Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[PRmerger]

For instance I wanted to cite Decretum Gratiani (a 12th century document that became the basis for much of Canon Law) which **apparently **has some really nasty stuff about women’s supposed inferiority in it. However, I can’t find a translation that I would be comfortable citing as evidence:shrug:

Apparently? Who told you that? Clearly it was something you’ve only been told because you can’t read the article.

I’d like to know your source for this “apparently” thing.

 

[PRmerger]

To be perfectly honest, I have thought once or twice that it would be fun (or at least interesting) to spend a day as a woman, assuming that I could easily change back the next day.

Wow. That has as much resonance and credibility as someone trying desperately to prove he’s not racist by saying, “Well, I talked to a black man one time when he came to deliver my pizza. So how could I be racist?”

 

[PRmerger]

Moreover, I frankly think that (assuming God created us in its image) a Mother Goddess makes more sense. Giving birth to the universe would fit, because that’s how *we *reproduce.

Yeah, you need to learn a little bit more about creatio ex nihilo.

That is sooo not “giving birth to the universe”. That’s the pagan way of explaining creation.

The Judeo-Christian paradigm is quite revolutionary and distinctive, given the previously universal understanding of “giving birth to the universe”.

 

[PRmerger]

I was busy working actually.

Ok. That’s permissible.

 

[Irishgal49]

mtngal25:
I agree with most of what you said but women WERE at the Last Supper. Cooking and serving food was women’s work and I’m sure they were serving food. A lot of the men were married, including Peter and Jewish tradition would have mandated that families eat together. It was a custom of that time not to mention women and children when counting who was at an event. Remember when Jesus fed the 5000? It said and the number fed was 5000 “not counting women and children”. The reason is that a Jewish minyan (the number of Jewish people required to vote on business matters or to pray) was 10 Jewish men.

Eating a sedar is NOT just bread and wine. It involves a whole meal, with a ritual, rites, and ceremonies specific to that group—“when supper was ended…” that involved cooking a lamb and eating certain other things. Tradition is that women always cooked the meal. Also 7 glasses of wine are drank during the sedar so women would have been pouring as well.

My ex-husband is Jewish.

Lorrie

 

[Irishgal49]

Yeah, you need to learn a little bit more about creatio ex nihilo.

That is sooo not “giving birth to the universe”. That’s the pagan way of explaining creation.

The Judeo-Christian paradigm is quite revolutionary and distinctive, given the previously universal understanding of “giving birth to the universe”.

I see nothing wrong with feminine images of God or women are priests. The church says no so it’s no…but I see nothing wrong with it. I frankly don’t feel called to be a priest so I’m not worried about it. I think it’s sad and unfortunate because Phoebe was a Deacon and the Greek word used for deacon in that Romans passage is the MASCULINE Deacon, the EXACT same word used for Stephen and there are three words for Deacon.

So the church has precedent for women as Deacons but we will never truly know about the priesthood.

Lorrie

 

[Fiasco]

I’m going to have to disagree with you here, Fiasco. There is no revelation in Sacred Tradition that declares that women were not at the Last Supper.

It may be a small “t” tradition, but it’s not part of the deposit of faith that we must believe that there were no women at the Last Supper.

And even if there were women present (for who cooked and served the meal?? ), that’s not an argument for priestesses any more than having women present at the wedding at Cana is an argument for priestesses.

Sorry: i should have been more specific!
By “The Last Supper”, i meant just the part which included Jesus and the Twelve and His consecrating of them as bishops. i didn`t mean to include the caterers et al.

I see nothing wrong with feminine images of God or women are priests. The church says no so it’s no…but I see nothing wrong with it…

So the church has precedent for women as Deacons

Deaconesses were used when women were baptised. Since all clothing was removed for immersion, it was a matter of decency to have deaconesses.

but we will never truly know about the priesthood.

Dont say we have to go through the Churchs teaching about Christ, the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church again!!!
Somewhere among the **seven hundred and eighty plus **posts, you`ll find the answer!
For your penance: read all of them!
(Read Ephesians 5:25-32.)

