Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[Tantum_ergo]

As you wish:

Tangible:

1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.
2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine.
3. definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.
4. (of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.

Link to source:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangible?s=t

Meaningful:

full of meaning, significance, purpose, or value; purposeful; significant: a meaningful wink; a meaningful choice.

Link to source:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/Meaningful?s=t

P.S. It seems pretty clear to me that Marian adoration doesn’t meet this standard when it comes to raising the status of women.

Marian DEVOTION is not all about raising the ‘status’ of women.

Although certainly it does not DEBASE that status.

How do you see Marian devotion as debasing the status of women? Does a devotion to the Mother of God somehow make us think that ‘women’ are inferior?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Many of us are mothers, AA, and we know that the Church neither discriminates against women or teaches that women are inferior to men.

You know, I have often heard how ‘narrow minded’ religious people supposedly are. . .yet here YOU are having the narrowest view of what constitutes appropriate views toward men, women, religion, etc.

Where is your tolerance toward the views of others? Haven’t you said before that what ‘works’ for one should be given as much approval as what works for another?

I’m disappointed in you . .

You’re making several unfounded assumptions about me.
Like the assumption that I believe (or have ever said) that all viewpoints are equally valid.

Moreover, not all Catholics (or for that matter all Catholics here at CAF) see Catholicism as something that liberates women in any meaningful way.

I have been debating someone called Portrait in another thread recently (link to thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=673423&highlight=AngryAtheist8&page=24).
Portrait claims to be Catholic and that (properly understand and embraced) Catholicism would strip women of virtually all authority in the family, religion, and society (because women having authority over and/or teaching men is sinful).

He has also refused to answer my (repeated) question of whether or not women would be educated in the ideal society he imagines. Even after I have pointed out that its easier to relegate women and girls to the domestic sphere (something he supports) when their illiterate and ignorant.

Leading me to believe that he thinks women wouldn’t be educated in an ideal Catholic society.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And if they leave, then they are church shopping.

And church shopping for a church that proclaims everything that they happen to believe is, well, creating a god in one’s own image, right?

(Yes, you don’t believe in God, but if you did, and this God established church(es)–which you must stipulate for this discussion to be of any utility–then you must acknowledge that this God isn’t going to proclaim everything that you agree with. **There’s going to be SOME THINGS which are disagreeable to you. ** Are you in agreement with the bolded part, Angry? Or are you of the belief that God is always going to have the same beliefs as the believer?)

Of course.
Whenever you get more than two people together disagreement is inevitable.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Many of us are mothers, AA, and we know that the Church neither discriminates against women or teaches that women are inferior to men.

You know, I have often heard how ‘narrow minded’ religious people supposedly are. . .yet here YOU are having the narrowest view of what constitutes appropriate views toward men, women, religion, etc.

Where is your tolerance toward the views of others? Haven’t you said before that what ‘works’ for one should be given as much approval as what works for another?

**I’m disappointed in you **. .

I will try to get over that

 

[PRmerger]

Moreover, not all Catholics (or for that matter all Catholics here at CAF) see Catholicism as something that liberates women in any meaningful way.

You are making the mistake of applying a Protestant paradigm to Catholicism, Angry.

There is no such thing as “what a Catholic believes”, when it opposes that which Catholicism proclaims.

IOW: If a Catholic believes other than what the Church proclaims, you can dismiss that belief. In that respect he is being a Protestant.*

Now, Protestants, of course, in their paradigm, are perfectly free to say, "I’m a Methodist but I believe because that’s what the Bible says, even though my pastor says " and that’s kosher.

It is not, as I stated, the Catholic paradigm.

*And I do note the irony in proclaiming that the poster you named is protesting, given his very knowledgeable apologia for Catholicism in all other areas. But in this particular case, what he is proposing is indeed contrary to the Church, and therefore is protesting.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course.
Whenever you get more than two people together disagreement is inevitable.

Not my point.

My question to you is this: (stipulate that God exists, of course, and that Jesus is God and that he established a church) Do you believe God is going to proclaim everything that is palatable and agreeable to a believer? Or does it make sense that belief in God is going to, by necessity, make you change some of your beliefs?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You’re making several unfounded assumptions about me.
Like the assumption that I believe (or have ever said) that all viewpoints are equally valid.

