Should Women Priests be allowed? [Archive]

View Full Version : Should Women Priests be allowed?

Jackie Malfoy

12-02-03, 03:56 PM

I thought I would ask this and see what eveyone's said on this, ok do you think that woman should become prist?My friend who is a christen told me that there is author girl's at her church and even if they do that they would never become like the author boy and become a prist because it is not allowed!
Do you argree with this?What are your views?
See you around!JM :cool:

sunfrog

12-02-03, 05:28 PM

I don't see why not. But if women are smarter than men, why would they want a life of no sex? Only a dummy would agree to that. Lol :D

Golgot

12-02-03, 05:44 PM

:rotfl:

Stick to the subject sunshine ;) I thought we agreed transexuals were the brainiest anyway ;)

Caitlyn

12-02-03, 07:09 PM

Only a dummy would agree to that. Lol :D

And many men have already agreed to this why… ;D

Personally I think women should be allowed to become a Priest if they want to be... the Presbyterians, Methodist, and even the Church of England have all concluded women should be allowed in the Clergy, but I won’t hold my breath for the Roman Catholic Church to come to that same conclusion. The last time I read anything about this, the Catholic Church was extremely opposed to idea…

blibblobblib

12-02-03, 10:46 PM

What in the holy helmet is Prist? Is it like a Priest but a woman?

Revenge of Mr M

12-03-03, 06:12 AM

Wow, I'm ten years senior to you Jackie Malfoy! I feel old :(

I don't see any reason why women shouldn't become priests. I certainly think it somewhat unfair that altar boys can become priests but altar girls can't. I think.

Golgot

12-03-03, 11:56 AM

Caitlyn

12-03-03, 12:42 PM

So is it only the Catholic church that is digging its heels in on this one Cait? That and the condom policy are really daft IMO. I heard there's now a rebel-group of Catholics who are saying believers should use the pill - which i'm glad to hear, altho it doesn't solve the main thing that angers me, which is suppression of condom-use in africa, where the AIDS problem is just so ****ing rife. There was a recent story in New Scientist saying missionaries/priests in Africa were claiming condoms don't stop viruses, which is just downright untrue. It was a total bit of spin, and it's really not helping.

I just find a lot of that stuff so peculiar. The debate over homosexual priests has been interesting tho. It's nice to actually see debate, rather than outright dismissal/proclamation.

However, why do alllllll the churches seem to lag so far behind the rest of society? Or at least, that's my perception. It's not like any of these institutions look like moral-bastions, what with the wide-spread child-abuse allegations etc.

Sorry to spread the topic out, but i find religious institutions baffling ultimately (i think you can guess i'm being polite/restrained here ;)).

I don’t know if it is just the Catholic Church or not Golgot… with so many denominations, my guess is that they are not the only ones…

That really doesn’t surprise me that Missionaries/Priests are claiming condom use does not stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases… but I saw something on the news the other day about a woman (sorry, I don’t remember her name) from the US who has started a campaign to educate the people of Africa and China about Aids and condom use... so maybe if more people like her get involved, it will make a difference…

Golgot

12-03-03, 01:16 PM

I don’t know if it is just the Catholic Church or not Golgot… with so many denominations, my guess is that they are not the only ones…

That really doesn’t surprise me that Missionaries/Priests are claiming condom use does not stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases… but I saw something on the news the other day about a woman (sorry, I don’t remember her name) from the US who has started a campaign to educate the people of Africa and China about Aids and condom use... so maybe if more people like her get involved, it will make a difference…

Yeah, it's so hard to keep track of who believes in what (;)).

Cool, i hope she has some luck. There are plenty of people on the ground trying to spread the word, but it's hard enough to promote them without other people actively denouncing them and desuading institutions from giving out free ones etc. That's one of the major problems. (the Church was using pseudo-science as well in this latest case, possibly to convince all levels of society or to try and have a "scientific" reason for this belief - i.e. they pointed out that very small particals can slip through the latex, which is true - but the further claim that this permitted STDs to get through is demonstrably not true. And they also mis-represented safety-statistics. Shameful. :( )

sunfrog

12-03-03, 05:49 PM

Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html

The studies found that even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100% of those people who used latex condoms consistently and correctly remained uninfected.
http://www.aids.org/info/FAQs.html#condom

Check those Urls. FDA, Aids.org. Condoms are not 100% safe.