PS
All of these “esses” reminded me of a poem from primary school:

Two little ghostesses,
Sitting on two postesses,
Eating jam and toastesses.
Butter running down their fistesses.
Dirty little beastesses!
Sorry!

 

[PRmerger]

I see nothing wrong with feminine images of God

The Church doesn’t either. Not sure why you would think the Church hasn’t proffered feminine images of God.

So the church has precedent for women as Deacons

Not as ordained deacons functioning as clergy.

but we will never truly know about the priesthood.

Lorrie

We’ll never truly know? Know what? If there were women priests ordained in the earliest days of Christianity?

I’m pretty sure that if there were, that would have made great news among 1st century Judea.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
To be perfectly honest, I have thought once or twice that it would be fun (or at least interesting) to spend a day as a woman, assuming that I could easily change back the next day.

Wow. That has as much resonance and credibility as someone trying desperately to prove he’s not racist by saying, “Well, I talked to a black man one time when he came to deliver my pizza. So how could I be racist?”

I wasn’t aware I had to prove that.
If you’re accusing me of being a sexist against women (which would be odd, since I am among the minority of people at CAF who will usually challenge an openly misogynistic statement couched in religious terms if I come across it) just come out and say it.

 

[PRmerger]

I wasn’t aware I had to prove that.
If you’re accusing me of being a sexist against women (which would be odd, since I am among the minority of people at CAF who will usually challenge an openly misogynistic statement couched in religious terms if I come across it) just come out and say it.

I’m accusing you of being uncomfortable with the notion that your soul is feminine.

You don’t like the thought of having anything feminine attached to you.

But if you’re wishing to proclaim that you are good with the concept of your feminine soul, I will retract.

(And, yes, yes, we all know you’re an atheist, Angry, so you don’t need to add the disclaimer, “But I don’t believe in God and therefore the soul is irrelevant to me” or whatever clarification you always seem to want to give when discussing with Catholics. Yep. We get it. You’re an atheist. But you must presuppose certain concepts when in dialogue with Believers, okay?)

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, then, if you’re already conceding that it’s debatable that this is an anti-woman comment by a pope, what’s your point?

I cannot help but relish re-posting your braggadocio here:

As it turns out, not so much, eh? :ehh:

Perhaps you’re going to say, “Well, I was really going to use Protestant comments, but you limited me to only Catholics. And I also was going to offer evidence of the lustiness, and selfishness and weakness of women that your Church has proclaimed, but you challenged me to only find something about their intellectual inferiority. So, yes, I could still easily post a dozen posts, like I said.”

Is that your story that you’re going to stick with?

More or less.
You were asking me to find official Church documents proclaiming (or at least stating) the intellectual inferiority of women. A much narrower range of material that what I said I could provide. But since you’re asking:

And first, where I affirm the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I mean not only that God, by the order of his creation, has spoiled [deprived] woman of authority and dominion, but also that man has seen, proved, and pronounced just causes why it should be. Man, I say, in many other cases, does in this behalf see very clearly. [14]For the causes are so manifest, that they cannot be hid. For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong? And finally, that the foolish, mad, and frenetic shall govern the discreet, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared unto man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness; their strength, weakness; their counsel, foolishness; and judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered.

[15]I except such as God, by singular privilege, and for certain causes known only to himself, has exempted from the common rank of women, and do speak of women as nature and experience do this day declare them. Nature, I say, does paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of public office. [16]For thus writes Aristotle, in the second of his Politics. What difference shall we put, says he, whether that women bear authority, or the husbands that obey the empire of their wives, be appointed to be magistrates? For what ensues the one, must needs follow the other: to wit, injustice, confusion, and disorder. The same author further reasons, that the policy or regiment of the Lacedemonians (who other ways amongst the Greeks were most excellent) was not worthy to be reputed nor accounted amongst the number of commonwealths that were well governed, because the magistrates and rulers of the same were too much given to please and obey their wives. What would this writer (I pray you) have said to that realm or nation, where a woman sits crowned in Parliament amongst the midst of men?