Moreover, not all Catholics (or for that matter all Catholics here at CAF) see Catholicism as something that liberates women in any meaningful way.

I have been debating someone called Portrait in another thread recently (link to thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=673423&highlight=AngryAtheist8&page=24).
Portrait claims to be Catholic and that (properly understand and embraced) Catholicism would strip women of virtually all authority in the family, religion, and society (because women having authority over and/or teaching men is sinful).

He has also refused to answer my (repeated) question of whether or not women would be educated in the ideal society he imagines. Even after I have pointed out that its easier to relegate women and girls to the domestic sphere (something he supports) when their illiterate and ignorant.

Leading me to believe that he thinks women wouldn’t be educated in an ideal Catholic society.

But you don’t KNOW that. You are implying it based on your interactions with ONE POSTER (which may or may not reflect an accurate understanding of what that poster was trying to say).

That is an awfully big ‘leap’.

You and I have had some interactions. Do I --a 50s something college graduate who was wife and mother and in the work force the last 30 years–imply in any way that I think that an ‘ideal Catholic society’ would not involve education for women? Far from it!!

 

[LucyLight]

But you don’t KNOW that. You are implying it based on your interactions with ONE POSTER (which may or may not reflect an accurate understanding of what that poster was trying to say).

That is an awfully big ‘leap’.

You and I have had some interactions. Do I --a 50s something college graduate who was wife and mother and in the work force the last 30 years–imply in any way that I think that an ‘ideal Catholic society’ would not involve education for women? Far from it!!

I think it can be confusing because this poster almost always has other posters who back him up. He is not alone is his views of women’s roles. I myself have pointed out that his beliefs are his own and are not Catholic. However, if someone wasn’t well educated in the faith and came to the forums to learn more it would be hard to know who is speaking the truth or not.

 

[Lochias]

How is it dishonest to say that the Catholic Church doesn’t think women are good enough to be priests?

In the same way that it is dishonest to say that a teacup isn’t good enough to be a screwdriver.

Teacups and screwdrivers were never meant to take each others’ place. One can’t be the other. And yet, both are equally important and needed.

AA, your continued stance in this thread really now boils down to two things:

A., You are either too thick, purposefully or unintentionally, to understand the point we’re trying to get across to you (and I don’t think it’s unintentional, at all)…or,

B. You don’t care about the point, and are going to have it your way come hell or high water.

Either way, it’s getting really, really old. To paraphrase something you’re fond of repeating: I really think you’d be happier on a forum that’s going to accept your own narrow views at face value, instead of trying to change everyone else here.

 

[PRmerger]

To paraphrase something you’re fond of repeating: I really think you’d be happier on a forum that’s going to accept your own narrow views at face value, instead of trying to change everyone else here.

This is very clever, indeed. And a comment, I think, that Angry cannot refute. If he really believes this mantra “Go where your views are accepted if they’re not accepted where you are”, then he ought to be saying :sad_bye: to us here.

But I hope he doesn’t leave.

Just like I hope those priestess advocates don’t leave the CC.

They just need to conform their views to what’s true, rather than leave to find those that are a homogeneous entity.

 

[TarkanAttila]

In the same way that it is dishonest to say that a teacup isn’t good enough to be a screwdriver.

Teacups and screwdrivers were never meant to take each others’ place. One can’t be the other. And yet, both are equally important and needed.

AA, your continued stance in this thread really now boils down to two things:

A., You are either too thick, purposefully or unintentionally, to understand the point we’re trying to get across to you (and I don’t think it’s unintentional, at all)…or,

B. You don’t care about the point, and are going to have it your way come hell or high water.

Either way, it’s getting really, really old. To paraphrase something you’re fond of repeating: I really think you’d be happier on a forum that’s going to accept your own narrow views at face value, instead of trying to change everyone else here.

Very good.

To AngryAtheist: Are you here to seek to understand what we believe? Or are you here to peddle your views that atheists are somehow superior because they don’t discriminate against women?