For Golgotti,
Those who consider condoms a panacea for Africa's AIDS epidemic ignore their track record and naively apply a U.S. solution to an African problem. In fact, the African countries with the highest levels of condom availability -- Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa and Kenya -- also have some of the highest HIV rates in the world
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20298-2003Nov28.html

Golgot

12-03-03, 08:13 PM

Never said they were 100% safe. But when you follow the guidelines on the packet the chances of SDT transferal is very small.

Didn't know that about the condom-to-aids correlation (erm, is it a US solution btw? :p ;)). Still, i understand the main problem is in education. Knocking them all the time just doesn't help is all. That's a good article tho - i see what he's saying - condoms are only really effective in high risk groups etc. Never thought about it like that before. Tho good luck trying to convince those bigger nations that they should all behave themselves and get involved in faithful marriages. It seems to me that the information dispersal and behaviour reinforcement needed to acheive that can happen more easily in a smaller nation.

Personally i think some sort of cranberry-sauce sex ritual could sort the problem out ;)

The Silver Bullet

12-03-03, 08:27 PM

Frankly, I think everyone should become a prist. Not that I know what a prist is. I'm assuming it means "clean person".

Golgot

12-03-03, 11:19 PM

Frankly, I think everyone should become a prist. Not that I know what a prist is. I'm assuming it means "clean person".

Only when you're in your teens. Ba-bum. Who wants to be the curly-haired straight guy we get to slap? (EDIT: wow, that comes across as kinky whichever way you look at it. So much for cleanliness :rolleyes: )

Herod

12-03-03, 11:23 PM

Is no one going to...
Because... and I mean...
I...

No personal attacks based on grammar, spelling, or sentence structure?
I feel so immature in comparison.

Golgot

12-03-03, 11:26 PM

She's only a little clean thing - but i'm sure silver could edit in what she meant to say ;) (oh i love ragging arsey australians, i so do)

jamesglewisf

12-07-03, 02:21 AM

Most denominations that still believe that the Bible is true do not believe that women should be priests. That belief is based upon the clear teaching of Scripture.

Basically, the Bible says that men are supposed to be the spiritual leaders of the family. Most women that I talk to wish their good-for-nothing-spiritually husbands would become a spiritual leader.

And BTW, the Bible doesn't talk about who is better qualifed to be the spiritual leader; it talks about who was appointed to be the spiritual leader. If you just went on qualifications rather than responsibility, it would usually be the woman. Perhaps God appointed men to be the spiritual leaders because he knew that instinctively we would avoid the responsibility.

Ultimately, someone has to be in charge of different issues. The only way this works is for one person to yield authority when there is a disagreement. My wife tells people she's glad that she's not the one with that responsibility because then I'm the one in trouble when the wrong decision is made.

Of course, if I am a good spiritual leader, I'm also supposed to love her as Christ loves her. I'm supposed to put her needs before mine. I'm supposed to listen to her. I'm supposed to be the kind of husband that she would want to follow spiritually.

It's why when you form a business, you should never do it on a 50-50 basis. One person should always have more stock, even if it is 50.1-49.9. That way there is someone who is responsible to make the decisions when there is a disagreement. I learned this little tid-bit listening to a legal call-in radio show where a judge dispensed advice on different matters.

Golgot

12-07-03, 10:22 AM

Well, judging from all the child-molestation problems in various Churches etc - i think the men could do with some moral guidance matey. Under the rationale you've presented outside of the bible confines (erm, i.e. stuff gleaned from radio chat shows etc) you'd obviously have no problem in theory with a woman taking on that spiritual responsability. But i understand that you give up ultimate authority for such decisions to the bible.

