Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Because then they could join an organization that feels women are fit to lead (even in a spiritual setting).

Women ARE fit to lead in the Catholic Church. Are you not aware of women abbesses? Women lay directors? Women Directors of Religious Education? Women principals of Catholic schools?

Women cannot be priests. That’s different than women are not allowed to lead.

All the top leaders of the Catholic Church are priests.
In corporate terms, I would say that the women you speak of would qualify as middle management at best.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
You worship Jesus Christ.
Jesus was a man/male.
Jesus was also God.
Therefore you worship a male (or at least masculine) god.

Exactly.
You worship a male god.

Go to your nearest monastic order and find some cloistered nuns. Ask them if they feel betrayed because they can not be Priests. I bet you anything not ONE of them would be on the same page as you. It goes against natural order for men to have babies does it not? Through teachings handed down from Christ to His Apostles and those Apostles to their Disciples and down the line to the present day, the Church has always affirmed Christ’s teaching that women can not be Priests. To do so is to go against the natural spiritual order of things. A woman can be a Priest no more than a man can be a nun. It is not discriminatory or exclusive. It’s how God established His Church. And despite being a bumpy road at times, the Church is still alive and well come two thousand years later. So God obviously knows what He’s doing. You are taking feminism to a whole new level and are trying to apply it where it can not apply. There are no abuses/discrimination against women through the Church. You are looking for a reason to bash the Church and you have failed to find one. Good day sir.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
So, your version of happiness (i.e. true happiness) has nothing to do with actually being happy.
Then why not simply use a different (and more accurate) word instead?

I didn’t say it had NOTHING to do with actually being ‘happy’. (Again, you ‘assumed’ you knew what I meant and proceeded to proclaim, “So YOUR VERSION” etc. etc. instead of saying, “Do you mean that>”) Sigh.

**Why should I have to use a different word? ** True happiness may encompass ‘being happy’, but it is not limited to ONLY ‘feeling happy.’

Because you seem to be describing something more (or perhaps less) than the actual term.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Because then they could join an organization that feels women are fit to lead (even in a spiritual setting).

**ARE you assuming that an organization that ‘allows’ women to lead is somehow an organization that is more TRUE than an organization with a male-only priesthood?

So are you assuming that the Catholic and Orthodox and the conservative Jewish and certain other Protestant Christian faiths are ‘less true’ than 'faiths which ‘let’ women lead, and you’re claiming that a HALLMARK of TRUTH is related to ‘equality of leadership position?’**

Where did that idea that this is more true or right come from? Where did you derive the universal truth that ‘equality of leadership’ is a truth?

And if it ISN’t A UNIVERSAL TRUTH, or is only true for those groups which want it (RELATIVISM), then why are you attacking the Catholic (and Orthodox, conservative Jews, etc.) on a principle of absolutism which you yourself reject?

What does truth have to do with it?
I assume that all the religions you mention are false.

But that doesn’t mean that their all equally fair (and in fact they are not).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

you presume that only the male clergy performs a leadership role. That is not the case. Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica are examples of women leaders in the Church. To say that they played no leadership role because they weren’t ordained priests is nonsense. They had great influence whether or not they ever sat on the Chair of Peter. As there are many, many ordained priests who played a far less leadership role than either of these two nuns.

As a conservative Catholic here at CAF recently told me.
Exceptions don’t prove the rule.

FYI-he was saying that just because Joan of Arc was a saint that didn’t mean that God really approved of women in combat.

 

[vsedriver]

As a conservative Catholic here at CAF recently told me.
Exceptions don’t prove the rule.

FYI-he was saying that just because Joan of Arc was a saint that didn’t mean that God really approved of women in combat.

it is you who called them exceptions. I was only naming two examples. How many examples of influencial church women do you need? I guess I could start with Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdelene and go from there.

 

[vsedriver]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Because then they could join an organization that feels women are fit to lead (even in a spiritual setting).