-That’s a quote from The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, the most well known work of John Knox (who was one of the most important leaders of the early Protestant movement). The whole document is basically a rant against women having any sort of power (Knox was offended because there were a few female monarchs in his era ruling Christian kingdoms, which he thought was ungodly).

If you want PR I could provide you with many other examples.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I’ve tried dialoguing with them actually.
Messing with them can be fun (and its so easy) but ultimately has all the intellectual substance of smashing your head against a wall repeatedly.

Indeed. Dialoguing with fundamentalists (of any sort) can have that effect.

But it does help the lurkers to see how ridiculous his position is, even if the fundamentalist is immutable and as firmly entrenched in his viewpoint as ever.

Hmm…was that an attempt at snark?
I believe you can do better PRmerger

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm…was that an attempt at snark?

Absolutely not. :nope:

I have never accused you of being a fundamentalist, have I?

There are some other atheists on the CAFs, to be sure, who fit the bill, but I see you as open to the Truth and open to considering other POV.

 

[PRmerger]

More or less.
You were asking me to find official Church documents proclaiming (or at least stating) the intellectual inferiority of women. A much narrower range of material that what I said I could provide. But since you’re asking:

And first, where I affirm the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I mean not only that God, by the order of his creation, has spoiled [deprived] woman of authority and dominion, but also that man has seen, proved, and pronounced just causes why it should be. Man, I say, in many other cases, does in this behalf see very clearly. [14]For the causes are so manifest, that they cannot be hid. For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong? And finally, that the foolish, mad, and frenetic shall govern the discreet, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared unto man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness; their strength, weakness; their counsel, foolishness; and judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered.

[15]I except such as God, by singular privilege, and for certain causes known only to himself, has exempted from the common rank of women, and do speak of women as nature and experience do this day declare them. Nature, I say, does paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of public office. [16]For thus writes Aristotle, in the second of his Politics. What difference shall we put, says he, whether that women bear authority, or the husbands that obey the empire of their wives, be appointed to be magistrates? For what ensues the one, must needs follow the other: to wit, injustice, confusion, and disorder. The same author further reasons, that the policy or regiment of the Lacedemonians (who other ways amongst the Greeks were most excellent) was not worthy to be reputed nor accounted amongst the number of commonwealths that were well governed, because the magistrates and rulers of the same were too much given to please and obey their wives. What would this writer (I pray you) have said to that realm or nation, where a woman sits crowned in Parliament amongst the midst of men?

-That’s a quote from The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, the most well known work of John Knox (who was one of the most important leaders of the early Protestant movement). The whole document is basically a rant against women having any sort of power (Knox was offended because there were a few female monarchs in his era ruling Christian kingdoms, which he thought was ungodly).

Sorry. The diatribes of someone who has divorced himself from the Faith are of no interest to me.

Clearly it demonstrates that without the Church as your beacon you do come to all sorts of erroneous positions.

If you want PR I could provide you with many other examples.

Yes. I want some examples of the Church (that is, the Magisterium) demonstrating that women are intellectually inferior. Something from one of the popes of our generation (Pope JPII, B16) would be a jewel in your crown. But I’ll accept anything from the Magisterium that proclaims women are dumber than men.

I love the one you offered, though that states that it’s men who are the dum dums.

All right, here **are some **relevant quote:

Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born.
-Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 171
.

(bold emphasis changed by me)

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
For instance I wanted to cite Decretum Gratiani (a 12th century document that became the basis for much of Canon Law) which apparently has some really nasty stuff about women’s supposed inferiority in it. However, I can’t find a translation that I would be comfortable citing as evidence

Apparently? Who told you that? Clearly it was something you’ve only been told because you can’t read the article.

I’d like to know your source for this “apparently” thing.

An unauthorized partial translation by a U.S. judge, wikipedia, and a feminist site I sometimes visit (which is obviously biased). I found a full version of it online (link to source: geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de/decretum-gratiani/online/angebot)
unfortunately its not in English:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yeah, you need to learn a little bit more about creatio ex nihilo.

That is sooo not “giving birth to the universe”. That’s the pagan way of explaining creation.

The Judeo-Christian paradigm is quite revolutionary and distinctive, given the previously universal understanding of “giving birth to the universe”.

