Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LucyLight said:
:confused:Says who? Can you back up that claim with some evidence. I don’t have a problem with the priesthood being limited to men. I do have a problem with mysogynists who use the all male priesthood to back up their ridiculous sexist assertions. This is probably one of the worst posts I have seen in a while.
Click to expand...
Concerning the post that said that when women gain power, it diminishes, well, I believe that anyone who wants to put himself or herself as the powerful one, then, THAT diminishes that person’s true purpose. If a person gives the power to God, then that person gains the respect of people, except some athiests. I remember Alice Von Hildebrand. She is one of the greatest teachers and writers I have met. People loved her classes and seminarians learned the faith from her very well. Look at Mother Angelica–that is another great lady who raises up Jesus to be recognized as the One with the REAL power and not herself. Even though she cannot talk anymore, her love for God still streams through in her work. I think there are great men and great women who achieve great goals because they do not seek power for themselves. They have high moral standards and strong character. I also add, that if they want to be Catholic, they respect the teachings of the church.
mtngal
 
Nowhere in Bible states that women can’t be priests. The Biblical does show examples of priesthood is reserved for men. As in Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church. Evidence suggests that Adam was the first priest, then Noah, and Melchizedech.

Historically neighboring cultures - Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans all had priestess in their religions. It was the Jewish culture, of which Jesus was born into, where only males could be priests.

The early church had deaconesses. Deaconess assisted with the baptism of women, because baptism people would de-rope.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
But in a debate you’re supposed to PROVE your arguments.
You can’t expect your opponent to do your research and argue your case.

Any lawyer who did that would soon be unable to find work, and he would deserve such treatment.
Click to expand...
A debate presumes that either side could be right. This is not the case. I am right, and you are wrong. I am telling you where to go for the facts underlining this. If you choose not to seek them out, it’s no skin off mine. You can blame your own unwillingness to act.
 
edwest2 said:
I was born in the mid-1950s and the average number of kids in my neighborhood was two. My mother not only looked good dressed up, she could also mix cement, do a little carpentry and paint the house. I never once experienced the women should be “submissive” idea until the 1970s when women were threatening to burn their bras (as it turns out, men were the primary designers of ladies’ undergarments). They wanted to burn them because they represented a sign of their “oppression” by men.

I’ve never seen any logical, rational argument that the Church discriminates against anyone. And if women think that all men are the enemy - and the radical feminists were calling for the downfall of the patriarchy, which included the Church - then the easy answer is stay away from men.

The radicals feminists’ job was to sow the seeds of discontent. Women, referred to as Sisters, had to “Throw off the chains of their oppression!” I was there for this. They agitated for a radical departure from a family model that worked. All the moms in my neighborhood were stay at home moms. They created fictional pictures of women living lives of drudgery, cooking and cleaning and raising the kids while the man did virtually nothing. (My dad worked hard 5 and a half days a week and he helped out as necessary.)

That was pure 100% baloney. All the moms I knew had something that many no longer have now: neighbors who cared about them, friends who cared about them, and in-laws and relatives. Our Catholic Community included our friends and neighbors involved in our lives, and visiting with each other.

The radical feminists wanted radical separation and nothing less than the destruction of the family under the smokescreen of what was complete fiction for most women in the early 1960s:
  1. All men cheat.
  2. He’ll dump you for another woman one day and leave you with the kids.
  3. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Guess what? Divorce was rare. Abortion was not legal. The Pill was not yet in widespread circulation. And if a woman was “dumped,” she had her own family and/or relatives to help her through, kids or no kids.

So women capitulated to the “true” voice of all women and got their marching orders:
  1. Get out of the house and get a career.
  2. Forget about trust - get a contract - a pre-nuptial argreement.
  3. If there’s any kids, put them in day care.
  4. Gradually, it became, Once they turn 18, kick those kids out of the house.
  5. And there was also a movement to get teenagers “emancipated” from their parents.
In the 1960s, you dated, then you might go steady, followed by courtship where both families got to know each other, followed by engagement. And it was necessary to go her Dad, who had been your age once and knew exactly what you were feeling, and he would cut through the hormones and ask the following:

How are you going to support my daughter? Where do you plan on living? Have you talked about having kids? And all the other practical questions. I went through it, though things did not work out.