What makes me suspicious tho, is when a religious text tallies with an older form of social structure that has been successfully reinvented in other areas. That is to say: the overarching social idea of men as breadwinners and women as housecarers can (and should IMO) be reassessed - and has been. There are teething troubles, like women leaving it too late to have kids, but it's definitely the type of social experiment worth having in my opinion. (and try stopping women expressing their intelligence outside of the home ;)). Men can care for kids after the brest-feeding stage (i advocate not rushing to bottle feeding for health reasons on both sides). Women can do most any job a man can do (aside from the most physical - and would they want to? ;)). It seems a shame that biblical imperative doesn't allow this to take place in the church as well is all.

jamesglewisf

12-07-03, 01:33 PM

Again, a more complete knowledge of Scripture would solve this problem. The Bible doesn't teach that women are supposed to be stuck at home.
Proverbs 31:10-31
10 An excellent wife, who can find?
For her worth is far above jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good and not evil All the days of her life.
13 She looks for wool and flax,
And works with her hands in delight.
14 She is like merchant ships;
She brings her food from afar.
15 She rises also while it is still night,
And gives food to her household,
And portions to her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
From her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She girds herself with strength,
And makes her arms strong.
18 She senses that her gain is good;
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
And her hands grasp the spindle.
20 She extends her hand to the poor;
And she stretches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household,
For all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for herself;
Her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates,
When he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
And supplies belts to the tradesmen.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
And she smiles at the future.
26 She opens her mouth in wisdom,
And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household,
And does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and bless her;
Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:
29 "Many daughters have done nobly,
But you excel them all."
30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.
31 Give her the product of her hands,
And let her works praise her in the gates.This ideal woman buys property, grows a vineyard, sells goods, dispenses wisdom, brings praise to herself at the entrance to the city, brings praise to her husband for finding such a catch, takes care of the poor, etc. She is industrious and very hard-working. BTW, this is a proverb taught to King Lemuel by his mother.

Golgot

12-07-03, 01:55 PM

I didn't say they were house-bound. Just house-orientated. Notice how the context of all of these various activities centres around domestic issues. It's not about being stuck at home - it's about being tied to the domestic.

Could you justify "computer-programmer" for example under those definitions? (and in fact, would you be happy for your wife to become one if she had desire and ability, while you stayed at home, if that was the best arrangement for your marriage?).

She buys property
-well, not really. She buys a field - which, combined with the vineyard thing/the foraging idea of going out and finding food mentioned in the proverb, re-inforces the idea that her sphere is that of food and its provision only - not general trade.

She sells goods
Yes, she makes and sells clothes. Again, we're looking at a domestic based activity tied to providing for the family first and foremost we can infer (and perhaps even the perception of "looking good"/appearances etc). Would you feel the bible allows for a modern woman to sell cars for example?

I don't doubt that the bible makes sure the gender roles don't degenerate into a feeling of extreme superiority vs. inferiority, coz to be honest such a social system wouldn't survive. (people level the same accusation against Islam etc, altho most traditional muslim women form N.Africa i've met were happy with their uneducated but domestically-tied role). But the question of the spheres they define being legitmate, especially in the modern world, still remains. The way i see it, the above proverb allows for women to go out and shop. Wehey. Oh the liberation. At a push they could perhaps become a clothes designer - so long as they made sure there was food on the table at the end of the day :rolleyes: .

RoadRunner

12-09-03, 04:26 PM

Golgot, it seems like you just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.

Everything back then was house-oriented. It was 3,000 years ago!! Most people were either farmers or ranchers. They worked at home and lived off what they produced. There weren't factories or office buildings. Your business was at home.

You didn't go to the store and buy clothing unless you were extremely wealthy. You either bought the fabric and dye or you made it from your own livestock or plants. It specifically says that she makes linen garments and sells them. She supplies belts to the tradesmen. That is a business. She wasn't selling them to herself. She couldn't have been manufacturing computers because they didn't exist back then. You're acting like this is an all-inclusive list of things that a woman is allowed to do. It is a proverb that describes a hard working, family loving, praise-worthy woman who lived 3,000 years ago.

