Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[RobbyS]

Not really.

Saint Paul supposedly said:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the
angels.

-1 Corinthians 11

P.S. It seems clear that Saint Paul considered men superior to women and that women existed for the benefit of men (and not visa versa).

Paul had many women friends, so your remark is over the top.

 

[PRmerger]

This reminds me of something the late Mary Daly said.
If God is male.
Then the male is God.

I don’t think Mary Daly, God rest her soul, understood mathematics too well.

Take this syllogism: God is love (true)
Therefore love is God (false).

Similarly: God is male (true, only for this argument, because as stated earlier, God is NOT male but masculine)
Therefore, the male is God (false).

 

[RobbyS]

Are you saying that all (or at least most) women are weak or what?

There are many, many strong women. One meets them every day. Their strength of will is amazing. But it is a fact of nature that men are physically stronger than women, that men are more aggressive, and more inclined to take chances. Furthermore, men are more likely to be intellectual, more mechanically inclined. These attributes have results in the creation of many, many social roles that favor persons who have them, male or female. For this reason, the social hierarchies of almost all societies are strongly masculine. This puts even the most gifted women at a disadvantage. It works this way even in an industrialized society, where most functions can be performed by women as well as men.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If God’s mind is not Changeless, then HE is not Changeless.

And that means what? You are defining GOD’s mind by the understanding of the limited human mind?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

To be honest I think its funny you feel the need to give your deity extremely vast yet vague and undefined abilities just to make your theological system somewhat consistent:shrug:

I don’t do anything of the kind. You show a basic misunderstanding of both God and humanity (and me personally) by making such a statement.

 

[RobbyS]

To be honest it all sounds kind of ridiculous (at least to me).
Its funny (in a horrible sort of way) to think that people have died over these doctrinal details.

People have died fighting over the carcass of an animal. If it is a matter of life and death, you fight for it. In the 20th Century, millions died fighting over the details of governance. In the case of Arianism, the issue was whether Christianity would remain a living language or not. We see what has become of the Unitarian Church. It lost its raison d’etat. Arianism was very much like liberal Protestantism, and if you read Karl Barth’s critique of it in “Epistle to the Romans,” you see that it, in the end, is a bloodless thing. Regarding it, I am am of the same mind as Flannery O’Connor, when she was talking about the Real Presence, a doctrine rejected by Baptists. " If it is only a symbol, then the hell with it.” the Baptists, though, fell the same way about the Bible: If it only a myth, then the hell with it.” Pascal once wrote in a moment of ecstacy, a moment which he committed to paper and had sewn into his clothing, of the difference between the Living God of Abraham and the God of Plato et al. which lived only as an idea. But ideas are only the shadows of reality.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

'zactly.

It is the Church which is feminine.

See? We’re back to why we call the Church a “she” or our “mother”.

So man is God-like and woman is merely Church-like.
That helps put it all in context.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Because male refers to biology. God does not have genitalia.

Simple as that.

But it does go to why, since male-ness is so important, (and you are more correct about stressing this “but Jesus is male” concept than you even realize ) women can’t be priests:

because, as you keep correctly stressing, Jesus is male.

Honestly, I think the logical conclusion if I accepted all that would be that men are better than women (since men are more God-like).
However, I don’t accept it:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Paul had many women friends, so your remark is over the top.

That doesn’t mean that he thought women were as good as men.
And how do we know that he actually had any female friends?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

There are many, many strong women. One meets them every day. Their strength of will is amazing. But it is a fact of nature that men are physically stronger than women, that men are more aggressive, and more inclined to take chances. Furthermore, men are more likely to be intellectual, more mechanically inclined. These attributes have results in the creation of many, many social roles that favor persons who have them, male or female. For this reason, the social hierarchies of almost all societies are strongly masculine. This puts even the most gifted women at a disadvantage. It works this way even in an industrialized society, where most functions can be performed by women as well as men.

I honestly have trouble taking arguments seriously that essentially go:
Women are awesome but…men are stronger, smarter, braver, better with technology, etc.

It seems like it would be more intellectually honest to simply say that you think men are better than women.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
To be honest I think its funny you feel the need to give your deity extremely vast yet vague and undefined abilities just to make your theological system somewhat consistent

I don’t do anything of the kind. You show a basic misunderstanding of both God and humanity (and me personally) by making such a statement.

Of course you did. Saying that God can and does think in ways nothing like the thought that humans experience. Redefining the intellect to suit your argument.

