Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[PRmerger]

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:

Well, then, that seems to be your problem, Angry. You have taken the word of someone who you already acknowledge is obviously biased, **and not read the document itself, **before offering that ridiculous claim that you could provide a dozen quotes from Catholics and Protestants dissing women.

At any rate, I wouldn’t waste any more of your time chasing that rabbit. It’s irrelevant to cite the musings of a 12th century monk anyway. For that is not representative of Church teaching.

As I type those words “12th century monk” I’m smiling. * This *is what you’ve had to resort to in order to find some sort of “women are dumb” teaching you’ve ascribed to the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Revolutionary and distinctive is not necessarily the same as sensible or good.

Not my point.

I was only clarifying for you that Catholics don’t believe in that Mother Goddess myth of the earth spring forth from the loins of a deity.

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.

I don’t understand why you keep showing us this inability to think in metaphors.

Your statements above proclaim a literalness that I find so astonishing.

It’s like you are reading the parable of the Prodigal Son and you miss the message entirely because you say, “Well, I’ve never eaten the slop of pigs, so clearly this couldn’t be addressed to me!”

Try not to think so concretely here, Angry.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Indeed.

That’s something that must always be considered when engaging in Biblical exegesis.

And it’s something that Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are not very good at, IMHO.

 

[PRmerger]

I doubt there is much to find with regard to our generation.

That bears repeating.

I doubt there is much to find with regard to our generation.

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.

Inferior? Never. Maybe as more emotional. Or physically weaker. Or irrational. Okay.

But as inferior.

Nope. Nuh uh. Not a chance.

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.

And it’s also a point to consider how beastly they would have acted were they NOT influenced by Catholic principles of the inherent dignity of men and women.

IOW: Thank goodness they were Catholic, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

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

One has to wonder why she kept this verse in Scripture:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 23:37[/BIBLEDRB]

and this one:

[BIBLEDRB]Isaiah 49:15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, then, that seems to be your problem, Angry. You have taken the word of someone who you already acknowledge is obviously biased, **and not read the document itself, **before offering that ridiculous claim that you could provide a dozen quotes from Catholics and Protestants dissing women.

At any rate, I wouldn’t waste any more of your time chasing that rabbit. It’s irrelevant to cite the musings of a 12th century monk anyway. For that is not representative of Church teaching.

As I type those words “12th century monk” I’m smiling. * This *is what you’ve had to resort to in order to find some sort of “women are dumb” teaching you’ve ascribed to the Catholic Church.

I can easily provide 11 more if you want.
In fact here’s one below by a Protestant Pastor:

There are some amazing things that saints do not realize about the heavenly kingdom that awaits us. One of the amazing things is that there are no females in heaven.

Link to source:
urbanpioneering.com/Volume12/femininemain.htm

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
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

One has to wonder why she kept this verse in Scripture:

Matthew 23:37 (Douay Rheims)
37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?

Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

and this one:

Isaiah 49:15 (Douay Rheims)
15 Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? and if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee.

Show with Knox Bible :: New Jerusalem Bible :: Latin Vulgate :: Haydock Commentary
Bible passage courtesy of VeritasBible.com

Weren’t you just accusing me of not recognizing metaphors?
I think milady doth protest too much

 

[PRmerger]

I can easily provide 11 more if you want.
In fact here’s one below by a Protestant Pastor:

Not sure, given what’s already been discussed, why you think that would get me to think, “Oh, yes, the Church has indeed taught that women were intellectually inferior.”

That’s what you’ve been asked to provide evidence for.

That’s what you haven’t been able to do, only citing ONE thing, which did the exact opposite, and demonstrated that a pope thought men were dum dums.

And then saying, “well, there was this one monk in the 12th century that I think may have said something about that, but I can’t be sure because the document is written in German and I can only read English.”

That’s your story, so far.

A Protestant pastor now. That’s what you’re using to demonstrate that the Church taught that women were intellectually inferior.

That’s rich.

 

[PRmerger]

Weren’t you just accusing me of not recognizing metaphors?
I think milady doth protest too much

Huh?

You think that the Church is saying that God is literally a hen?

Seriously?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Not sure, given what’s already been discussed, why you think that would get me to think, “Oh, yes, the Church has indeed taught that women were intellectually inferior.”

That’s what you’ve been asked to provide evidence for.

That’s what you haven’t been able to do, only citing ONE thing, which did the exact opposite, and demonstrated that a pope thought men were dum dums.

And then saying, “well, there was this one monk in the 12th century that I think may have said something about that, but I can’t be sure because the document is written in German and I can only read English.”

That’s your story, so far.

A Protestant pastor now. That’s what you’re using to demonstrate that the Church taught that women were intellectually inferior.

That’s rich.

As you pointed out yourself, Catholic Churchmen were much more likely to accuse women in general of weakness (physical, moral, etc.) than stupidity.
I admit that you have issued me a challenge that I failed to meet (with regard to Church documents and the Pope) so far, but I claimed something completely different with regard to Catholics and Protestants (in other words Christians in general) and that’s what I was referring to:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Weren’t you just accusing me of not recognizing metaphors?
I think milady doth protest too much

Huh?

You think that the Church is saying that God is literally a hen?

Seriously?

No, I think that you were saying that the passage indicates that God is in some way feminine. But reference could simply be dismissed as a metaphor.