Revolutionary and distinctive is not necessarily the same as sensible or good.
For instance, communism was quite revolutionary and distinctive when it emerged, but I doubt you would label it good (or sensible for that matter).

Like I said before, if God really created us in His own Image, it would make sense for humans to create things the way that he did. But we don’t.
We give birth to babies, and we have to build or breed everything else.

We can’t just think really hard and create something out of nothing the way that the Biblical God supposedly can.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**I agree with most of what you said but women WERE at the Last Supper. Cooking and serving food was women’s work and I’m sure they were serving food. A lot of the men were married, including Peter and Jewish tradition would have mandated that families eat together. It was a custom of that time not to mention women and children when counting who was at an event. Remember when Jesus fed the 5000? It said and the number fed was 5000 “not counting women and children”. The reason is that a Jewish minyan (the number of Jewish people required to vote on business matters or to pray) was 10 Jewish men. **

Eating a sedar is NOT just bread and wine. It involves a whole meal, with a ritual, rites, and ceremonies specific to that group—“when supper was ended…” that involved cooking a lamb and eating certain other things. Tradition is that women always cooked the meal. Also 7 glasses of wine are drank during the sedar so women would have been pouring as well.

My ex-husband is Jewish.

Lorrie

So women literally didn’t count.
That says a lot about the environment the Bible emerged from.
And most likely also about the mindset of the people who wrote it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**The Church doesn’t either. Not sure why you would think the Church hasn’t proffered feminine images of God. **

Not as ordained deacons functioning as clergy.

We’ll never truly know? Know what? If there were women priests ordained in the earliest days of Christianity?

I’m pretty sure that if there were, that would have made great news among 1st century Judea.

Most likely because it has not.
If the Church had no problem giving God feminine aspects there would not be so much uproar today about some people calling God she.

Moreover, the example of the Virgin Mary proves nothing in this regard, because as Catholics have always been quick to remind Protestants, according to Catholicism Mary is not part of the Trinity (i.e. she is not divine).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m accusing you of being uncomfortable with the notion that your soul is feminine.

You don’t like the thought of having anything feminine attached to you.

But if you’re wishing to proclaim that you are good with the concept of your feminine soul, I will retract.

(And, yes, yes, we all know you’re an atheist, Angry, so you don’t need to add the disclaimer, “But I don’t believe in God and therefore the soul is irrelevant to me” or whatever clarification you always seem to want to give when discussing with Catholics. Yep. We get it. You’re an atheist. But you must presuppose certain concepts when in dialogue with Believers, okay?)

I’m okay with it (although indifferent would be a more accurate term).

The reason I would never want to become a woman (permanently) is threefold.

1. Being a man is part of my identity, I would not casually give up part of what makes me what I am.
2. Pregnancy and labor is uncomfortable, painful, and frequently life threatening. I am glad that as a man I will never have to go through that.
3. Women had almost always been seen as much less valuable than men, and have usually had few rights or protections (in fact, they were often regarded as mere property). Now in the West and Westernized places like Japan that has largely changed, but women are still regarded as inferior in all too many places (like Saudi Arabia). Being stuck in that situation myself is unattractive so say the least.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sorry. The diatribes of someone who has divorced himself from the Faith are of no interest to me.

Clearly it demonstrates that without the Church as your beacon you do come to all sorts of erroneous positions.

Yes. I want some examples of the Church (that is, the Magisterium) demonstrating that women are intellectually inferior. Something from one of the popes of our generation (Pope JPII, B16) would be a jewel in your crown. But I’ll accept anything from the Magisterium that proclaims women are dumber than men.

I love the one you offered, though that states that it’s men who are the dum dums.

(bold emphasis changed by me)

I doubt there is much to find with regard to our generation.
It appears that (either out of a geniune change of heart or more pragmatic concerns) the Catholic Church stopped referring to women as inferior (at least in official documents) sometime around the 19th (or 20th at the latest) century.

Now most (or at least many) Catholics in the 19th and early 20th century still acted in ways that we would regard as misogynistic today. But how much of that was due to Catholicism and not other factors is hard to determine.