Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[TarkanAttila]

I would have to tweak the above comment to this: “There are some things women can’t be. There are also some things men can’t be.”

The priesthood is not about what they do, but about what they *are. *

For, to be sure, a woman can do all the things that a priest does. And perhaps even better–with more compassion, with more insight, with more empathy.

And that is why there’s no reason a woman can’t be a Protestant minister–for what a Protestant minister does is preach (a woman can do that!), counsel (a woman can do that!), manage a parish (a woman can do that!)…

But the priesthood involves an ONTOLOGICAL change. At ordination, the universe is changed forever! What existed 10 seconds prior to the confection of the sacrament exists no more for posterity. He was not a priest. And now he is a priest. Forever. Ontologically.

So a woman can’t *be *certain things. But she can certainly do anything a man can.

Ah, love, there’s two things women pastors can never do.

Forgive sins in God’s name.
And confect the Eucharist.



At AA: So you do come to peddle atheism?

Not surprising. I’d probably do the same thing - in fact, I HAVE done the same thing, to the dismay of other forum posters.

Feel free to stick around and peddle your story. But when you say “the emperor has no clothing”, I think we must mean different things by “emperor”, “has”, and/or “clothing”.

It’s simply your unwillingness to translate our message into your language. Or your message into our language. Thereby perpetuating a misunderstanding where there needn’t be one. Where the difference is more of definition than of ideology.

 

[TarkanAttila]

What truth was the Aztec religion about?

The existence of the supernatural. A mundane truth, to be sure. Any child could tell you about it. But a truth, nonetheless. Even if it is mixed with much superstition (“above-reason”) and lies.

Tell me, what truth does secular rationalism - for that is your religion, not atheism - have in it?

 

[PRmerger]

Not according to conservatives like Portrait.

'Tis true, this.

But I say a resounding, but respectful, “So what?”

That there are going to be people who proclaim all sorts of varying views does nothing to deny the idea that there may be one truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, love, there’s two things women pastors can never do.

Forgive sins in God’s name.
And confect the Eucharist.

'Tis true, this.

But it’s actually begging the question, isn’t it?

The point is that a woman* could* indeed sit in a confessional, hear someone’s sins and say the words–the same as any man can. And perhaps offer more nurturing, counseling and insight than a man…

and a woman could indeed say the words of consecration–perhaps with even more emotion, better diction, more sincerity, etc etc etc…

[SIGN]Women are quite capable of the *doing *part of what a priest does.[/SIGN]

But when we understand that the priesthood is not about what he* does*, but about what he* is,*…

we can see that it’s impossible for a woman to be a priest.

When someone has an impoverished understanding of the priesthood he cannot see why women can’t be priests–because he sees it as akin to being a counselor, or a manager, or an evangelist.

And who in their right mind would say that a woman can’t be a counselor, or manage a business, or preach the good news? :whacky:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
What truth was the Aztec religion about?

that there is a power greater than themselves.

That has a strong appetite for human flesh apparently (since human sacrifice was a very important aspect of the Aztec religion).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by PRmerger
Only in the way that professors replace students with robots.

Professors take the raw material of students and teach them, so that the students then conform their views to the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
As someone who has actually been in a cult (and has personal experience with brainwashing), I cannot take this statement seriously on any level.

That’s funny, Angry.

**You believe that when professors teach students they are brainwashing them? **

No, I suppose I just overreacted to the bad use of metaphor.
Although I know that some people DO claim that.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The existence of the supernatural. A mundane truth, to be sure. Any child could tell you about it. But a truth, nonetheless. Even if it is mixed with much superstition (“above-reason”) and lies.

Tell me, what truth does secular rationalism - for that is your religion, not atheism - have in it?

That there is a physical universe that we can study and (through our studies) learn to manipulate to our advantage.

I am glad you admit that atheism is not a religion, although I’m a little offended that you call secular rationalism a religion, because from my perspective that implies that secular rationalism is not backed up by anything but faith. I will concede that secular rationalism is an idealogy though.

To be honest, I consider myself more of a secular humanist though.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Not according to conservatives like Portrait.

'Tis true, this.

But I say a resounding, but respectful, "So what?"

That there are going to be people who proclaim all sorts of varying views does nothing to deny the idea that there may be one truth.

Because conservatives like Portrait are numerous enough to have some degree of political power. Especially in places like the Franco Spain or modern day Pakistan. They also tend to be far more violent than advocates of women’s rights unfortunately.

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by PRmerger
Only in the way that professors replace students with robots.

Professors take the raw material of students and teach them, so that the students then conform their views to the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
As someone who has actually been in a cult (and has personal experience with brainwashing), I cannot take this statement seriously on any level.

No, I suppose I just overreacted to the bad use of metaphor.
Although I know that some people DO claim that.

Hey, Angry, could you learn how to use the multiquote feature? Firstly, it’s going to be easier for you. Secondly, it will make your posts easier to respond to. Thirdly, it just makes them prettier. Find the icon at the bottom right, next to the “quote” icon.

Anyway, yes, over-reacting is not helpful to discourse.

And it’s good to see you understand that religion is about truth, and when one conforms to the truth one is not being “brainwashed”, but rather wise.

