue, that is what they are doing.

If I were in a classroom discussing the works of famous women authors and it was asked, “which author wrote the classic " and I answered, “Jane Austen”, isn’t that correct? (Yes, it is)
Didn’t I use my reason and intellect to come up with the answer? (Yes, I did)But judging by the screams of “brainwashing” and 'blind obedience”, it sounds to me as if you’d rather I’d said, “Maria Edgeworth”, or “George Elliott” or “Anne Bronte”. All of THOSE are wrong…

If I were the Pope and told you it was George Elliot, and you would just repeat that in a classroom, you wouldn’t be using your reason and intellect, would you?

So what makes dissent from the truth of the Catholic Church any different from claiming that Maria Edgeworth, George Elliott, or Anne Bronte wrote “Persuasion” and refusing to believe that it could have been Jane Austen?

If it IS the truth, then it isn’t any different. But you would still have to find out for yourself that it is the truth and not just accept something just like that.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Actually belorg this is where you have fallen into the feminist lie. You see there are some obvious problems with your logic so let me explain:

1. First Sacraments are instituted by Christ - they must be carried on as Christ instituted them with the same form and matter that Christ instituted them.
2. The exclusion of women from the priesthood was not following with the sign of the times - actually it was contercultural to the sign of those particular times where there were priestesses in other religions - many other dominant religions that were persecuting Christ
3. You asked for a dominant female representing a role equal to that of the Holy Father embracing Spiritual Motherhood - have you not heard of Mother Theresa - who embraced the Spiritual Motherhood of a Sister serving the poor not unlike the Blessed Virgin Mary.
4. We all have callings one of the main problems with modern day feminism is that it strips the woman of her feminity in order to achieve equality and this is coming from a woman who has embraced the military life as well as the true authentic feminity found in the Catholic Church and shared by a few other Christian faiths that still share our beliefs
5. As far as your pointing out and continued war cry of the Anglican Church - they are a Church that is schismatic from us over these issues and therefore no longer has a licit priesthood and therefore is not worth mentioning since their priests are not really priests.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=belorg;7997334]The naacp is, AFAIK an organisation specifically for coloured people. It does not claim to be open to all people, like the Church does.

So we need to chang that, because that is discriminatory and we can do the Right?

You can become a muslim if you want to, but you cannot become a man if you are a woman.

There are those that will argue that with you on both points. Also you did not even address that the fact that even though I am Christian and male I just can not deside to go into any church and preach.

In many ways it does give us the right to do something.

I think you are confusing the ability to do with the right to do.

If males decide that for them, yes, that makes them sort of property in that respect.

How so? Anytime someone make a decission that you de not have a voice in in and organization you belong to that makes you sort of their property?

I repeat my question: who were **the **Jews? You seem to think in the 1st century they were a homogenous group. Is that true?.

Yes.

Well, if I offended you, I apologize. I am not attacking people, I am attacking ideas thta, IMO are incredinly one-sided.

By telling us that we hold dicisriminatory views these are not just opinions these are part of our fatih.

Well, it seems to be a bigger problem in e.g. the US than in more secular countries, so I doubt it’s the only factor. But religion can have a stabilizing effect on things, you won’t hear me dispute that.

Did not say the only just a big major one.

Well, if this opinion happens to be that women are allowed to become priests, an opinion that lots of Catholics share, BTW, you may be allowed to have it, but since you are not allowed to act upon it, you can’t do much, can you?

Even if I were Pope and thought that women should be ordaind there is nothing I could do about it. It is not something that can be changed.

I did not mean to be condescending. I really think being a sheep in a herd has advantages in that respect. The number of divorces, e.g. is saddening, also for me. But one of the reasons why there are more divorces is because women have more rights nowadays. If a woman is not allowed to do anything, there won’t be a divorce, but is is a good thing to live under a husband’s tyranny e.g.? Freedom does have its disadvantages, but does that mean freedom isn’t valuable?

Well again I have to rely on my exprience and in my family on both sides the women all worked outside of the house going back some 5 generations. and could and in 1 or 2 case did leave when they felt like it. So I do not know what is meant by the new freedom of women It been going on I my family for some 100 years.