SPLIT: Women priests possible?

[pickguard1]

Ok, fine then I’ll rephrase to say the Church could decide to “develop” Her doctrine to allow females to be ordained deacons.

Not everything in Church teaching can “develop” in this fashion (we’re not going to add a fourth person to the Trinity) but this is one that can. Again, I’m not claiming anything about the priesthood, which I would agree the Church clearly teaches She feels She has no authority to ordain women to.

You can disagree, that’s fine with me. But unlike ordination to the priesthood, I doubt you’ll be able to find any unchangeable teaching that the Church has that has decided the issue similarly for the diaconate. And if you do, of course please let us know.

I would submit, that likewise, where is the source of your conviction that the doctrine on the diaconate can change? Is there any precedent with other doctrines that have “developed” into something which in previous periods of Church history would have been considered heresy? (There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that the conference of Holy Orders on anyone but a baptized male in any previous period of the Church would have been viewed as such) Just asking for substantiation of your argument.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Um…what? I didn’t bring up abbesses. Oh, are you implying they have the same authority as bishops? I don’t need to research abbesses to know that’s not true.

Yes, Digger, it is true. Here is one reference to it. Do a little research and you will find more.

Her Story: Women in Christian Tradition by Barbara J. MacHaffie, “ The abbess usually headed a group of wiomen living the monastic life, although in countries such as Endgland and northern France, they sometimes headed double monasteries of men and women. In many places in early medieval Europe, they enjoyed the same powers and privileges as abbots, bishops, and noblemen. They sat in parliaments, attended church councils, signed official church decrees and oversaw the affairs of the clergy and lay people who lived on the often vast lands owned by the abbey. The word “ordination” is sometimes used to describe the consecration of an abbess. Although she was not given the power to administer the sacraments, she was given the same signs of high office that a bishop received. These included a ring, mitre (a special headdress worn by bishops and abbots), and crozier (a staff resembling a shepherd’s crook carried by bishops and abbots as a symbol of office)."

Even today, abbesses receive the crozier.

 

[spectrm]

Sorry for the lateness of this post. I drafted it on my home PC, but f.c.c’s database server died last night. Better late than never.

Complications? Indeed……Let me guess - you think there are no material differences in strenghts and weakness between the genders?

Of course there are differences. Differences in body and brain chemistry, in physical distribution and arrangement of organs, hormonal and instinctual responses - but none of this means they are any less qualified for any other role in the world should they show a passion and ability to meet the requirements. An individual can only gain from exposure to strong members of all diversities distributed throughout all segments of society.

I’ll be the judge of the former thank-you; and I reject your assessment of the latter.

Wow…arrogant much? If you want a rational discussion, sarcasm should only be present to lighten the tone for a moment. The conversation SHOULD consist of an exchange of idea paired with justification and extrapolation. And reject all you like, but as the world is, there are women who show strong passion and ability for leadership positions - spiritually, politically, scientifically, ad nauseum. Reality: 1, Fundie: 0

My comments have nothing to do with limiting a woman’s spiritual leadership. Anyone can lead……except in the oblivion that the atheist’s looks forward too where the concept of equality can’t even exist; and in the automaton of a scifi robo-land.

Who foolishly silly of all of you to presume one’s world-view to be entirely as automatons. How simple do you honestly think we(atheists) are? If we really believed everything that was ever to happen is a defined course of predestiny with no choice in the matter, we wouldn’t even bother to live, let alone argue with you, because regardless of our involvement, you would remain as you are, and us as we are - conversation==NULL.

But, to the topic, there is no absolute equality in ‘atheist-land’ either. People are judged for a role, not on their race, ethnicity, background, gender, or faith, but on their ability to perform the task. One specimen succeeds via h(er|is) decisions and prowess, another fails for the same reasons. But in society and general discourse, there is no fundamental difference in intellect or ‘spiritual’ nature - everyone is unique.

You can be a better atheist leader than I can since I am not equipped to be an atheist - I am equipped with faith and that invalidates me as a leader of atheists.

True…poor leader…but it’s not your faith that invalidates you. Atheists have beliefs about things too…we just don’t claim them as true and/or absolute because we know it’s not a defensible position. They’re insanely more probable than the alternative, though.

Likewise you make a terrible spiritual leader since you are not equipped to be a spiritual leader since you lack faith.

