While eye color is not, age and skin color are also considered “profoundly determinative characteristics of human identity” (though not necessarily as important as sex) yet these characteristics are not thought to matter less but rather not one bit.Again, that’s a reasonable argument. I think it might be misleading to talk about “the only physical characteristic that is considered at all important” though - that seems different from what I said. The other traits seem to really just be physical characteristics. That is not the case with sex. Sex is not just an important physical characteristic - agree? That was why I said, “eye color, height, handedness, portliness, and visual acuity are far less profoundly determinative characteristics of human identity than sex,” rather than, say, “eye color, height, handedness, portliness, and visual acuity are far less important physical characteristics than sex.”
So you are against choice and freedom itself.Yes. Yes I do. Let me put it this way. I tell you the answer to a problem by giving you instructions on how to solve it. After solving it to your satisfaction, you tell me you have an idea about doing something else. You tell me it will be fun and increase my freedom and there will be no consequences. I then point out why it would be wrong to do.
However, I am not here to force you to do this.
Peace,
Ed
This isn’t about my worldview. I lived in a society where the people around me made, and encouraged others to make, good choices. Choice never meant - do anything. Actions always have consequences and our parents always advised us to stay away from potential sources of trouble.So you are against choice and freedom itself.
I wonder if you have really thought about what it would mean if someone created a society based on your world views.
No it does not.This isn’t about my worldview. I lived in a society where the people around me made, and encouraged others to make, good choices. Choice never meant - do anything. Actions always have consequences and our parents always advised us to stay away from potential sources of trouble.
Choice is never unlimited, because bad and wrong choices can be made.
Freedom is never unlimited, once again because bad choices can be made.
Freedom means freedom to do the good.
Peace,
Ed
Are you reading your own writing? Why would you, for example, make a choice you know is wrong? As a kid, I made bad choices sometimes but I was corrected for it.No it does not.
The idea that freedom is having the ability to do what you ought to do (and nothing else) is a corruption of the word and concept. Freedom without choices is like having water without liquid.
You do not seem to believe in limited freedom Ed, you seem to believe in a counterfeit freedom.
Like the kind of ‘freedom’ people have today in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that people had in the Soviet Union when it was still around. Something that is called freedom, but is really just tyranny.
I believe in limited freedom Ed, because absolute freedom always inevitably leads to anarchy and then no freedom for everyone. But for freedom to be real people MUST be able to make choices, even if there the wrong ones sometimes.
That is not the point.Are you reading your own writing? Why would you, for example, make a choice you know is wrong? As a kid, I made bad choices sometimes but I was corrected for it.
When you plant a sapling, you may need to correct it if it begins to grow away from the vertical. You may have to put on a ring and a line tied to a stake in the ground to make sure it grows up straight.
Peace,
Ed
No, I get that. Le me put it this way. You want to do something and based on say, 100 different things you’ve heard about it, for and against, you decide to do it because you think it’s OK at the time. I understand. I’ve done that too.That is not the point.
People usually assume that their right. If someone chooses something its generally because they think its the right decision (at least at the time).
This is about letting OTHER PEOPLE make decisions, even when you think that they are making the wrong one. You seem to be advocating against that.
Of course they can - and must!So you are saying that people can morally disobey the Catholic Church if it tells them to do something immoral?
I disagree that skin color is a profoundly determinative characteristic of human identity (which is not to say that because of particular historical circumstances it isn’t often profoundly determinative of human destinies). Why would you say this?While eye color is not, age and skin color are also considered “profoundly determinative characteristics of human identity” (though not necessarily as important as sex) yet these characteristics are not thought to matter less but rather not one bit.
Why should this seem strange? Only because we think it strange. It once was viewed as odd if not offensive for women to be lawyers, doctors, CEOs of major companies, members of Congress, governors, yes even voters! Women were restricted to few more occupations than school teachers, nurses, and secretaries. The world has changed. And the Church needs to catch up.
Jesus had faithful women followers, as those who gathered at the cross and went to the tomb early Sunday morning. Christ lived in a patriarchal age - well, all ages have been patriarchal, and only in recent times has this begun to change. If he were walking among us in the flesh today, I am confident that women would be among his inner circle.
It's a matter of adjustment. Protestants didn't have women ministers for centuries, but now there are thousands of them, including Bishops. While certain denominations (e. g., Southern Baptists) still wrestle with the issue, mainline Protestants have adjusted well.Women were always in the inner circle, and always will be. But they were not priests. It’s a matter of ontology, not ability. Women and men are not interchangeable.I haven’t read all the postings, so this probably has been stated already. Women want to be priests for the same reasons that men do. They want to serve God. They want to lead congregations, preach homilies, perform the sacraments, baptize precious babies, marry couples, etc.