Buying a field is buying property. I don't know where you get off saying it isn't. The defition of property is: "1. Something owned; a possession. 2. A piece of real estate. It meets both of those definitions. It says that she buys a field, and from her earnings she plants a vineyard. She has a business, it is not just work for her household.

It might be that "the Bible makes sure the gender roles don't degenerate into a feeling of extreme superiority vs. inferiority" because doing so IS WRONG.

Your whole last paragraph is a horrible interpretation of that text. By your definition, if a man buys leather and makes it into a belt, then he is a manufacturer. But if a woman does it, she was just shopping??? If a man buys a field, earns money, and plants a vineyard; then he is farmer. If a woman does it than she is just making groceries? How can you possibly take that text, given that it was written before we really even had manufacturing and service industries, and call it demeaning toward women? If anything, it described a renaissance woman in her time.

I think all you've proven is that you want Christianity to suppress women, and when presented with evidence that it is not supposed to, you just choose to ignore it and/or twist a plain text into something that suits your own purposes.

There is nothing in the Bible that says who has to work at home and who has to work outside of the home. There is nothing in the Bible that says that the wife has to raise the kids and the husband can't. There is nothing in the Bible that prevents both the man and woman from working outside the home. You are making distinctions that do not exist. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you are a programmer, a Citigroup executive, an accountant, a car saleswoman, or a Mary Kay saleswoman. What matters is that provision for the family and caretaking of the family both occur. As long as that is discussed and agreed upon by the husband and wife, it doesn't matter what roles are taken.

Golgot

12-09-03, 06:40 PM

I'm glad you feel that way. I was just trying to understand how some Christians that believe every word of the bible is true do arrive at negative and overly-strict role definitions - and to check what james's take on it was.

That is all :p

(please note - my main problem with religious texts is that they allow people who believe they have arrived at Gods's/"the" truth thru interpretation of them to act negatively as well as positively. If interpreted in a "secular" way i believe they are marvellous examples of historical attempts to get the best out of humanity)

sunfrog

12-11-03, 04:52 PM

What negative things? So we went on a few crusades. Get over it. That was 10 centuries ago! Can't you just move on?

Golgot

12-11-03, 06:04 PM

Duh dumbdumb- you want modern examples? What about evangelicals etc who categorise all other religions as representations of the devil at work? What about people who do interpret the above sections of the bible as examples of strong domestic-only-roles for women? And comparable interpretations concerning gays? And those who decide that whatever morality they arrive at thru the bible etc is based on god's will/truth and therefore more valid than other moralities in general etc? (this type of social-superiority belief can lead to invasions you know :p)

Kong

12-11-03, 06:34 PM

Kong supposes that every church can do as it pleases, but if a Christian church wishes to follow the teachings of the Bible then it cannot allow women to be priests.

The Bible clearly states that women aren't even allowed to speak in church much less become priests! Of course, most Christians and (it seems) most churches only follow the guidelines of the Bible that are convenient for them.

Golgot

12-11-03, 06:46 PM

Kong

12-11-03, 06:50 PM

I take it that men do have the right to talk in church then in the bible? If so, freaky!

I'd say in an ideal world these books should just be used as a guide to how past cultures have tried to maintain a "civilised" lifestyle, which we can learn from in lots of ways. Taking them as "the word" of god has always seemed peculiar in the context of debatable translation anyway.
Have your read Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture? If not, you should check it out; you'd like it. The author tries to explain why and how cultures develop seemingly irrational practices, and he's pretty successful in doing so. One of the things he covers is the belief in a messiah. Interesting stuff.

Golgot

12-11-03, 06:55 PM

Oooo, sounds good. Always interested in social trends. We're a funny old beasty ;)

sunfrog

12-12-03, 12:09 AM

Duh dumbdumb- you want modern examples? What about evangelicals etc who categorise all other religions as representations of the devil at work? That's Jehovah Witnesses What about people who do interpret the above sections of the bible as examples of strong domestic-only-roles for women? The Taliban? And comparable interpretations concerning gays? It says flat out don't be gay And those who decide that whatever morality they arrive at thru the bible etc is based on god's will/truth and therefore more valid than other moralities in general etc?
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.