Well, no matter what you say, we acknowledge the facts. There are some things women can’t do. There are also some things men can’t do. And there’s nothing wrong with being frank about that. If you think that’s discrimination, by God, we’re sexist and proud of it. That’s not the definition of sexism. But you go ahead and believe what you want.

 

[Lochias]

Very good.

To AngryAtheist: Are you here to seek to understand what we believe? Or are you here to peddle your views that atheists are somehow superior because they don’t discriminate against women?

I suspect that AA understands the Catholic view on the matter easily enough; he / she simply can’t seem to let the matter die.

Why, AA? Are you just trying to get through our thick, Catholic skulls that we’re plain ol’ wrong, no matter what we say? Do you do it out of some concern on our part? It can’t be for concern of the women in the Catholic Church, 'cause many here have stated that they’re happy, and nobody is forcing any woman to be Catholic at gunpoint.

Are you just fond of arguing for its own sake? What is it?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, no matter what you say, we acknowledge the facts. There are some things women can’t do. There are also some things men can’t do. And there’s nothing wrong with being frank about that. If you think that’s discrimination, by God, we’re sexist and proud of it. That’s not the definition of sexism. But you go ahead and believe what you want.

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.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

In the same way that it is dishonest to say that a teacup isn’t good enough to be a screwdriver.

Teacups and screwdrivers were never meant to take each others’ place. One can’t be the other. And yet, both are equally important and needed.

AA, your continued stance in this thread really now boils down to two things:

A., You are either too thick, purposefully or unintentionally, to understand the point we’re trying to get across to you (and I don’t think it’s unintentional, at all)…or,

B. You don’t care about the point, and are going to have it your way come hell or high water.

Either way, it’s getting really, really old. To paraphrase something you’re fond of repeating: I really think you’d be happier on a forum that’s going to accept your own narrow views at face value, instead of trying to change everyone else here.

Not really.
Oh I do often frequent secular, feminist, and humanist websites.
But I wouldn’t want to spend all my time there.

For one thing, forums where everybody agrees quickly become echo chambers, where everbody seems intent on out doing each other when it comes to agreeing with the mainstream (at the site) point of view.

Frankly, if you kicked all the outsiders (like me) and Catholic dissenters out of CAF it would probably become like that here. With a few oddball ultra-conservatives saying outrageous things (like women should have no authority anywhere) dominating discussion.

Moreover, I like the intellectual stimulation of arguing with people such as LemonAndLime and pointing out the BS of people who are trolling (or simply advocating an outrageous point of view).

Although frankly I am surprised that I have lasted at CAF this long.
People who point out the emperor has no clothes are generally unpopular, especially if their already an outsider.

Maybe the moderators realize on some level that without us outsiders and dissenters here at CAF this place would quickly become a meaningless echo chamber.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

What does ‘happiness’ have to do with Truth?

Sure you can pursue Truth and find happiness in doing so. (As a Catholic Christian I have found Truth in Jesus and His Church, and I am ‘happy’.)

But you can also pursue Truth and not be all that happy about it. (Remember St. Augustine’s famous prayer, “Lord, make me chaste–but not yet”.) IOW, St Augustine thought that in following Truth he would lose the ‘earthly happiness’ of illicit sexual gratification.

But when St Augustine finally accepted Truth he found that TRUE happiness was more than the kind of fleeting carnal satisfaction that he thought (wrongly) was what happiness was all about.

If ALL that mattered in life was simply living for one’s ‘happiness on earth’, you’d have a valid argument AA. . .

but it isn’t.

We would be very POOR Christians if we would deny these women, or indeed anybody, even angry atheists, the chance to experience Truth (and ultimate eternal joy) because in the pursuit of truth they might be, for a period of time on earth, ‘unhappy.’

Do we want people to be unhappy? No. But let’s face it. Nobody on earth is every going to be 100% ‘happy’ from birth to death. Even the ‘happiest’ events have ‘thorns’ if you will.

I’ll bet that Jesus, in His walk to the Cross, was FAR from happy. In fact it would have appeared to everybody that far from succeeding in His mission, He had failed spectacularly. He had been beaten, mocked, insulted, and was now on His way to a painful death – a death He had prayed would be spared Him.

But instead of railing at the people (and heaven knows He could have), instead of taking the easy ‘satisfying’ way out, Jesus listened to His Father.