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Not according to conservatives like Portrait.

Because conservatives like Portrait are numerous enough to have some degree of political power. Especially in places like the Franco Spain or modern day Pakistan. They also tend to be far more violent than advocates of women’s rights unfortunately.

And, again, so what? In the context of this discussion we are talking about the Church and what she proclaims, not what some Catholics believe that is contrary to the Church.

Just like if we were talking about how the Church is against abortion and you say, “Well, Nancy Pelosi is Catholic and supports abortion.” So what? You’re always going to find people who want to attach their views to Catholicism that are clearly contrary to what the Church proclaims.

 

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
What truth was the Aztec religion about?

That has a strong appetite for human flesh apparently (since human sacrifice was a very important aspect of the Aztec religion).

Yeah, and in this they were horrifically wrong.

But you asked what truth the Aztec religion offered. And we gave you some examples.

 

[TarkanAttila]

But when we understand that the priesthood is not about what he* does*, but about what he* is,*…

we can see that it’s impossible for a woman to be a priest.

That’s right. The spirit - soul - of the priest is changed in a way that only can be changed in a man. It’s what the spirit does that is different - which is, you are right, tied to what it has become. It’s a “both/and”.

But if a man has been endowed with the graces he receives at ordination, yet does not or cannot use them, he is, effectively, no different from an ordinary man. Thus we have the term “lacisisation”.

When someone has an impoverished understanding of the priesthood he cannot see why women can’t be priests–because he sees it as akin to being a counselor, or a manager, or an evangelist.

And who in their right mind would say that a woman can’t be a counselor, or manage a business, or preach the good news? :whacky:

Exactly.

A priest is different because he has a soul different from other souls, and his soul is capable of successfully doing things other souls are not.

 

[TarkanAttila]

That there is a physical universe that we can study and (through our studies) learn to manipulate to our advantage.

And this is correct. I believe this, too.

But this is what you really mean to say:

That there is only a physical universe that we can study and (through our studies) learn to manipulate to our advantage.

That “only” is the thing that turns this statement from a fact into a belief. And is the reason why secular rationalism is a religion. A scanty one, to be sure. But while you can surely prove we can study our physical universe, science alone cannot prove that only the physical universe exists or can be studied.

I am glad you admit that atheism is not a religion, although I’m a little offended that you call secular rationalism a religion, because from my perspective that implies that secular rationalism is not backed up by anything but faith. I will concede that secular rationalism is an idealogy though.

You infer secular rationalism from the things you have seen, heard, and witnessed. And you come to this belief based on the evidences you have seen with your eyes, heard with your ears, and understood in your brain. You did not pluck it from the clear blue sky. You came to conclude it to be true based on the evidence you’ve witnessed thus far.

Thus it is a religion. For that alone is what a religion is. Our conclusions about things based on what we have seen, heard, and learned.

To be honest, I consider myself more of a secular humanist though.

And what points does SH take as true?

 

[vsedriver]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
What truth was the Aztec religion about?

That has a strong appetite for human flesh apparently (since human sacrifice was a very important aspect of the Aztec religion).

well the higher power didn’t have an appetite for human flesh but the people wanted to please their god, they just got it wrong. They were right that God required a sacrifice but a perfect sacrifice only.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s right. The spirit - soul - of the priest is changed in a way that only can be changed in a man. It’s what the spirit does that is different - which is, you are right, tied to what it has become. It’s a “both/and”.

But if a man has been endowed with the graces he receives at ordination, yet does not or cannot use them, he is, effectively, no different from an ordinary man. Thus we have the term “lacisisation”.

Exactly.

A priest is different because he has a soul different from other souls, and his soul is capable of successfully doing things other souls are not.

Thus, there are some things that a woman can’t do, *only because she can’t be.
*

 

[Lochias]

Thus, there are some things that a woman can’t do, *only because she can’t be.
*

Indeed. A man couldn’t, for example, be a mother, either. Works both ways.

 

[SparkleFly]

I feel like they should be able to be priests, or there needs to be a female equivalent.

This kind of stuff really leaves me pissed because it’s pushing people away, people that could contribute a lot to do God’s work. I wish it was more love based than rule-based. If she’s qualified, why not? I’m sure there are plenty of women out there that might do a better job than some of the current (and past) male priests.

People have no control over whether they are male or female–the gap needs to close on the rights each has.

I think this has some good points on inequality in the church tbm.org/can_women_be_pastors.htm

 

[jediliz]

SparkleFly,

The Priest acts in the PERSONA OF CHRIST himself…a WOMAN can NOT do that.

I am a woman and I don’t want women priests!

 

[SparkleFly]

I just think it’s goofy, though. If everything was more love-based and not on religion, I feel we’d be better off. Do we really need to impersonate Christ to help people find him and live a life that honors him? I don’t think so.

 

[LucyLight]

SparkleFly,

The Priest acts in the PERSONA OF CHRIST himself…a WOMAN can NOT do that.

I am a woman and I don’t want women priests!

Regarding your last line, I would have no problem with women priests if God wanted women priests. I would definitely prefer to see a woman for confession . Guys are lucky in that way. It’s a lot harder to confess intimate sins to someone of the opposite gender.