Why Do Women Even Want To Be Priests?

[AngryAtheist8]

I see your point about fear of criticizing Muslims because they “might react violently.” It shows that Westerners are wimps. ( I’m thinking that Muslims would probably feel insulted but would have no counter-argument.)

Getting back to the topic . . . most women don’t care about being priests, but the liberal media side with any Leftist cause and propagate it.

If your preferred response is violence whenever someone criticizes or disagrees with you then you are a thug. Regardless of whatever your religious faith may be.

Violent Muslims are feared in the West, not respected.
I realize the difference may be lost on you.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Please stop the nonsense. Especially part 2. All you’re doing is projecting a radical feminist worldview on the Church. Pope John Paul II clearly stated that the Church has no authority to ordain women. Got that? No authority. And this was the Pope talking. Do you think he meant the fictional guys in the three piece suits in the Vatican back room? Honestly. Please get it straight.

Peace,
Ed

Its not my fault your not really listening to the folks on your own side Ed.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Of course when you go to a country that has more traditional values in the roles of men and women. Like Armenia. You will notice a much more grounded functionality within marriages and an below 10% divorce rate…

Or Saudi Arabia, then there’s Iran, pre-invasion Afghanistan, etc.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Hey everyone, since someone having authority makes the other person as non-equal. Lets all go protest the president of the US and our bosses in our jobs!! Lets throw out all CEOs of companies and the police system.

go on larkin, since the president has highest authority of all why don’t you go to DC and start protesting him. I’ll even send you a sign.

wonderful system you have here larkin, lol…

They did not inherent those positions thanks to being male and having the right father. Moreover, there are limits on their authority. Most importantly ordinary men (AND women) can work towards gaining those positions of authority themselves.

I realize this is a radical concept to you PeterKeys but there is a difference between having limits on your authority and having no authority. That there is a distinction between having limited freedom and no freedom.

That there is a difference between women sharing authority with men and not having any authority anywhere (except over children).

Why can’t authoritarians like you understand the difference between coerced obedience and virtue?
Between fear and respect?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry

*Feminism by and large has not created injustices against women. It has merely highlighted them. *

Ironically, it has exacerbated them. When women insist on being treated exactly as men, they will get what they insist upon. Men no longer treat women with the same courtesy they used to extend because women have become their competitors more than anything else. In the workplace men resent women bosses to a great extent. This is largely because men and women do not think the same way, and there is bound to be a clash of mentalities based on sexual identity if nothing else. How many executive women have abused male underlings in the work place? Does this create respect for women, or resentment, the same resentment feminists used to express before the feminists came into power.

Is Nancy Pelosi beloved by her colleagues and the American people? How can you admire someone who insists that “to find out what is in the bill you first have to vote for it”? What kind of a power-mad strategy is that? Is that a remark any self-respecting male would have made as Speaker of the House, or is it the remark of a power mad woman who cares not a fig for how shameful her logic appears to the vast majority of Americans? Pelosi has single handedly shown what trouble we will be in if more irrational and power hungry women take over the country. It is a blessing that the American people see through her insanity and have ended her days as Speaker of the House.

There is no doubt in my mind that the same kind of women would like to be bishops and popes in the future Catholic Church. The first item on their agenda would be to declare Paul’s teaching on homosexuality null and void. The second item on their agenda will be to require affirmative action for the selection of priests and bishops. The third item on their agenda will be to demand as many female cardinals as male. The fourth item on their agenda will be to create more female cardinals than males. The fifth item on their agenda will be to make sure all future popes are female. The last item on their agenda will be to turn the Catholic Church into a New Age religion.

Lots of luck, girls!

 

[karbear]

You are refusing to address any of my main points so I will ask you directly.

Do you think that men and women should enjoy the same legal privileges and protections?
Do you think that women and men should have the same rights to housing, employment, and finance?
And do you think that a man should be able to order his wife around like an absolute monarch commands this subjects?

Because based on what you have said for the last couple of pages you appear to be arguing in favor of legal discrimination against women. As well as a man’s (and possibly all men’s) absolute authority over his wife and daughters. An authority only limited by the man’s conscience (and possibly the Church).

I was directly addressing them, just not in the way you wanted.

Same legal priledges and protections…

Right to Life, Liberty, persuit of happiness, you bet. Right to force privately owned institutions to become coed so that I can have the same privledges, no…that would be trampling on their rights. Taking away the rights of a family business to freedom of association so that no one will gender discriminate, no. Privledge to carry an m16 in Iraq, not really (this is actually a case where women used to have privledges that men didn’t have and didn’t ever see them complaining that they wanted the same rights of exemption). Legal protections against theft, personal harm…of course. Ability to own property, buy, sell…of course. There is absolutely no value in making a blanket statement about this. Bottom line is, I don’t want any rights which are obtained by trampling on the rights of others. And, if you must know, my personal preference would also be to not throw out the privledges that women used to enjoy in exchange for the traditional manly privledges…I just don’t see a net gain in privledge for women here.