Why is faith a pre-requisite for being a spiritual leader? Why is you view of spiritual identity so narrow? I think you need a good meditation session - drop you tension for a moment and let the worlds energy just settle in you. Your quick leap to personal attacks at a mere label is rather disturbing.

So why are you given people spiritual advise and why are you trying to tell us that there are no differences in the styles of leadership that are available to men or women in the Catholic Church?

Because I once was catholic and it was always one of my largest contentions. I’m not saying that there isn’t a difference in the type of leadership they will be offering - many women would feel more comfortable going to a priestess about certain womanly problems. But I am saying that there is not inherently a difference in the type of leadership they CAN offer.

Catholics know better since we are equipped with the true faith that tells us a woman can not be a priest but she can be a superb religious leader as a consecrated lay or religious sister.

Arrogant, arrogant, arrogant…separate but equal. Wow…great argument. A direct assertion of superiority…any REAL backing?

The Catholic church has MANY high level female saints that came out of that leadership channel – in fact 3 are female doctors of the Church.

Good for you!!! Doesn’t change anything about the discussion at hand.

I, do believe it’s you?

More arrogance and non-strata - you clearly know nothing of me, so stop pretending you do.

Ahem, in case you have not noticed this IS a Catholic forum……Back up what you claim with reason or facts or else be consigned to irrelevancy as just another opinionated person.

Thy thinkest thou doth protest too much…Have you never met a woman doctor? Have you also known a man doctor? How about a woman construction worker? And a man construction worker? It seems no matter where you look in the world, there are women and men doing the same jobs all over the place - sharing workplaces, cooperating, not practicing some bronze-age brand of chauvinism veiled in divinity - and they do the job well. I also happen to know amazing female pastors and church leaders, as well as some male ones that aren’t worth shite on a good day.

Not just opinionated, but perceptive, too - oooooo-aaaahhhh!!!

 

[spectrm]

Sorry for the lateness of this post. I drafted it on my home PC, but f.c.c’s database server died last night. Better late than never.

You are rather cheeky for a new member. Do you imagine you have some kind of authority in this forum?

Only insofar as I’m granted by it’s members. Is this relevant or are you abject to carrying a conversation like to into a more private inquiry?

Continue to say absurd things and I will come right back at you and challenge you to back up what you say.

And I will not fail in doing so. Do you think you are intimidating?

Ignore me if that makes you feel like you have any control over open dialog here and over who can respond to your nonsence.

Anyone who wishes to may respond to my ‘nonsense’. I only place on ignore people who express a desire to be ignored by me. If you fall into this category, just say so…I’m not a mind-reader…least of all over the internet.

Again - I find it very queer that an atheist is in a Catholic Forum giving advice and opinions on spiritual matters. Don’t you feel a wee bit out of your element and depth?

Not in the least. You, clearly, know nothing about me. “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Pope St. Gregory the Great said that woman’s use is twofold: harlotry or maternity.

See here for the following footnote:

The most shocking contribution in this book was Daniel Sullivan’s history of Catholic thinking about women, marriage, love and sexuality. This thinking, wrote Sullivan, has been based, in part, on the views expressed by some of the most eminent fathers and doctors of the church: of St. Jerome, that a woman is ‘the devil’s gateway, a dangerous species, a scorpion’s dart.’ Of St. John Damascene that she is a ‘sicked she-***, a hideous tapeworm, the advanced post of hell.’ Of St. Clement of Alexandria that it ‘is shameful for her to think about nature she has.’ Of St. Francis de Sales that married couples should not think about the act they might have to perform at night. Of St. Thomas Aquinas that ‘woman is misbegotten and defective.’ Of Pope St. Gregory the Great the woman’s ‘use’ is twofold: harlotry or maternity.

---

Also, Fr. Andrew Greeley describes how he was educated about women in his pre-Vatican II seminary training in his Confessions of a Parish Priest, pages 119-120:

In Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose there are repeated references to women as swamps and traps designed to swallow up the souls of men. John Broomyard, an English Dominican of the same era, lifting a metaphor from scriptures, warned that women were a graveyard, well kept on the outside and filled inside with death and corruption, attitudes not all that different from that of the spiritual director who warned us of the dangers lurking in the splendid form of Janet Leigh. Women were portrayed as a threat to the virtue of celibates and the manliness of married men. They were, as one medieval saint put it, “vomit and ordure. … How then can we ever want to embrace what is merely a sack of rottenness.” St. Jerome said woman was the door of the devil. St. Maximus said she was the shipwreck of man. St. Athanasius thought she was the clothed serpent.