The Church, as it is written in the Bible, teaches: husbands love your wives, wives love your husbands. Marriage was always taught to be a partnership. Did women who had moms and likely friends who were married, need the National Organization for Women to dictate anything to them? To create false fear? To make them feel trapped and to demonize having children? Abortion became law because of lies and deception. That story is just coming out.

If anyone sincerely believes that a man they want to marry will force them to be submissive, end the relationship. Women didn’t become “smarter” because of a group of radicals. My mother worked outside the home until a few months before I was born, and paid cash for our house. They were both refugees and had 6th and 7th grade educations. Guess what? They did alright. They had a boy and a girl, and a dog. Something that a small group of sometimes vicious radicals hated with a passion.

Let me be clear. We had crime and all the rest, but we did not lock our doors at night. Neighbors watched out for other neighbors, included the neighborhood kids. NO, it was not perfect, but it was without doubt, much better than what male-female relationships are today. And you got married for life.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
If the average number of kids women had in the place that you grew up was just 2 then a lot (if not most) of those women were probably using some form of birth control (like the Pill).
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
If the average number of kids women had in the place that you grew up was just 2 then a lot (if not most) of those women were probably using some form of birth control (like the Pill).
Click to expand...
The Pill? In the 1950’s? :ehh:
 
edwest2 said:
I was born in the mid-1950s and the average number of kids in my neighborhood was two. My mother not only looked good dressed up, she could also mix cement, do a little carpentry and paint the house. I never once experienced the women should be “submissive” idea until the 1970s when women were threatening to burn their bras (as it turns out, men were the primary designers of ladies’ undergarments). They wanted to burn them because they represented a sign of their “oppression” by men.

I’ve never seen any logical, rational argument that the Church discriminates against anyone. And if women think that all men are the enemy - and the radical feminists were calling for the downfall of the patriarchy, which included the Church - then the easy answer is stay away from men.

The radicals feminists’ job was to sow the seeds of discontent. Women, referred to as Sisters, had to “Throw off the chains of their oppression!” I was there for this. They agitated for a radical departure from a family model that worked. All the moms in my neighborhood were stay at home moms. They created fictional pictures of women living lives of drudgery, cooking and cleaning and raising the kids while the man did virtually nothing. (My dad worked hard 5 and a half days a week and he helped out as necessary.)

That was pure 100% baloney. All the moms I knew had something that many no longer have now: neighbors who cared about them, friends who cared about them, and in-laws and relatives. Our Catholic Community included our friends and neighbors involved in our lives, and visiting with each other.

The radical feminists wanted radical separation and nothing less than the destruction of the family under the smokescreen of what was complete fiction for most women in the early 1960s:
  1. All men cheat.
  2. He’ll dump you for another woman one day and leave you with the kids.
  3. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Guess what? Divorce was rare. Abortion was not legal. The Pill was not yet in widespread circulation. And if a woman was “dumped,” she had her own family and/or relatives to help her through, kids or no kids.

So women capitulated to the “true” voice of all women and got their marching orders:
  1. Get out of the house and get a career.
  2. Forget about trust - get a contract - a pre-nuptial argreement.
  3. If there’s any kids, put them in day care.
  4. Gradually, it became, Once they turn 18, kick those kids out of the house.
  5. And there was also a movement to get teenagers “emancipated” from their parents.
In the 1960s, you dated, then you might go steady, followed by courtship where both families got to know each other, followed by engagement.** And it was necessary to go her Dad, who had been your age once and knew exactly** what you were feeling, and he would cut through the hormones and ask the following:

How are you going to support my daughter? Where do you plan on living? Have you talked about having kids? And all the other practical questions. I went through it, though things did not work out.
The Church, as it is written in the Bible, teaches: husbands love your wives, wives love your husbands. Marriage was always taught to be a partnership. Did women who had moms and likely friends who were married, need the National Organization for Women to dictate anything to them? To create false fear? To make them feel trapped and to demonize having children? Abortion became law because of lies and deception. That story is just coming out.

If anyone sincerely believes that a man they want to marry will force them to be submissive, end the relationship. Women didn’t become “smarter” because of a group of radicals. My mother worked outside the home until a few months before I was born, and paid cash for our house. They were both refugees and had 6th and 7th grade educations. Guess what? They did alright. They had a boy and a girl, and a dog. Something that a small group of sometimes vicious radicals hated with a passion.