I don’t know about the monarch analogy because I really don’t know enough about that political system. Would I personally chose to give my husband’s decisions respect even if I thought he was wrong, yes. Should a woman be a subject under law and therefore have 3/4 personhood or something like that, no. Does she need to have (equal=same) privedges to secure her human rights, no.

If you are just trying to take advantage of my sincerity and lack of education in philosophy and theology to trap me into saying something stupid so that you can feel superior, please stop. I have a huge project due and am taking time to do this because I trusted your sincerity.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Angry

*Feminism by and large has not created injustices against women. It has merely highlighted them. *

Ironically, it has exacerbated them. When women insist on being treated exactly as men, they will get what they insist upon. Men no longer treat women with the same courtesy they used to extend because women have become their competitors more than anything else. In the workplace men resent women bosses to a great extent. This is largely because men and women do not think the same way, and there is bound to be a clash of mentalities based on sexual identity if nothing else. How many executive women have abused male underlings in the work place? Does this create respect for women, or resentment, the same resentment feminists used to express before the feminists came into power.

Is Nancy Pelosi beloved by her colleagues and the American people? How can you admire someone who insists that “to find out what is in the bill you first have to vote for it”? What kind of a power-mad strategy is that? Is that a remark any self-respecting male would have made as Speaker of the House, or is it the remark of a power mad woman who cares not a fig for how shameful her logic appears to the vast majority of Americans? Pelosi has single handedly shown what trouble we will be in if more irrational and power hungry women take over the country. It is a blessing that the American people see through her insanity and have ended her days as Speaker of the House.

There is no doubt in my mind that the same kind of women would like to be bishops and popes in the future Catholic Church. The first item on their agenda would be to declare Paul’s teaching on homosexuality null and void. The second item on their agenda will be to require affirmative action for the selection of priests and bishops. The third item on their agenda will be to demand as many female cardinals as male. The fourth item on their agenda will be to create more female cardinals than males. The fifth item on their agenda will be to make sure all future popes are female. The last item on their agenda will be to turn the Catholic Church into a New Age religion.

Lots of luck, girls!

If you truly believe that men cannot be as irrational, shameless, and power-hungry as any woman (and vice versa) you don’t understand men or women.

OF COURSE a man might do the things you describe Nancy Pelosi as doing in her position. If you want to know about really irrational unreasonable behavior in the United States Congress study the lead up to the Civil War. What Pelosi is doing now is tame compared to some of the stuff that Southern senators pulled.

And of course men resent their female bosses sometimes. Just as they resent their male bosses, and women quite often dislike their male bosses. What kind of sheltered environment would you have to live in to NOT notice this?

If women are to be equal in any meaningful way THEY MUST be competitors with men sometimes. So that they can compete for jobs, awards, recognition, etc.

If women cannot really participate in business, politics, and public life then THEY are inferior in a very real way (even if its just status wise). Regardless of the theological reasoning behind it.

 

[Betterave]

If you are just trying to take advantage of my sincerity and lack of education in philosophy and theology to trap me into saying something stupid so that you can feel superior, please stop. I have a huge project due and am taking time to do this because I trusted your sincerity.

LOL! Now that is a comment with an awful lot of intellectual charity built into it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

If you are just trying to take advantage of my sincerity and lack of education in philosophy and theology to trap me into saying something stupid so that you can feel superior, please stop. I have a huge project due and am taking time to do this because I trusted your sincerity.

If you don’t want to debate then don’t post (at least to argue with someone).

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Betterave
I’m quite certain that we don’t all know why women can’t be priests.

What are you referring to?

The bible talks about how no women should ever preach to a crowd of men, or how she must learn in quietness and how the men has authority over her. Its all over the bible. [Is it really?? Or are you exaggerating?] That does not mean women do not have power in anything, because they do, but the bible also talks about how men ‘seem’ to have authority over her. And if that isn’t true then there is no reason a woman cannot become a priest. But she can’t because its not in a womans ‘nature’ or so people seem to claim. And history can show us that its true.

Still, your claim was: “the bible makes that loud and clear through the whole book.” So what makes you think that specific claim is true?

Again, what are you referring to? Are you saying you don’t also see women triumph all the time? What do you mean by ‘triumph’?

Most of the worlds greatest inventions were made by man. Most of the worlds biggest wars were won and made by man. Men are physically stronger, and all trough history men have seen to triumph women. I’m not saying women have done nothing, but through history I think its a bit obvious of guys strengths over women.