All the top leaders of the Catholic Church are priests.
In corporate terms, I would say that the women you speak of would qualify as middle management at best.

you can’t compare the Church to a corporation. This will always be a stumbling block for you.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Go to your nearest monastic order and find some cloistered nuns. Ask them if they feel betrayed because they can not be Priests. I bet you anything not ONE of them would be on the same page as you. It goes against natural order for men to have babies does it not? Through teachings handed down from Christ to His Apostles and those Apostles to their Disciples and down the line to the present day, the Church has always affirmed Christ’s teaching that women can not be Priests. To do so is to go against the natural spiritual order of things. A woman can be a Priest no more than a man can be a nun. It is not discriminatory or exclusive. It’s how God established His Church. And despite being a bumpy road at times, the Church is still alive and well come two thousand years later. So God obviously knows what He’s doing. You are taking feminism to a whole new level and are trying to apply it where it can not apply. There are no abuses/discrimination against women through the Church. You are looking for a reason to bash the Church and you have failed to find one. Good day sir.

Wrong.

Here’s a link to news story about women and girls kept as virtual slaves by the Irish Catholic Church:
cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-567365.html

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Because then they could join an organization that feels women are fit to lead (even in a spiritual setting).

What does truth have to do with it?
I assume that all the religions you mention are false.

But that doesn’t mean that their all equally fair (and in fact they are not).

Um, truth has everything to do with it.

And if you ASSUME ‘all the religions I mention’ are false, then you must be judging them by a truth, no?

How could you possibly know something was false unless you knew what was true? What IS the truth then?

Otherwise your ‘assumption’ is based on something other than truth and as such is meaningless.

If I go around and say that something isn’t true, I had better know what IS true, otherwise how could I possibly know what was false?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I just used that as an example to point out that SaintPatrick was obviously wrong:shrug:

Regarding your assessment:
Its true that the Magdalene Laundries were a product of Irish society, but that society was certainly a product of Catholicism.

It wasn’t that long ago (in historical terms anyway) that people used the terms Irish and Irish Catholic interchangeably.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

yet you fail to show that leadership is “exclusive” to the clerical role. Leadership can take many forms in an organization. Including in the form of advising.

I honestly think you’re confusing the term influence and leadership.
An advisor is not a leader (at least not in his or her role as advisor).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

‘feelings’ come and go. True happiness is permanent.

No it is not.
Experience shows that no one stays happy forever.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

it is you who called them exceptions. I was only naming two examples. How many examples of influencial church women do you need? I guess I could start with Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdelene and go from there.

Influence is not the same as leadership.
Dick Cheney was very influential during the George W. Bush administration.
But how much leadership did he really show?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Because then they could join an organization that feels women are fit to lead (even in a spiritual setting).

All the top leaders of the Catholic Church are priests.
In corporate terms, I would say that the women you speak of would qualify as middle management at best.

you can’t compare the Church to a corporation. This will always be a stumbling block for you.

Of course I can.
Their both large, sophisticated organizations made up of human beings:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Um, truth has everything to do with it.

And if you ASSUME ‘all the religions I mention’ are false, then you must be judging them by a truth, no?

How could you possibly know something was false unless you knew what was true? What IS the truth then?

Otherwise your ‘assumption’ is based on something other than truth and as such is meaningless.

If I go around and say that something isn’t true, I had better know what IS true, otherwise how could I possibly know what was false?

You appear to be trying to confuse the issue.

Even if the Man-God Jesus Christ did assume human form and die for our sins, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that the Catholic Church treats women (or for that matter anyone else) fairly.

 

[LucyLight]

Okay so this is more of a question. Posters keep saying that it is impossible for women to be priests. I would say that presently this is true because the Pope guided by the Holy Spirit has spoken infalliably on this. I say presently because certainly God can decide that he now wants women priests and he could communicate this to the pope. So isn’t it possible that women can be priests? I have also heard posters say that if the pope ordained a woman to the priesthood that they would know that the pope was not being guided by the Holy Spirit. So I guess my question is isn’t it possible that a woman could be ordained a priest just not presently?