Here’s what you actually said:

Originally Posted by Tantum ergo
You’re human. You CAN be wrong.

You’re not a perfect being. What perfect being could be wrong? if He were wrong, how could He be perfect? What makes you think that ‘failure’ or making mistakes is a prerequisite for being human at all? Or if it were, that it would be necessary once humanity has finally 'learned it all?"

If you could possibly master a given subject such that you knew everything about it and would never make an error about it, what would be the SENSE in making mistakes? It would be stupid and a waste of time if you knew everything in the world about quantum physics for you to go around and make elementary errors, because you would have nothing to learn from the errors.

And if you had (mirabile dictu) somehow been born into the world knowing everything about quantum physics, you would never make a mistake at all. Because you would KNOW what was right. What would be the point to make a mistake???

I really find it amusing that you presume that because God in your opinion does not ‘limit’ Himself to doing the functions which you (in all your human limitation and capacity for being wrong) have deemed are a REQUIREMENT for ‘thinking’, that somehow HE isn’t ‘thinking’ just because YOU don’t understand the way in which He DOES think.

It’s kind of like the 2 year old who looks at mommy and daddy saying “no” when said child asks for a cookie, thinking," But the COOKIE is RIGHT THERE. I want it. I want it now. They could give it to me but they aren’t. They aren’t THINKING STRAIGHT. If they were THINKING PROPERLY they would give me the COOKIE!"

P.S. Nevertheless I appreciate the insult.
I seldom hear anyone accused of being ignorant on the personal, sociological, and cosmic level:thumbsup:

 

[kslat]

I honestly have trouble taking arguments seriously that essentially go:
Women are awesome but…men are stronger, smarter, braver, better with technology, etc.

It seems like it would be more intellectually honest to simply say that you think men are better than women.

Why does a person having better abilities that another person mean that the first person is inherently better than the second? Is an A-student better, inherently, than a C-student?

I really feel strongly that women are better at giving birth than men. Does that mean I think women are inherently better? Since when are strength, intelligence, courage, or technological aptitude the metric for how good a person is? What about generosity, kindness, honesty, hospitality? Not even saying these are attributes that women are better at. But I think you are hastily generalizing that people who think that men tend to be better at certain things also consider those things to be the metric for how good a person is, inherently.

 

[PRmerger]

So man is God-like and woman is merely Church-like.
That helps put it all in context.

Not sure why you keep getting the concepts mixed up.

Masculinity is God-like.
Femininity is Church-like.

Your soul is essentially feminine, as far as Catholic theology goes. Did you know that? How much dissing of femininity can the Church really do if it assigns to all of humanity the concept of a feminine soul? And a feminine Church?

We are all feminine in relation to God.

So how’s that a dissing of the feminine?

Rather, I would be hard pressed to find anyone who does not see this as an elevation of the feminine.

 

[PRmerger]

Honestly, I think the logical conclusion if I accepted all that would be that men are better than women (since men are more God-like).
However, I don’t accept it

Of course you don’t accept it because there’s nothing even remotely true in that statement.

You’re getting closer to becoming Catholic with logic like that!

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I understand it perfectly fine.
I also understand that the idea that Jesus Christ is male, Jesus is God, but God is not male is illogical.

Sorry, but no, with the greatest charity, you absolutely do not understand this perfectly fine.

The Catholic Church professes Jesus to have 2 natures - human and divine, these 2 natures are inseparably united in the person of Jesus, but they are not mixed or confused. Neither does the divine nature absorb the human nature or vice versa. Popularly, the phrase we use is Jesus is true God and true man.

For the Priest, his masculinity is important because it is used by Jesus as a visible sacrament (sign) of his continuing presence in his ordained ministers. This doesn’t mean that all males are a special sign of the Lord’s presence; so females are no different from the baptised male.

Of course, the Priesthood is a gift from God and not an issue of social justice. In the absence of agreement on this point, continuing discussion on why the Catholic Church reserves Priestly ordination to men would be unproductive.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I honestly have trouble taking arguments seriously that essentially go:
Women are awesome but…men are stronger, smarter, braver, better with technology, etc.

It seems like it would be more intellectually honest to simply say that you think men are better than women.