This is so simplistic… Do you think that women don’t ‘triumph’ too when their menfolk are victorious or invent something? Maybe you should ask some military wives about that. You seem to have a ridiculously cynical either/or, zero-sum model.

Certainly it’s a good idea not to blame Jesus for anything…

Well, it was a sarcastic comment… but it does have truth over it. take a look at my first comment. You really think back in the day a woman had a better chance of trying to tell everybody shes god over a man? or trying to get people to obey her rules over a man saying that?

I think God is omnipotent, and a female incarnation of God wouldn’t be any less so than Jesus. In any case, we believe that God became incarnate at a chosen moment in history. He could have waited until feminism had reigned supreme, then come as a woman, but apparently this was never part of the plan.

What grounds do you have for making this claim?
Are you kidding me? Take a look at history. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you.

Are you kidding me? Here’s your claim: “Unfortunately most sexism has been stemmed from religions themselves.” If you really think you shouldn’t have to explain this, it’s probably a waste of my time trying to discuss anything with you in a reasonable way.

 

[Betterave]

If you are just trying to take advantage of my sincerity and lack of education in philosophy and theology to trap me into saying something stupid so that you can feel superior, please stop. I have a huge project due and am taking time to do this because I trusted your sincerity.

I think one difference between you and some others here is that you actually care about saying something stupid and are sincerely trying not to. Keep it up.

 

[Betterave]

They did not inherent those positions thanks to being male and having the right father. Moreover, there are limits on their authority. Most importantly ordinary men (AND women) can work towards gaining those positions of authority themselves. *[Regardless of the system, holders of authority not only can but obviously must work towards gaining (responsibly appropriating) their positions of authority.]

I realize this is a radical concept to you PeterKeys but there is a difference between having limits on your authority and having no authority. That there is a distinction between having limited freedom and no freedom. [Oh really? So what’s the difference?? ]

That there is a difference between women sharing authority with men and not having any authority anywhere (except over children). [Gee… Do ya really think so? ]

Why can’t authoritarians like you understand the difference between coerced obedience and virtue?
Between fear and respect? [Deep questions…deeply loaded that is.]

I’m guessing PeterKeys is bright enough to notice that you’re presenting a bunch of silly false dichotomies here… Am I right, Peter? (Sorry, I know that’s a loaded question.)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry
*
If you truly believe that men cannot be as irrational, shameless, and power-hungry as any woman (and vice versa) you don’t understand men or women.*

Hitler is an example of someone who was worse than Pelosi, for sure! A great deal of Hitler’s power came from his popularity with women. So much for the political astuteness of women.

However, we are looking for patterns of behavior, not individual instances. Pelosi, if she did not represent the pattern of female craving for power over men, certainly gives that impression. Of all the women the Democrats had to select from, why did they put her first and foremost as their leader? Because she was a good leader for the nation? “In order to find out what is in the bill, you first have to vote for it.” Has any male Speaker of the House ever said anything so absurdly arrogant? If you would like to counter with a comparable quote from any earlier male Speaker of the House, I’m all ears.

Pelosi is also in the habit of telling Catholics what the Catholic Church teaches on abortion … absolutely the opposite of what the bishops actually teach. More absurd arrogance. So apparently that is another policy we can expect to be promoted by female priests, bishops, and popes cut from the same cloth as the power craving Pelosis of the world?

It should have dawned upon you long ago that the Catholic Church is the oldest and most powerful living institution in the world. That was accomplished by a patriarchal priesthood. The Church has never stopped teaching what she taught from the start … regardless of what feminists and homosexuals would like to see happen in the very near future … and what they would fully expect to happen in the very near future if the Church were taken over by power craving women.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The following article shows that a German woman has been ordained a rabbi of the Liberal Jewish persuasion, the first to be so ordained since 1935.

dw-world.de/dw/article/0,6188567,00.html

Is it any accident that it is the Liberal Jews who ordained her who are also in favor of religiously approved homosexual unions in the synagogue?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Judaism

 

[larkin31]

faceroll… Jesus died for the sins of the world. ALL sin killed him. However it was by God that Jesus died because God provided the sacrifice! I seriously cannot believe you don’t know that

I can’t believe how much you so easily dismiss from the evidence of the Gospels?

because you say its so??

I am typing these lines; no one else.

You are like a little child whining because he wants to have the authority of parents or something. If you view authority in such a shallow, materialistic mindset then you already have started off on the wrong foot…

You’re resorting to ad hominem remarks. I have argued for no authority for myself whatsoever. You are becoming irrational here.