Oh and please no lectures this is not wishful thinking on my part. I’m fine with the priesthood being all male.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You appear to be trying to confuse the issue.

Even if the Man-God Jesus Christ did assume human form and die for our sins, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that the Catholic Church treats women (or for that matter anyone else) fairly.

With respect, *I * am not the one trying to confuse anything.

You keep on saying that ‘religions are false’. By what criteria of what you take is ‘true’ have you compared ‘religions’ to, that you find they are false, and how do you KNOW what you claim as true (as opposed to the ‘falsity’ of religion) is true?

If you do not know and cannot give us the reason you can ‘judge’ the falsity of a religion, how can you claim it is false? That is what I would like to know.

Otherwise all you are doing is claiming ‘religions are false’ based on as much of a ‘personal assumption’ as you imply that we use to claim our religion is true.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Okay so this is more of a question. Posters keep saying that it is impossible for women to be priests. I would say that presently this is true because the Pope guided by the Holy Spirit has spoken infalliably on this. I say presently because certainly God can decide that he now wants women priests and he could communicate this to the pope. So isn’t it possible that women can be priests? I have also heard posters say that if the pope ordained a woman to the priesthood that they would know that the pope was not being guided by the Holy Spirit. So I guess my question is isn’t it possible that a woman could be ordained a priest just not presently?

Oh and please no lectures this is not wishful thinking on my part. I’m fine with the priesthood being all male.

Good. You see, Lucy, what you are doing is the equivalent of the "Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it’ type of argument.

Since God has already declared (infallibly) that the Church has no authority to ordain women, He is not going to change HIs mind in future. Part of God’s being God is that He is unchanging. The idea that He could make a dogmatic decision and then completely reverse it would be an example of God both ‘creating a rock too heavy to lift’ and ALSO being ‘all powerful God who can lift anything.’ The two premises here are COMPLETELY antithetical. They cannot BOTH be true. God cannot make a square circle for example because such a thing does not logically exist. It’s absurd.

Here is a comparison. God is God, yes? He can do “anything” right? He is a Trinity, right? So, an equivalent argument to your "well, this infallible teaching can be changed if God wants’ would be, "If God wants to be a quartet in the future, He can do it.’

Or, "If God wants the Eucharist to be confected with beer and pretzels instead of bread and wine, he can do it.’

The people who believe (unknowingly) in the illogical kind of God who can both make a rock too heavy to lift and yet still be all powerful God despite the ABSOLUTE opposition of those two terms do not see it is not logical to believe in a God who does ILLOGICAL THINGS.

God is not illogical. God does not change what He has decreed. He will not suddenly change Jesus Christ into a woman. He will not become a quartet. He will not be made Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, from Fritos and beer. And He will not suddenly change the nature of the priesthood.

Male clericalism is a dogmatic truth which cannot be changed.
Unmarried men only in the priesthood is a DISCIPLINE which can be changed.

That’s the big difference. Women ‘priests’ are not an area of discipline open to change.

So no, God will not change in the future about ‘women priests’ (or the Eucharist or the Trinity).

 

[LilyM]

Okay so this is more of a question. Posters keep saying that it is impossible for women to be priests. I would say that presently this is true because the Pope guided by the Holy Spirit has spoken infalliably on this. I say presently because certainly God can decide that he now wants women priests and he could communicate this to the pope. So isn’t it possible that women can be priests? I have also heard posters say that if the pope ordained a woman to the priesthood that they would know that the pope was not being guided by the Holy Spirit. So I guess my question is isn’t it possible that a woman could be ordained a priest just not presently?

Oh and please no lectures this is not wishful thinking on my part. I’m fine with the priesthood being all male.

No. The Church cannot change on this issue any more than it can change on the issue of Mary being assumed or Jesus being God. It has no more authority from God to change the teaching on women’s ordination than to change of these teachings.

And no, God will not change His mind (by the way God is eternal - He does not change His mind) about this issue any more than He can change His mind about any other doctrine or dogma.

 

[LucyLight]

I’m not sure if the issue is with God changing his mind.Can’t God do away with an old law for a new law?