And you wonder why the Church is hung up on sex!

How was this hatred for women reconciled with devotion to Mary the Mother of Jesus? And did Lady Wisdom even exist for such people?

The answer was that Mary (and Lady Wisdom to the extent that She was recognized at all) were utterly desexualized. The mother of Jesus was admirable not because she shared a common womanhood with all her sisters, but because she was radically different from them.

I have been busy and I am not ignoring you. I will get back soon with a comment on this. I think you will be astonished to learn just where such attitudes come from as well as come to see that the Church has never developed any dogmas or doctrines that relegate women to a seperate tier of humanity or disclaim women as human as was a common attitude among some cultures that can be traced back to at least 1800 years prior to Christianity.

While you wait for my response ask yourself how a Jewish woman was able to enter into a covenant relationship with God without any physical means to be circumcised in the manner prescribed by Jewish law and why it was always the male head of household who gave the family name, blessings and inheritance to his sons.

James

 

[diggerdomer]

. Although she was not given the power to administer the sacraments, she was given the same signs of high office that a bishop received. .

Despite what you said in the rest of the post, here’s where you proved my point.

 

[diggerdomer]

I would submit, that likewise, where is the source of your conviction that the doctrine on the diaconate can change? Is there any precedent with other doctrines that have “developed” into something which in previous periods of Church history would have been considered heresy? (There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that the conference of Holy Orders on anyone but a baptized male in any previous period of the Church would have been viewed as such) Just asking for substantiation of your argument.

My contention is that the Church HAS definitively ruled out the possibility of ordaining women, as has been cited often in this thread. The Church HAS NOT, to my knowledge, made the same teaching about the diaconate. That’s all.

Any example I came up with I’m sure would be dismissed anyway, so I don’t see the point in that.

All I’m saying is that I think–again from all the Church documentation cited in this thread–that there’s an important difference on what the Church teaches about the priesthood vs. the diaconate.

 

[edwest2]

Despite what you said in the rest of the post, here’s where you proved my point.

Nothing has been proven. Zero. This is just the cheerleading section for the womenpriests movement which acts in defiance of Catholic Church authority. Just visit their web site if you don’t believe me.

The Catholic Church was established by God, not man. This is not an equality issue or a qualifications issue, and it is certainly not to be compared to the secular world, although it’s abundantly clear that that is the only view the secular world understands.

Just as Jesus told a learned man that he had to be born again, this learned man naturally assumed that somehow, he had to return to his mother’s womb. Jesus then told him, What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the spirit is spirit. That is what needs to be understood.

In a secular community, this is rejected on secular grounds. The Catholic Church is first and foremost, a spiritual entity, and then it can be regarded as The Body of Christ on earth regarding its physical members.

All I’m hearing here is Why isn’t the Church an equal opportunity employer? God established the Church. God establish its method of operation directly and through additional Revelation and the discernment of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
Ed

 

[diggerdomer]

Nothing has been proven. Zero. This is just the cheerleading section for the womenpriests movement which acts in defiance of Catholic Church authority. Just visit their web site if you don’t believe me.

The Catholic Church was established by God, not man. This is not an equality issue or a qualifications issue, and it is certainly not to be compared to the secular world, although it’s abundantly clear that that is the only view the secular world understands.

Just as Jesus told a learned man that he had to be born again, this learned man naturally assumed that somehow, he had to return to his mother’s womb. Jesus then told him, What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the spirit is spirit. That is what needs to be understood.

In a secular community, this is rejected on secular grounds. The Catholic Church is first and foremost, a spiritual entity, and then it can be regarded as The Body of Christ on earth regarding its physical members.

All I’m hearing here is Why isn’t the Church an equal opportunity employer? God established the Church. God establish its method of operation directly and through additional Revelation and the discernment of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
Ed

WHAT?

Hey…I was responding to someone who claimed that women have equal authority to men (Bishops) which I thought was a ridiculous claim. I was simply saying that my contention is that Bishops clearly have and always have had more authority in the Church than women.

I don’t understand your message as a response to the specific issue of what I was responding to. Please, read the whole thread.

thanks for any clarification.

 

[HereticAmI]

No, I am not saying that women must bear children in order to follow Mary’s example. I am saying that there are things that men can do and women can’t and vice versa. Bearing children is merely the most obvious example.

You know this whole discussion reminds me of Adam and Eve in in the garden. All God asked was one little thing, leave that tree alone. You can have all the other trees in the garden but leave that one alone. But they just had to eat from THAT tree.