Let me be clear. We had crime and all the rest, but we did not lock our doors at night. Neighbors watched out for other neighbors, included the neighborhood kids. NO, it was not perfect, but it was without doubt, much better than what male-female relationships are today. And you got married for life.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
To be honest I have always found that custom kind of creepy.
It reminds me of how in other societies daughters are treated like commodities to be handed out at the parents (particularly the father’s) discretion.
 
LucyLight said:
I’ve never seen any logical, rational argument that the Church discriminates against anyone. And if women think that all men are the enemy - and the radical feminists were calling for the downfall of the patriarchy, which included the Church - then the easy answer is stay away from men.

Even the radical feminists still want a man;)
Click to expand...
Actually the truly radical feminists want all women to be celibate or become lesbians.
Some have actually said that all sex (with a man) is rape, or that women who willingly have sex with a man are betraying women as a group:shrug:
 
RobbyS said:
When a woman begins to occupy a position that is traditionally male, she has to accomodate herself to the existing standards. Look at how relatively rarely women succeed in the professions. Whether law or medicine or politics, or science or even in academia. Feminists attribute this to a patriarchal society. But it may because the professions demand that kinds of strength that most women do not have. In the rawest form, consider the military. Women occasionaly have the attributes of “GI Jane.” but they are generally handicapped by their physiques and by their lack of agressiveness. I would never ban women from such position, but do understand that we will never have fifty-fifty division in combat arms, any more than we will even again have a fifty-fifty black-white NBA. We are approaching a 50-50 split in law, because women do not and never have lacked brains and the other capabilities needed to excell in the field, including the critical clerical skills that make up most of the work done by laws. But rising to the top? There is another dynamic involved, which is not just a lack of a peer group but the kind of bonding that helps build the sort of bonding needed for climbing the ladder. In short, our whole culture is hierarchial and that hierarchy is patriarchial.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that all (or at least most) women are weak or what?
 
mtngal25 said:
In reply to Scoobyshme,
These people are totally dependent on Rome to give them “power.” If they went to another church that already ordained women, then no one would pay any attention to them. They want people to think that they can change everybody and therefore get public notice as to how great they are.
The reformers like Luther, had the fortitude to get out of the church and form their own, and therefore was freer to do what they wanted. However, Catholic liberals have no courage and therefore have to hang onto Mommy to push their agenda. They are very immature and parasitic.
As long as the church allows these people to stay in “good standing”, then they will still think the issue is open. Excommunication was and still could be a good tool to bring people to repentence and/or to keep the church united as the four marks of the church states: ONE, holy Catholic and apostolic.
mtngal
Click to expand...
I have always thought that it was a bit wierd and disingenous to refer to the Catholic Church as a mother.
Its an organization, not a living thing.
Moreover, its an organization founded and led by men (with a male god).
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

But in a debate you’re supposed to PROVE your arguments.
You can’t expect your opponent to do your research and argue your case.

Any lawyer who did that would soon be unable to find work, and he would deserve such treatment.
Lochias said:
A debate presumes that either side could be right. This is not the case. I am right, and you are wrong. I am telling you where to go for the facts underlining this. If you choose not to seek them out, it’s no skin off mine. You can blame your own unwillingness to act.
Click to expand...
I am glad that you admit that you’re not debating me but merely preaching at me.
If I knew that from the beginning I wouldn’t have bothered trying to debate you.
 
Lochias said:
A debate presumes that either side could be right. This is not the case. I am right, and you are wrong.** I am telling you where to go for the facts underlining this. If you choose not to seek them out, it’s no skin off mine. You can blame your own unwillingness to act**.
Click to expand...
Why would I blame myself for the weakness of your own arguments?
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
If the average number of kids women had in the place that you grew up was just 2 then a lot (if not most) of those women were probably using some form of birth control (like the Pill).
PRmerger said:
The Pill? In the 1950’s? :ehh:
Click to expand...
Some form of birth control anyway:shrug:

The other possibility is that the husbands and wives in Ed’s neighborhood were simply having little to no sex.
 
TheHolyTrinity said:
Nowhere in Bible states that women can’t be priests. The Biblical does show examples of priesthood is reserved for men. As in Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church. Evidence suggests that Adam was the first priest, then Noah, and Melchizedech.

Historically neighboring cultures - Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans all had priestess in their religions. It was the Jewish culture, of which Jesus was born into, where only males could be priests.

The early church had deaconesses. Deaconess assisted with the baptism of women, because baptism people would de-rope.
Click to expand...
Pope John Paul II stated that the Church has no authority to ordain women. No authority.