P.S. Your concept of a great Chicken-God sounds awesome.
You should write a story about it (I would read it)

 

[PRmerger]

As you pointed out yourself, Catholic Churchmen were much more likely to accuse women in general of weakness (physical, moral, etc.) than stupidity.

Moral weakness?

Nope. Nuh-uh. No way.

I don’t think there’s any reasonable person who would claim that the Catholic Church has ever accused women of being morally weak.

Again, can you find evidence of that? I will even allow you to expand it to any Catholic Churchman. It doesn’t necessarily have to reflect the teaching of the Church Formal.

I’d like to see something written by at least 2 Catholic Churchmen accusing women of being morally weak.

And please note: something written about a particular woman being “morally weak” won’t cut it, okay? We need something from 2 Catholic Churchmen claiming that all those with XX chromosomes are morally weak)

 

[PRmerger]

I admit that you have issued me a challenge that I failed to meet (with regard to Church documents and the Pope) so far,

See? That’s why you’re not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists can’t admit their position is wrong.

And I give you kudos for saying the above, because I know you’ve admitted that it is hard for you to admit you’re wrong.

(No snarkiness intended there at all, BTW.)

but I claimed something completely different with regard to Catholics and Protestants (in other words Christians in general) and that’s what I was referring to:shrug:

Well, I give a hearty “so what??” to that. And, again, I don’t mean to be snarky here, but who cares what Catholics (or Protestants) said about women when it didn’t reflect the teachings of Christ and His Church?

I can never defend what Catholics say, when it opposes that which Christ said. And, sadly, there’s too many Catholics like this to go around and try to correct all the misinformation they’ve been spewing.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I think that you were saying that the passage indicates that God is in some way feminine. But reference could simply be dismissed as a metaphor.

You do realize, Angry, when talking about the Numinous ALL things are merely metaphors, right?

Thus, it is entirely correct to say that God has been revealed to us through feminine metaphors, and masculine metaphors. But none of our metaphors even approaches a way to speak of God.

It’s like using a drop of water to describe the Ocean.

P.S. Your concept of a great Chicken-God sounds awesome.
You should write a story about it (I would read it)

Haha! I am in!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Disclaimer: I did an image search and make no attachments or endorsements to any website from which I copy/paste pics)

 

[Catholic_Prime_1]

It’s good that he keeps it absolute like that,
unlike the Protestants who let just about
anything happen. I pray the Catholic Church
maintains it’s strength and never becomes
like the Protestants.

 

[vsedriver]

Considering the attitudes of those who wrote the Bible, there could have been dozens of women at the last supper and the early Churchmen considered none of them worth mentioning:shrug:

Women were mentioned at the foot of the cross and at the tomb. Even at the very founding of the Church on Pentecost, women were present and were mentioned.

I think women weren’t mentioned at the Last Supper because women weren’t there.

 

[LilyM]

AA, the Church believes implicitly in the Bible. And following that Biblical phraseology, there are lots of references to ‘the sin of Adam’ (what we call ‘original sin’) in various official documents and unofficial theology. I’ve even heard at least one Catholic writer refer to humanity’s inclination toward sin as ‘the old Adam’.

Now fer crying out loud - if women are weaker, why on earth is Adam lumped with so much the responsibility for original sin, meaning the fact that humanity sins at all, why is it not called ‘the sin of Eve’, or the sinful inclination of our nature referred to as ‘the old Eve’?

Why does Paul say that ‘it is through one MAN that sin entered the world’ rather than ‘through one WOMAN’ if women are so much weaker morally?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Moral weakness?

Nope. Nuh-uh. No way.

I don’t think there’s any reasonable person who would claim that the Catholic Church has ever accused women of being morally weak.

Again, can you find evidence of that? I will even allow you to expand it to any Catholic Churchman. It doesn’t necessarily have to reflect the teaching of the Church Formal.

I’d like to see something written by at least 2 Catholic Churchmen accusing women of being morally weak.

And please note: something written about a particular woman being “morally weak” won’t cut it, okay? We need something from 2 Catholic Churchmen claiming that all those with XX chromosomes are morally weak)

As you wish:

The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason he [Jesus] took human nature in the male sex.
-Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III:31:4 ad 1)

Link to source:
focusequip.org/discover/cultural-apologetics/church-history/does-the-catholic-church-hate-women.html

If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first “known the Lord,” and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman’s) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,— the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. “In pains and in anxieties do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you.” And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man.
-Tertullian (On the Apparel of Women)

Link to source:
newadvent.org/fathers/0402.htm

P.S. I highlighted the most important part of Tertullian’s quote.

 

[PRmerger]

As you wish:

The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason he [Jesus] took human nature in the male sex.
-Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III:31:4 ad 1)

Link to source:
focusequip.org/discover/cultural-apologetics/church-history/does-the-catholic-church-hate-women.html

Yes, this is indeed abhorrent, and is an example of what you already proposed:

A few possible reasons for this occur to me.

1. The Catholic Church was never inherently misogynistic and prominent Churchmen like Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were merely showing the influence of secular society on them when demonstrating anti-woman attitudes.

 

[PRmerger]

You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man.
-Tertullian (On the Apparel of Women)

Link to source:
newadvent.org/fathers/0402.htm

P.S. I highlighted the most important part of Tertullian’s quote.

Ditto the above.

A few possible reasons for this occur to me.

1. The Catholic Church was never inherently misogynistic and prominent Churchmen like Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were merely showing the influence of secular society on them when demonstrating anti-woman attitudes.