Women can have anything they want, they can be brain surgeons and rocket scientists. They can marry and have children or not. They can run for political office or be CEOs. They can enter religious life and become abbesses who hold the same authority as bishops complete with crozier. Only one thing has been refused women, the sacrament of Holy Orders, and people jump up and down and scream as though they had been sold into slavery. They just have to eat from THAT tree.

Maybe the discussion shouldn’t be about women and the priesthood. Maybe it should be obedience, submission and humility.

You really don’t understand the garden story do you? Do you know why the “prohibition”? Think of what Paul said, the command was to life. Can see why that was so? If not, if they don’t know tov and ra’, then God can’t expect them to recognize the error of their ways, to repent, and to then offer sacrifice, and so they can remain sinners [naked] in God’s garden and God can accept that. It was for their protection. You have turned that notion completely on its head. And so you might explain how men and/or women are protected by not having women priests?

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Priest said Holy Orders, which includes deacons. A report in the 90’s from the Canon Law Society of America, gave a very possitive look at the possibilty of women being ordained as deacons. John-Paul II had also had a commission that looked into the matter of women deacons, which also indicated that there is no real prohibition to it’s possibility.

So the priest, was correct in indicating the possibility of women recieving Holy Orders.

Peace,
FAB

and how this lines up with what St Paul said about women are not to speak in the Church? if women have any question to ask their husband at home. as we know the jews never allowed women to even study Sacred Scriptures.

read Scriptures as a whole not just one verse as if they are all disconnected from each other.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Despite what you said in the rest of the post, here’s where you proved my point.

Read the quote again, Digger. She signed Church documents, she sat in Church councils, she had authority over priests. In every way, with the exception of sacraments, an abbesss had the same authority as a Bishop. That is a lot of power.

 

[Th0t]

*I think everyone with the doubt of Woman’s Ordination should listen to this talk by Peter Kreeft

Very educational. Opened my eyes and heart to be more faithful to the church.

peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

Section 2 is available in text form taken from the book Woman and the Priesthood.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm

Here are some quotes I have written down from this talk:

Even God gave distinction. He created man different from female. Light from dark, earth from water, etc. It is discrimination but God’s justice is harmony like music, not divisive like mathematics.

**4 Reasons against Woman Ordination:

1. Authority. Doesn’t mean power, it means rights.
2. Sexual Symbolism
3. Ecclesiastical Common Good
4. Discernment

The Church did not invent the priesthood. The Catholic Church is the only church who claims less authority than any other christian church. That is why she is so conservative, so stuck in the mud.

Judaism also didn’t allow woman ordination.

If you believe that not allowing woman ordination then you are accusing Christ of the sin of sexism.

Only pagan religions had priestesses.

Bible supports priests but not priestesses.

People who want priestesses don’t understand why it’s there.

When feminists become saints we will become their pupils.

There will be an identity crisis if women ever become ordained.

The Church has spoken magisterially, officially, publicly, clearly, and authoritatively on this issue of women ordination. What more do you want?

This is a test of loyalty to the Church.

Jesus Christ is still male today and His body in heaven is male.

One big problem with women ordination is the Eucharist. When Christ says This IS my body. Jesus’ body is male.

~ Peter Kreeft

***

 

[CentralFLJames]

Pope St. Gregory the Great said that woman’s use is twofold: harlotry or maternity.

See here for the following footnote:

The most shocking contribution in this book was Daniel Sullivan’s history of Catholic thinking about women, marriage, love and sexuality…

I don’t have the time to check the accuracy of the source of the footnote. But let me just briefly say that there was since the time of the ancient Jews some definate undercurrents about women being the weaker sex for falling into temptation and bringing sin to all humanity. Many early Church religious men were indeed afraid of the natural allure that women had over men and saw fornication and illicit unions as one of the most common temptations a man would face in life. St. Paul himself often spoke about marriage as being the lessor calling but it was better to marry than to burn with lust etc. This has always been men’s most vulnerable area. So it its easy to see how hyperbole styles of writing of some of the early saints may have focused on a lot of this area of male vulnerability. No doubt some men religious men became hermits not just to focus on prayer but to remove themselves from the temptations of society.