Oh please. Jesus instituted 12 male apostles, Jesus, being God, already knew what their actions were gonna be and what they were gonna do…

I never said otherwise. I have no idea what train of thought you are riding.

nope, just an example of a figure of pride and jealousy wanting someone else’s authority. Satan wanted to be on the “pulpit” in the big sense. Satan truly didn’t understand the issues of authority however, just like egalitarians do not. They view authority in a very materialistic and jealous sense…And that all stems back to pride and humility…

Sure, you just happened to pick “sodomites” as your example of pride. But it is not a “smear.” I consider this reply of yours in the chair next to the one labeled “bald lie.”

 

[edwest2]

If you truly believe that men cannot be as irrational, shameless, and power-hungry as any woman (and vice versa) you don’t understand men or women.

OF COURSE a man might do the things you describe Nancy Pelosi as doing in her position. If you want to know about really irrational unreasonable behavior in the United States Congress study the lead up to the Civil War. What Pelosi is doing now is tame compared to some of the stuff that Southern senators pulled.

And of course men resent their female bosses sometimes. Just as they resent their male bosses, and women quite often dislike their male bosses. What kind of sheltered environment would you have to live in to NOT notice this?

If women are to be equal in any meaningful way THEY MUST be competitors with men sometimes. So that they can compete for jobs, awards, recognition, etc.

If women cannot really participate in business, politics, and public life then THEY are inferior in a very real way (even if its just status wise). Regardless of the theological reasoning behind it.

You know this sounds like a story about a bunch of five year old boys who built a clubhouse and when the five year old girl comes by and wants to join, the boys say it’s boys only. So, instead of finding some little girls to play with, she goes running to the local radical feminist organization who teaches her Class Warfare 101.

Show me the rule or the book or any source for your THEY MUST comment.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thing is, nobody is ‘keeping women’ from participating. Catholicism is not all about ‘who can and can’t be a priest’ --Catholicism is about hearing the teachings of Christ and following them.

Women–and men–can be totally equal in their hearing of Christ’s teaching, and they can be totally equally in following Christ’s teaching. Absolutely.

So just how is God’s teaching (not the Church’s. If this were simply a ‘Church’ teaching or a cultural teaching, the Church would have authority to ‘change’, but the Church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women and the Church has said so, repeatedly) keeping women from participating equally in Catholicism?

I’m a woman. I don’t think that God is ‘discriminating against me’ as a woman or that, since the Church has no authority to ordain me or other women as priests that this keeps me–or other women–from participating equally in Catholicism. I don’t know why disobedience to God (who has the ‘right’ to choose anything He pleases from His creations) would be considered something that women–or men–should be looking toward as 'good!"

 

[larkin31]

Thing is, nobody is ‘keeping women’ from participating. Catholicism is not all about ‘who can and can’t be a priest’ --Catholicism is about hearing the teachings of Christ and following them.

Women–and men–can be totally equal in their hearing of Christ’s teaching, and they can be totally equally in following Christ’s teaching. Absolutely.

So just how is God’s teaching (not the Church’s. If this were simply a ‘Church’ teaching or a cultural teaching, the Church would have authority to ‘change’, but the Church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women and the Church has said so, repeatedly) keeping women from participating equally in Catholicism?

I’m a woman. I don’t think that God is ‘discriminating against me’ as a woman or that, since the Church has no authority to ordain me or other women as priests that this keeps me–or other women–from participating equally in Catholicism. I don’t know why disobedience to God (who has the ‘right’ to choose anything He pleases from His creations) would be considered something that women–or men–should be looking toward as 'good!"

When did God ever say this?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

When did God ever say this?

Oh, you mean that unless Jesus specifically said (red words in KJV) “and lo, thou shalt be sure to keep the priesthood for men, as lo it has always been, for I understandeth that unless ye coming Protestants seeth my words ‘written down’ in ye King James English that they will not believeth my teachings”, you aren’t going to believe that it is GOD who said only men can be validly ordained as priests in the Catholic Church?

Isn’t that a bit of a problem for you? I mean, in John 6 Jesus specifically said, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you” and yet y’all read those ‘red words’ and say, "Oh meh, He didn’t really mean those."

Seems like you’re a bit inconsistent if you insist that Jesus has to ‘say’ (something) before y’all will believe, but even when He DOES say something y’all still don’t believe it . . .

Tell y’all what though. Why don’t y’all show me where Jesus said, “Women as well as men may be ordained priests in the Catholic Church.”

You may also show me where God Scripturally proclaimed that anybody but a man could be a priest among His chosen people, the Jews. . .

And the Scripture which says that all teachings are to be found only in written Scripture. . .

And the Scripture which says that the Church has ‘no authority’ to ‘bind and loose’ and that what it binds and looses are not to be considered as God’s teachings.

Just to start.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Are you kidding me?

No, I’m not kidding you, and I meant what I said.