Mar 12:31 And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
I think that second one beats anything other moralities can come up with don't you?

Golgot

12-12-03, 07:33 AM

Thank you for backing up my points Sunny :rolleyes:

Naisy

12-13-03, 08:19 AM

I am really really interested in what Chris has to say on the topic, because as far as I look at it, im all for female priests BUT the bible forbids its (i believe dont quote me its just popular opinion that the bible forbids women in a position of power)....oh please Chris reply, oh please reply we havent had a religious debate for sooo long :D im s-s-s-uffering withdrawls

RoadRunner

12-14-03, 05:02 PM

It's pretty simple why Christians believe that other religions are false.John 14:5-8
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Acts 4:12
12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved." 1 John 2:22-23
22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.2 John 8-11
9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.John 5:23-24
23 in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. John 15:23-24
23 "He who hates Me hates My Father also.

sunfrog

12-14-03, 06:52 PM

Hhmm.. That's interesting. Then why don't we believe other religons are false? Didn't you see the Pope at the Wailing Wall?
At the "Wailing Wall"

The second stage of the Pope's last day in Jerusalem was his visit to the "Wailing Wall," built by Herod to enclose the Temple's courtyard. It is the Jewish sacred place par excellence; here they pray and weep in memory of the ancient splendor of Jerusalem and the Temple, once the center of all Jewish life, definitively destroyed by the Romans. They place small votive messages in the crevices of the slabs of stone.

John Paul II also came to place his bit of paper. It was the prayer he read in Rome on March 12 praying for forgiveness for the sufferings caused to Jews by the Church's children. This petition for forgiveness is also a commitment to genuine fraternity with the people of the Covenant. It was a very emotional moment: the Pontiff walked up to the Wall alone and prayed there for a few moments before placing the piece of paper in one of the crevices. He then placed his right hand on the Wall, before blessing himself.

Or Kazakstan

Pope John Paul II said yesterday that the Catholic Church respects "authentic Islam," making the distinction between it and the fanaticism that some fear will stigmatize the religion in the wake of the U.S. attacks. The pope's statement, made during a four-day visit to the Central Asian country of Kazakstan, echoed his efforts to calm international anger following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The pope has condemned the attacks but has called for restraint as the United States readies its military for retaliatory strikes, possibly in nearby Afghanistan.

Or Vatican City

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- With Pope John Paul II presiding
next to the Dalai Lama, representatives of 20 of the world's
faiths closed a millennium-ending gathering Thursday with a
forceful denunciation of religious extremism.

Assembled in St. Peter's Square, the 200 clergy and lay people appealed
to world leaders to ``refuse to allow religion to be used to
incite hatred and violence.''

``Any use of religion to support violence is an abuse of religion,''
John Paul said in his final message to the four-day council,
speaking to a crowd of red- and orange-robed Asian monks, Catholic
priests in black cassocks, Muslim women in head scarfs and
Africans and American Indians in the traditional clothing of their own
countries.

Beyond the message of tolerance it produced, the council was remarkable
for the scenes it brought to a bastion of Christianity:

An American Indian pivoting in the center of the square at sunset,
blessing the four corners of the earth from the heart of Rome.
Muslims spreading out newspapers in the marble colonnade to kneel toward
Mecca and pray

jamesglewisf

12-14-03, 11:04 PM

sunfrog

12-15-03, 11:02 AM

I can't explain what the Pope says. He doesn't speak for me.

I do believe that other religions are false. I wouldn't be a Christian if I believed otherwise. Jesus' words don't leave room for anything else.
Hmm.. then you must be a different kind of Christian.

Still, that doesn't give Christians the justification to be rude, demeaning, or murderous.

Did you miss this part?
"Any use of religion to support violence is an abuse of religion,''
~John Paul II

Golgot

12-15-03, 12:01 PM

Either way - neither of you support abuse of other religions and their followers, based on your various interpretations of the bible. However, there are others who are not so understanding. This is the core problem with these books being treated as more than just social-guides gleaned from past experience. IMO :)

Caitlyn

12-15-03, 01:41 PM

I do believe that other religions are false.