That said, without seeing each context in the above I can’t ascertain the severity of what was said. In any case, the Church has never codified any kind of official teaching that suggests women are inferior to men spiritually or less in dignity before God. If one wants to blame Catholics here then one must also blame the Jews for having started it all their “purity” rituals for their woman after intercourse, birthing etc. And the Reformers are not without blame either for their infamous persecution of “witches” (50,000 - 100,000 in European Protestant countries during the middle ages); not to mention that some Protestants also retained the practice of Churching where women had to be purified after childbirth before readmission into Church. No one can deny that women were subject to many abuses by men all through the centuries based on superstitions and common misconceptions passed on over the centuries. But again, Catholics have never taught that women are inferior to men in an official teaching on faith and morals.

Also, Fr. Andrew Greeley describes how he was educated about women in his pre-Vatican II seminary training in his Confessions of a Parish Priest, pages 119-120:

In Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose there are repeated references to women as swamps and traps designed to swallow up the souls of men. John Broomyard, an English Dominican of the same era, lifting a metaphor from scriptures, warned that women were a graveyard, well kept on the outside and filled inside with death and corruption, …

And you wonder why the Church is hung up on sex!

You do know that Umberto Eco was a post-modernist moral relativist fiction writer don’t you?

I tried to find some of the texts but was unsuccessful so I can’t comment too much more on something I am not familiar with. Can you point me to an official Catholic teaching that reflects this alleged attitude?

How was this hatred for women reconciled with devotion to Mary the Mother of Jesus? And did Lady Wisdom even exist for such people?

The answer was that Mary (and Lady Wisdom to the extent that She was recognized at all) were utterly desexualized. The mother of Jesus was admirable not because she shared a common womanhood with all her sisters, but because she was radically different from them.

Without original source to see context I can’t ascertain the veracity of what is claimed. Mary has always been beloved by Catholics and this is perhaps the best evidence I can give that counters any anti-catholic vitriol on this matter. Catholics can’t win here. We get called women haters and dominators by one set of people. Another set of people claim we over venerate Mary. People believe what they want.

I find it ironic that you claim Catholics desexualize Mary. We hold her up as an example of virtue, modesty, chastity, wholesomeness and faithfulness. By saying that makes her radically different than other women makes you sound rather sexist and stereotypical of “other women” to me. Are you suggesting all women are over-sexed unchaste horn dogs? For shame. BTW, why don’t you make the same complaint about Christ being so radically different than your average male? Where is equal consideration without regard to gender in thinking men get a free pass brother?

Bottom Line - No other institution on the planet has done more for the advancement of women’s dignity and rights than the Catholic Church. The feminist movement came very late in the game and tried to claim that they were the one’s who liberated women by introducing a culture of death (pro-abortion) that is contrary to the very nature of women as bringers of life and by militant advocacy by emulating men’s worst behaviors to gain equality in moral debasement. The feminist destroyed our American culture and now most men don’t extend even the most basic of social courtesies to women anymore. What a disaster they have brought us - over 50% divorce rate and men now just “saying no” to relational commitments and opting instead to sleep around with all the “liberated women” who are “out there” pumped up on birth control (a normal social accoutrement for the modern liberated woman) and more oft than not willing to have no-strings attached recreational sex just like most men do to express their freedoms.

Yeah, “you’ve come a long way baby”…

James

 

[diggerdomer]

Read the quote again, Digger. She signed Church documents, she sat in Church councils, she had authority over priests. In every way, with the exception of sacraments, an abbesss had the same authority as a Bishop. That is a lot of power.

Give me a break. Whatever historical authority an abbess had (or has) in an abbey is nowhere near the authority a Bishop has.

Sacraments. Governance of parishes and all the faithful in a diocese. Juridical authority. Hiring and firing of diocesan personnel. Legislative authority. Member of College of Bishops.

Come on. Please stop asserting that abbesses and bishops have the same authority.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Give me a break. Whatever historical authority an abbess had (or has) in an abbey is nowhere near the authority a Bishop has.

Sacraments. Governance of parishes and all the faithful in a diocese. Juridical authority. Hiring and firing of diocesan personnel. Legislative authority. Member of College of Bishops.

Come on. Please stop asserting that abbesses and bishops have the same authority.