If these women ‘wannabes’ had a real understanding of Christ and His teachings, they would want to listen to Him and NOT to themselves. They would be trying to satisfy God and not themselves. They would understand that they were being tempted by the great ‘lie’ of ‘You shall be like god’. And so no, we don’t want them to go wandering off someplace where their errors will be accepted as truth. We want them to stay and to embrace that big-T Truth, to repudiate their errors and to accept the real Truth. That’s what we pray for.

Its worth noting that even if the Biblical God were real He would still not be a very nice guy.

Creating people solely for the purpose of torturing them forever (remember He’s all-powerful and all-knowing, so He knew what would happen).

Worshipping such a brutal and selfish being forever in Heaven would probably be better than being tortured forever. But only as the lesser evil, not as a positive good.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
As you wish:

Tangible:

1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.
2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine.
3. definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.
4. (of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.

Link to source:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangible?s=t

Meaningful:

full of meaning, significance, purpose, or value; purposeful; significant: a meaningful wink; a meaningful choice.

Link to source:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/Meaningful?s=t

P.S. It seems pretty clear to me that Marian adoration doesn’t meet this standard when it comes to raising the status of women

Marian DEVOTION is not all about raising the ‘status’ of women.

Although certainly it does not DEBASE that status.

How do you see Marian devotion as debasing the status of women? Does a devotion to the Mother of God somehow make us think that ‘women’ are inferior?

I honestly think that Marian devotion has for the most part neither raised nor lowered the status of women (at least in the modern era).

The Virgin Mary is just such a distant and removed figure compared to real live women that I suspect most faithful keep her and women in completely different categories in their subconscious minds.

Nevertheless the Virgin Mary can be used to debase women.

For instance, many (or at least some) modern day Catholics argue that Catholic women should emulate Mary and surrender all power to their husbands (and perhaps men in general) like how Mary supposedly surrendered her will (completely) to God.
Leaving women with no real authority in the family, religion, or society in general.

That is the point of view that Portrait and those behind Catholic Planet support.

 

[mangy_dog]

There’s more to it than that.
If I was a parent (female or otherwise) and I had a daughter I would not want her brought up in a religion that discriminates against women.
For that matter, if I had sons I wouldn’t want them brought up to think of women as inferior:shrug:

If these women really believe Catholicism regards them as lesser, there are all sorts of reasons that they should leave. Especially if their mothers.

THere is no discrimination,

You’re just angry because you’re wrong and the Catholic church is right. And you’re probably also angry because the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Of course.
Whenever you get more than two people together disagreement is inevitable.

Not my point.

My question to you is this: (stipulate that God exists, of course, and that Jesus is God and that he established a church) Do you believe God is going to proclaim everything that is palatable and agreeable to a believer? Or does it make sense that belief in God is going to, by necessity, make you change some of your beliefs?

Of course not.
Unless Jesus replaced all his followers with robots in the future or something:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think it can be confusing because this poster almost always has other posters who back him up. He is not alone is his views of women’s roles. I myself have pointed out that his beliefs are his own and are not Catholic. However, if someone wasn’t well educated in the faith and came to the forums to learn more it would be hard to know who is speaking the truth or not.

I have encountered a fair number of outright misogynists here at CAF who seem to think that all good Catholic women are (or at least should be) Barefoot and Pregnant and that Catholicism really supports their position (not those who advocate women’s rights).

Even pointing out official Church documents like *Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women *seem to have little effect on them.

To be fair though, none of them seem to last for more than a few months before they get banned by the moderators.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Lochias
To paraphrase something you’re fond of repeating: I really think you’d be happier on a forum that’s going to accept your own narrow views at face value, instead of trying to change everyone else here.

This is very clever, indeed. And a comment, I think, that Angry cannot refute. If he really believes this mantra “Go where your views are accepted if they’re not accepted where you are”, then he ought to be saying :sad_bye: to us here.

But I hope he doesn’t leave.

Just like I hope those priestess advocates don’t leave the CC.

They just need to conform their views to what’s true, rather than leave to find those that are a homogeneous entity.

A Forum is not the same as a religion.
And life would be boring if everybody only talked to those that agreed with them.