Peace,
Ed
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
If the average number of kids women had in the place that you grew up was just 2 then a lot (if not most) of those women were probably using some form of birth control (like the Pill).

Some form of birth control anyway:shrug:

The other possibility is that the husbands and wives in Ed’s neighborhood were simply having little to no sex.
Click to expand...
Too many people look at the 1950s in an angry, biased and purposely inaccurate way. They have been indoctrinated using imagination and not reality. There was and still is such a thing as self control. Or, do people actually believe that they cannot, even in our “modern” culture, control themselves? Or that their brains shut off and their genitals take over?

Hugh Hefner was promoting the “have lots of sex” Playboy philosophy. The Church was and still is, promoting something better.

On my side of the street, I can still recall the order of who had kids and who had none. First house, two, second house, two, third house, none, fourth house, two, fifth house, one, sixth house, one, seventh house, two, eighth house, none, ninth house, one, tenth house, two, eleventh house, none, twelfth house, two.

Not all women got married. We had old people on our street who either did not have kids or had had their kids before the so-called baby boom.

All of the kids in my neighborhood were born in the mid to late 1950s. The Pill was not approved by the FDA till 1960. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

Peace,
Ed
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

I am glad that you admit that you’re not debating me but merely preaching at me.
If I knew that from the beginning I wouldn’t have bothered trying to debate you.
Click to expand...
And conversely, if I’d thought there was any hope of an actual debate, instead of a pages-long diatribe on the righteous, angst-y glory of how “right” you are, I’d have never bothered either. Signing off, brother.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Yes, yes, I know the metaphysical theory.
But in practice, somebody has to actually write the laws and interpret the doctrines, and whoever does that is effectively in charge.

Now who is effectively in charge?
Because I was under the impression that it was the Pope and other Bishops.

That is not a meaningful answer to my question.
Click to expand...
God is in charge is the only answer a believing Catholic can give you. The Pope with the Bishops, teach the truth on matters of faith and morals guided by the Holy Spirit (God). You can’t separate God from His Church. You can’t say that men make up the rules for their own benefit because that is the same as saying that God doesn’t guide His Church. If you don’t believe that God guides the Catholic Church then you don’t become a member and you don’t accept how the Church is run since you can’t see the Church’s reasoning behind Her teachings.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
If the average number of kids women had in the place that you grew up was just 2 then a lot (if not most) of those women were probably using some form of birth control (like the Pill).

Some form of birth control anyway

The other possibility is that the husbands and wives in Ed’s neighborhood were simply having little to no sex.
edwest2 said:
**Too many people look at the 1950s in an angry, biased and purposely inaccurate way. They have been indoctrinated using imagination and not reality. There was and still is such a thing as self control. Or, do people actually believe that they cannot, even in our “modern” culture, control themselves? Or that their brains shut off and their genitals take over?

Hugh Hefner was promoting the “have lots of sex” Playboy philosophy. The Church was and still is, promoting something better.**

On my side of the street, I can still recall the order of who had kids and who had none. First house, two, second house, two, third house, none, fourth house, two, fifth house, one, sixth house, one, seventh house, two, eighth house, none, ninth house, one, tenth house, two, eleventh house, none, twelfth house, two.

Not all women got married. We had old people on our street who either did not have kids or had had their kids before the so-called baby boom.

All of the kids in my neighborhood were born in the mid to late 1950s. The Pill was not approved by the FDA till 1960. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ah, you support the no-sex theory then.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

I am glad that you admit that you’re not debating me but merely preaching at me.
If I knew that from the beginning I wouldn’t have bothered trying to debate you.
Lochias said:
And conversely, if I’d thought there was any hope of an actual debate, instead of a pages-long diatribe on the righteous, angst-y glory of how “right” you are, I’d have never bothered either. Signing off, brother.
Click to expand...
Be consistent.
You already admitted that you were not interested in a debate:rolleyes:
 
Lochias said:
And conversely, if I’d thought there was any hope of an actual debate, instead of a pages-long diatribe on the righteous, angst-y glory of how “right” you are, I’d have never bothered either. Signing off, brother.
Click to expand...
You appear to be projecting.
You are the one who said:

A debate presumes that either side could be right. This is not the case. I am right, and you are wrong. I am telling you where to go for the facts underlining this. If you choose not to seek them out, it’s no skin off mine. You can blame your own unwillingness to act.

-Moreover, most of your posts in this thread have a similar tone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top