Again, with the exception of the sacraments, abbesses DID have authority equal to bishops. Please note the following quote:

**The Catholic Encyclopedia **by Charles George Herbermann, Charles Herbermann G., Edward A. Pace

"In medieval times the Abbesses of the larger and mre important houses were not uncommonly women of great power and distinction, whose authority and influence rivalled, at times, that of the most venerated bishops and abbots. In Saxon England ‘they had often the retinue and state of princessess. Especially when they came of royal blood. They treated with kings, bishops, and the greatest lords on terms of perfect equality; . . . they were present at all great religious and national solemnities, at the dedication of churches, and even, like the queens, took part in the deliberations of the national assemblies, and affixed their signatures to the charters therein granted.’ (Montalember, ‘The Monks of the West,’ Bk. IV.) They appeared also at Church councils in the midst of the bishops and abbots and priests, as did the Abbess Hilda at the Synod of Whitby in 664, and the Abbess Elfleda, who succeeded her, at that of the River Nith in 705. Five Abbesses were present at the Council of Becanfield in 694, where they signed the decrees before the presbyters.”

 

[CentralFLJames]

I am ignoring the ad hominiums and invite you to check your own arrogance in at the coat and hat desk on future exchanges…

Of course there are differences…

but none of this means they are any less qualified for any other role in the world should they show a passion and ability to meet the requirements. An individual can only gain from exposure to strong members of all diversities distributed throughout all segments of society.

Bravo - at least you admit that unisex concepts are not universally valid and there are real differences.

But its a non-sequitur to project out of mere secular philosophy that gender is irrelevant to the qualifications. You don’t know what the qualifications are and can’t know since you don’t even believe in God so you reject that His image has both a masculine and feminine aspect and the two while different are complimentary and essential and fitting to God. Who are you as a Godless unbeliever to tell us what God’s requirements are? And you called me arrogant?

It also does not logically follow that a person can only gain by exposure to strong members of a large plurality of diversities. You are just spewing popular secularist jingoistic dogma here in a domain that you have yet to prove applies. Jesus was a Jew - who gave His best lesson through being weak and humble in His willingness to die for us. Where is the diversity and strength in that lesson?

If you are wanting to be in the pontification business you might first try to get some orthodox thoughts that actually scale and project from a rational basis and produce rational outcomes. Your conjectures are cross-wired temporal artifacts of current secular philosophies that will be replaced with something else over time as society does all human precepts…

…reject all you like, but as the world is, there are women who show strong passion and ability for leadership positions - spiritually, politically, scientifically, ad nauseum. Reality: 1, Fundie: 0

No one appointed you score keeper my friend and no one here is denying that woman can not be strong leaders nor are wanting for passion of various kinds. Some men rather enjoy the companionship of a strong and passionate leading lady.

“As the world is” - in case you have not observed the world is in utter social, moral and economic chaos at the moment so why hold up current state of affairs as a shiny standard? It’s not helpful to woman’s causes to put that blame on their shoulders…

How simple do you honestly think we(atheists) are? If we really believed everything that was ever to happen is a defined course of predestiny with no choice in the matter, we wouldn’t even bother to live, let alone argue with you, because regardless of our involvement, you would remain as you are, and us as we are - conversation==NULL.

You don’t really want to know how simple minded I think you atheists are - let’s not go there for now. But do tell the wisdom of betting one’s life on an empty pot that if you are right in your assurances of eventual oblivion you can win nothing but if you are wrong you lose infinitely. Please review what is called Pascal’s Wager for details…

Let me also point out that in the objective “concept” predestiny that Atheists can entertain at least as a theory for academic consideration that without God you can not conceive of the possibility that God’s Divine Plan ALREADY takes into every consideration YOUR PERSONAL choices. A benevolent and Just God actually wants you to co-participate in electing your own destiny as an expression of freewill so you may also choose to love Him (rather than Him forcing you to). So in essence you are playing out all your decisions that God has already foreseen but He permits it without prejudice to your final outcome and gives each person all the grace sufficient to choose eternity with Him if one accepts that choice. Why not change your destiny and and choose an eternity with God rather than choose a destiny of a hope for oblivion that must also risk an eternity suffering your own bad decisions?

But, to the topic, there is no absolute equality in ‘atheist-land’ either. People are judged for a role, not on their race, ethnicity, background, gender, or faith, but on their ability to perform the task. One specimen succeeds via h(er|is) decisions and prowess, another fails for the same reasons. But in society and general discourse, there is no fundamental difference in intellect or ‘spiritual’ nature - everyone is unique.

Good. I would expect that some of the good Christian virtues and morality to have shaped the domain that atheists live in - that was not always the case prior to Christ.

I agree each is unique and there is a notion of a base class of common human nature. But it would be unusual and contradictory for an atheist to admit that includes a spiritual nature. Are you sure you are an orthodox atheist or are you role playing here?