Why does a person having better abilities that another person mean that the first person is inherently better than the second? Is an A-student better, inherently, than a C-student?
I really feel strongly that women are better at giving birth than men. Does that mean I think women are inherently better? Since when are strength, intelligence, courage, or technological aptitude the metric for how good a person is? What about generosity, kindness, honesty, hospitality? Not even saying these are attributes that women are better at. But I think you are hastily generalizing that people who think that men tend to be better at certain things also consider those things to be the metric for how good a person is, inherently.

If it were one ability that wouldn’t be the case.
But the other poster seemed to be arguing that men are better on the physical, intellectual, psychological, and technical (skills) level.
Based on that (admittedly traditional) take on women’s capabilites, women are far inferior to men (unless we assume that they are vastly superior to men on the moral or spiritual level).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Not sure why you keep getting the concepts mixed up.

Masculinity is God-like.
Femininity is Church-like.

Your soul is essentially feminine, as far as Catholic theology goes. Did you know that? How much dissing of femininity can the Church really do if it assigns to all of humanity the concept of a feminine soul? And a feminine Church?

We are all feminine in relation to God.

So how’s that a dissing of the feminine?

Rather, I would be hard pressed to find anyone who does not see this as an elevation of the feminine.

A great deal actually.
The Catholic Church has gone on and on about the sinfulness of humanity, how we all deserve hell, none are worthy, etc. etc. in their sermons and other teachings. Saying all humans have a quality is certainly not to (necessarily) say that that quality is good from the Church’s perspective.

It is a ‘dissing’ of Femininity because its saying that manhood and masculinity (and therefore men to a much greater extent than women) is like God, but womanhood and femininity (and therefore women to a much greater extent than men) are like the Church (something that is infinitely inferior to God).

I remember a last year someone I was debating on CAF posted an article by a Christian theologian (I think he was Catholic) talking about how men were initiators (when it came to creating life) and therefore more like God. I thought it was noteworthy though, that the article admitted that in their analogy women were like the void/nothingness that existed before God created the universe.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sorry, but no, with the greatest charity, you absolutely do not understand this perfectly fine.

The Catholic Church professes Jesus to have 2 natures - human and divine, these 2 natures are inseparably united in the person of Jesus, but they are not mixed or confused. Neither does the divine nature absorb the human nature or vice versa. Popularly, the phrase we use is Jesus is true God and true man.

For the Priest, his masculinity is important because it is used by Jesus as a visible sacrament (sign) of his continuing presence in his ordained ministers. This doesn’t mean that all males are a special sign of the Lord’s presence; so females are no different from the baptised male.

Of course, the Priesthood is a gift from God and not an issue of social justice. In the absence of agreement on this point, continuing discussion on why the Catholic Church reserves Priestly ordination to men would be unproductive.

I can understand why the Church almost split over this issue.
The actual doctrine is counter-intuitive and doesn’t really make sense on any level but the theological.

It would be like if I said:
2+2 doesn’t equal 4, both 2s remain distinctive and (to a large extent) separate even though their combined.

 

[PRmerger]

A great deal actually.
The Catholic Church has gone on and on about the sinfulness of humanity, how we all deserve hell, none are worthy, etc. etc. in their sermons and other teachings. Saying all humans have a quality is certainly not to (necessarily) say that that quality is good from the Church’s perspective.

You are actually positing the Calvinist position that humanity is depraved.

It is the Catholic position that humanity is good, but flawed.

Perhaps you objection to Christianity is based on a criticism of the Calvinist position, but you have never really considered what Catholicism proposes?

Now, to be sure, we are enslaved by sin, and because of this sin we would be destined for hell were it not for God’s grace, but the paradigm you’ve proposed above is not consistent with the Catholic Church’s view on humanity.

From our Catechism (and our Scriptures)

“God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . … God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion.”

“**God created man in his own image **. . . male and female he created them”; He blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply”; "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."

and

“Crowned with glory and honor,” man is

And please don’t express any objection to the use of the word “man” above and proclaim that this refers to only those with the Y chromosome. You, of course, know that the Church refers to humanity as “man”, because, as all Latin derivatives do, “man” is inclusive of both genders. It’s just the way language is. And if you object to this, you’ll have to speak to the ancient pagan Romans who decided this is how it should be.

 

[PRmerger]

It is a ‘dissing’ of Femininity because its saying that manhood and masculinity (and therefore men to a much greater extent than women) is like God, but womanhood and femininity (and therefore women to a much greater extent than men) are like the Church (something that is infinitely inferior to God).

It is quite telling that you view being seen as feminine as a dissing.

Very telling indeed.