Code:Why should this seem strange? Only because we think it strange. It once was viewed as odd if not offensive for women to be lawyers, doctors, CEOs of major companies, members of Congress, governors, yes even voters! Women were restricted to few more occupations than school teachers, nurses, and secretaries. The world has changed. And the Church needs to catch up. Jesus had faithful women followers, as those who gathered at the cross and went to the tomb early Sunday morning. Christ lived in a patriarchal age - well, all ages have been patriarchal, and only in recent times has this begun to change. If he were walking among us in the flesh today, I am confident that women would be among his inner circle. It's a matter of adjustment. Protestants didn't have women ministers for centuries, but now there are thousands of them, including Bishops. While certain denominations (e. g., Southern Baptists) still wrestle with the issue, mainline Protestants have adjusted well.
Right… and more importantly, they often want to promote a radically anti-Christian feminist agenda.I haven’t read all the postings, so this probably has been stated already. Women want to be priests for the same reasons that men do. They want to serve God. They want to lead congregations, preach homilies, perform the sacraments, baptize precious babies, marry couples, etc.
We only think it strange insofar as we are unaware that the Church has enemies within and always will.Code:Why should this seem strange? Only because we think it strange. It once was viewed as odd if not offensive for women to be lawyers, doctors, CEOs of major companies, members of Congress, governors, yes even voters! Women were restricted to few more occupations than school teachers, nurses, and secretaries. The world has changed. And the Church needs to catch up.
Who could doubt this?Code:Jesus had faithful women followers, as those who gathered at the cross and went to the tomb early Sunday morning. Christ lived in a patriarchal age - well, all ages have been patriarchal, and only in recent times has this begun to change. If he were walking among us in the flesh today, I am confident that women would be among his inner circle.
From what I understand, the groups that have conformed to the thinking of the world on this matter are not thriving. Their numbers have dropped drastically and they have very little appeal for the next generation. They have not adjusted well at all. Have you considered the possibility that the Church is supposed to be leaven for the world, rather than vice versa?Code:It's a matter of adjustment. Protestants didn't have women ministers for centuries, but now there are thousands of them, including Bishops. While certain denominations (e. g., Southern Baptists) still wrestle with the issue, mainline Protestants have adjusted well.
Right… and more importantly, they often want to promote a radically anti-Christian feminist agenda.
What!!! What kind of world do you live in?!! I pity those plucky, pioneering ladies; they must feel like the suffragettes. (Do you think the suffragettes were wrong? Someone on this thread would probably have had them ‘spanked’ )
Well, I’ve struggled to think of a polite reply to this one…but it’s difficult… I’ve heard more banging on about feminism on this site than I have anywhere else for a long time.
Seems that you folk imagine that anything you believe and agree with comes from God, and anything you don’t, comes from your devil himself.
You make me want to go burn my bra…but it’s too cold today…
of course it has to do with “historical circumstances.” how would you ever propose to subtract the issue of historical circumstances from questions of personal identity?I disagree that skin color is a profoundly determinative characteristic of human identity (which is not to say that because of particular historical circumstances it isn’t often profoundly determinative of human destinies). Why would you say this?
I’m quite certain that we don’t all know why women can’t be priests.I think we all know why women can’t be priests.
What are you referring to?Women don/t have authority like a man does and the bible makes that loud and clear through the whole book.
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’?Thats right, men triumph most of the time anyways and I’m pretty sure everyday life is a great example of that. You see it all the time. And all through history.
Certainly it’s a good idea not to blame Jesus for anything…I don’t blame jesus for coming back as man rather than woman. He had lots more rights and people were more likely to listen to him anyways.
What grounds do you have for making this claim?Unfortunately most sexism has been stemmed from religions themselves.
the fact that you view feminism as anti-christian is very telling. feminism is just anti-sexism, and to oppose it amounts to sexism.Right… and more importantly, they often want to promote a radically anti-Christian feminist agenda.
You’ve got it wrong: I’m abstracting, not subtracting, and its human identity, modes of identity which apply to all of us, not personal identity, modes of identity applied to particular individuals.of course it has to do with “historical circumstances.” how would you ever propose to subtract the issue of historical circumstances from questions of personal identity?
Based on your comments here, it seems you may know very little about feminism so I will inform you now: feminism is not all just feminism. Feminism embraces a wide range of views and you must be very naive about either feminism or Christianity if you really wish to deny the existence of such a thing as a “radically anti-Christian feminist agenda.” Your claim that feminism is “just anti-sexism” is way too simplistic.the fact that you view feminism as anti-christian is very telling. feminism is just anti-sexism, and to oppose it amounts to sexism.
that is what i believe is at the heart of the issue of women in the priesthood. i have found the arguments presented in this thread to be completely unpersuasive.
no one has given a coherent argument in favor of the catholic view that all women are unfit to be priests, so i continue to see it as a nothing other than sexism.