True…poor leader…but it’s not your faith that invalidates you. Atheists have beliefs about things too…we just don’t claim them as true and/or absolute because we know it’s not a defensible position. They’re insanely more probable than the alternative, though.

What is insanity is an atheist claiming you atheists do not believe in absolutes while absolutely asserting there is no God. Why bet on an assumption of an empty pot rather than bet on a hope for an infinite pot? And more to the OP - why give advise in spiritual matters when an atheist does not permit a spiritual consideration?

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[from prior]

Why is faith a pre-requisite for being a spiritual leader? Why is you view of spiritual identity so narrow?

Faith has been the cornerstone of Jewish and Christian spirituality for over 4,000 years.
Don’t you think it’s a rational and good assumption to suppose that a good leader is somone who actually shares the same beliefs? Why would anyone follow a person no one had any faith in and would accept choices that are not characteristic of the common belief? Would you follow a homosexual’s lead in how to pick up “hot chicks” or a conservative’s ideas about how to be a liberal? If so be prepared to bend over to things you might not otherwise accept or be asked to go to hell.

Because I once was catholic and it was always one of my largest contentions. I’m not saying that there isn’t a difference in the type of leadership they will be offering - many women would feel more comfortable going to a priestess about certain womanly problems. But I am saying that there is not inherently a difference in the type of leadership they CAN offer.

So you admit you are no longer qualified to give advice in this matter? What you are best qualified for is what you are experience at. And at this moment that is on advising one how to turn your back on what one used to believe in and run away from it. I suggest that is your only area of current competence that you have demonstrated thus far.

If comfort and platitudes were the main objective of Catholicism we would adapt one of the false neo-Christian doctrines like OSAS where one can “feel” comfortable imagining that they can do anything they want and not lose their salvation since they become exempt from sin (not kidding - some denominations actually believe that). Catholic woman can in many parishes already feel “comfortable” talking to a female lay spiritual advisor before she confesses her sins. The Church really has a quite a talented lay ministry now that helps in bereavement, sickness, counseling etc. But only men are qualified to be apostolic priests or deacons. That is not a thing the church decided on its own - it was what was handed down to us by Christ himself. Take it up with God if you ever get around to believing in Him. If somone does not want to conform to Catholic teaching they are free to go do what 30,000 Protestants sects have done and go invent their own Church with their own rules and go start “yet another” Protestant branch to protest the Catholic faith (for what good it will do them). But Catholics are not open to changing our 2,000 year old tradition that was called in apostolic times “The Way”. We have “The Way, The Truth and The Light” already - Catholicism.

Arrogant, arrogant, arrogant…separate but equal. Wow…great argument. A direct assertion of superiority…any REAL backing?

Not seperate by any means. We all come together daily (but mostly Sunday) both men and women alike with our priests to celebrate mass. We each have a role to play. YOU are the one is is associating a context of “superiority” around the priesthood - NOT Catholics. How dare you project your chauvinistically narrow standards and ideas on us. You won’t find men complaining that just because our priests take a vow of celibacy and go to seminary school that they are superior to us. We are all equal in our common struggle to cooperate with grace to overcome the world. Would you call your college professor or your doctor your superior or would you call them your advisors and helpers?

It was the militant feminists who associated “power” and dominance where there was none. This is a false argument and a false dichotomy. To have a revolution somone always has to manufacture a victim class. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT SATAN DID IN THE GARDEN. You sound just like him - “God does not want you to be His equal - so eat the forbidden fruit and you will be just like Him knowing good and evil”. I suppose you think that only priests get to heaven?

Thy thinkest thou doth protest too much…Have you never met a woman doctor? Have you also known a man doctor? How about a woman construction worker? And a man construction worker? It seems no matter where you look in the world, there are women and men doing the same jobs all over the place - sharing workplaces, cooperating, not practicing some bronze-age brand of chauvinism veiled in divinity - and they do the job well. I also happen to know amazing female pastors and church leaders, as well as some male ones that aren’t worth shite on a good day.

Not just opinionated, but perceptive, too - oooooo-aaaahhhh!!!

Have you ever met a male mother or tried to make one a mother?

Speaking of ubiquitous phenomena – false dichotomies and faux intellectualism abound these days. You sound like a man very much in touch with his inner beitch or are you a woman hitting from the other direction?

Your error is imagining that the priesthood is a career path and a job just like other jobs. Pardon me if all this fawning attention to the poor downtrodden females does not come across as the typical liberal-effeminate man trying to win the esteem and attention of a woman or else a woman who hates men trying to paint all men a bronze age brutes.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Drat, I missed an edit in my prior post before the edit window timed out. I accidentally attributed to you a quote I made. Let me restate it here.

I am ignoring your spurious and disordered ad hominems and invite you to check your own arrogance in at the coat and hat desk on future exchanges

:tsktsk:

James

 

[spectrm]

Bravo - at least you admit that unisex concepts are not universally valid and there are real differences……Who are you as a Godless unbeliever to tell us what God’s requirements are? And you called me arrogant?

Who are you to claim the only answer that god has? There are thousands of religions and even millions more variations of thought like mine - all with an absolute truth. You ARE arrogant if you truly believe all other ideas should bow to yours.

It also does not logically follow that a person can only gain by exposure to strong members……Jesus was a Jew - who gave His best lesson through being weak and humble in His willingness to die for us. Where is the diversity and strength in that lesson?

The story was written by Jews for Jews…no big surprise he’s a Jew. It DOES take amazing strength (or blaring stupidity…but I don’t believe he was stupid) to die for something you believe in and to take responsibility for your crimes, real or imagined. His list of followers was rather diverse, however. And he claimed to speak for the masses, poor, sick, downtrodden, the dregs of society. Unless, of course, the entirety of my coursework at CCD was complete BS and didn’t reflect the churches teachings.

If you are wanting to be in the pontification business you might first try to get some orthodox thoughts that actually scale and project from a rational basis and produce rational outcomes.

You want me to pontificate orthodoxy when you follow a Jew who pontificated something unorthodox? Adjust your confusion, please. YOU are not being rational. My thoughts scale just fine.

Your conjectures are cross-wired temporal artifacts of current secular philosophies that will be replaced with something else over time as society does all human precepts…

You’re absolutely right - but mine is the iterative improvement…yours the bronze-age “version 1.0”

“As the world is” - in case you have not observed the world is in utter social, moral and economic chaos at the moment so why hold up current state of affairs as a shiny standard? It’s not helpful to woman’s causes to put that blame on their shoulders…

I didn’t blame a thing on them. And the world has always been in utter social, moral, and economic chaos. There’s no such thing as a ‘golden era’. Your Bible is fraught with death, carnage, sadness, punishment - so is the world’s history in my eyes. The modern world IS a shining example of what the world has always been. It’s a wonder we’ve kept it under control even as well as we have, quite frankly.

You don’t really want to know how simple minded I think you atheists are

It’s very saddening to me to hear this kind of bigotry. I hope one day you’ll recognize that you’re not really the superior thing you think you are and you feel guilt for how you’ve treated others.

• let’s not go there for now.

good idea.

But do tell the wisdom of betting one’s life on an empty pot that if you are right in your assurances of eventual oblivion you can win nothing but if you are wrong you lose infinitely. Please review what is called Pascal’s Wager for details…

1. belief in god simply because of Pascal’s Wager will fail ‘god’s stress test’.
2. your arrogance is reflected in your presumption I’d have to read the proof - I’ve done this a few times before

Let me also point out that in the objective “concept” predestiny that Atheists can entertain at least as a theory for academic consideration……

1. see (1)
2. please dissuade yourself from attempts to proselytize me.

Good. I would expect that some of the good Christian virtues and morality to have shaped the domain that atheists live in - that was not always the case prior to Christ.

Hmm…don’t see how that’s directly christian…before the hebrews conquered the goddess cultures, there was a large amount of gender equality. The Jews put an end to that.

I agree each is unique and there is a notion of a base class of common human nature. But it would be unusual and contradictory for an atheist to admit that includes a spiritual nature. Are you sure you are an orthodox atheist or are you role playing here?

That’s why it was in quotes.

What is insanity is an atheist claiming you atheists do not believe in absolutes while absolutely asserting there is no God. Why bet on an assumption of an empty pot rather than bet on a hope for an infinite pot? And more to the OP - why give advise in spiritual matters when an atheist does not permit a spiritual consideration?

I haven’t asserted there is no god. I merely see no reason to believe there is one. I’ve said that numerous times, you might try reading. And, as explained before as well, ‘spiritual’ is no always ethereal in nature. We all have energies. ‘Spiritual’ training could be (and I practice it as such) is the harvesting of good energies from the self.