So in other words you think what my Native American elders taught me was false? That I should not treat others with love, respect, and kindness… nor should I be willing to share or sacrifice all that I have for another whose need is greater… nor should I take full responsibilities for my actions… nor should I care for the earth as the Mother because she provides that which I need to survive and that I should never take more then I actually need… nor should I believe the Great Father provides for the needs of all his children and not just a chosen few?

Yoda

12-15-03, 02:08 PM

Golgot

12-15-03, 02:29 PM

Erm, um, eh?

This sounds supiciously like the my-religion-is-best because my-religion-is-best argument again. How does the second point back up the first idea? Or is it supposed to be an example of a statement containing both true and false elements?? If so, it doesn't tally well. (the first statement seems to talk about the idea of "truth" condensed into one concept, which then permeates all the things built on it - i.e. religions that believe themselves to be based around the greatest-truth as it were, but still recognise areas of correlation with other belief-structures. That seems to be a distinct situation from two concepts in a sentence, one of which is false. That's all :))

Whatever the case, the "falseness" argument still seems to rely on the my-faith-is-the-one-true-faith idea, which can cause people to perceive their beliefs, actions and decisions to be superior, when they're not necessarily so. It all depends on interpretation of course, but the worrying aspect is always when people take this believed superiority-of-position as the sole/central justifier for their approach to life. i.e. perceiving one type of murder as being better than another for example (as in the suicide-bombing interpretation of the koran), or a cultural-approach being better than another (as is often the case with empire-expansions etc).

It's this aspect of viewing other faiths/approaches etc as "false" per se which is the worrying thing, and can be extended to very damaging extents by some individuals and groups.

Looking at a genuine day-to-day example: Let's say for example that a christian agrees with many native-american beliefs, but ultimately believes that s/he has access to the superior interpretation in areas where they differ (and the native-indian equally believes in the truth of their interpretation). Therefore, if the native-indian was claiming that GM food was destroying variety and crop-health on their land in Canada, and should be stopped, but the christian farmer causing the problem believed that they had been given dominion over the world (in the absolute-control interpretation), and could be doing no wrong, they would see themselves as automatically justified (despite the existing evidence, and even in the face of further proof - well, at least in the case of an unreasonable christian ;))

The point is:
(1) potential for unbending conflict on points of disagreement
(2) potential for lack of investigation into the scientifically and socially gauged "reality" because the matter is already decided in peoples' heads

Yoda

12-15-03, 02:48 PM

Erm, um, eh?

This sounds supiciously like the my-religion-is-best because my-religion-is-best argument again. How does the second point back up the first idea?Um, my statement didn't attempt to defend, justify, or argue in favor of any religion over any other. At all. How do you manage to detect hints of self-justification in virtually everything I say on the subject of religion, even when no justification of any kind is present? Are we reading the same posts? :p

The point is applicable to all religions. If you think a belief system is "false," that does not mean you necessarily reject everything it teaches. Or most of what it teaches, even. This isn't obvious? It seems to mirror your opinion of Christianity: nice rules, most of them make sense to you, but you don't buy the Divinity of Jesus, which belief in the system hinges on. Hence, you think the religion is false, even though you believe it teaches some admirable things.

Or is it supposed to be an example of a statement containing both true and false elements?? If so, it doesn't tally well. (the first statement seems to talk about the idea of "truth" condensed into one concept, which then permeates all the things built on it - i.e. religions that believe themselves to be based around the greatest-truth as it were, but still recognise areas of correlation with other belief-structures. That seems to be a distinct situation from two concepts in a sentence, one of which is false. That's all :))You're over-analyzing terribly. I'm well aware that a statement need not be taken altogether as one true or false value, but I'd argue that perhaps a religion does. Any system of belief which claims to offer fundamental cosmic insights almost inherently contradicts itself if it takes a more lax view of the matter.

Regardless, this has revealed itself to be a purely semantic difference. A "false" religion in this context clearly refers to a religion which the speaker does not believe to be ultimately accurate. It does not carry with it any implication that all teachings within that religion must therefore be bad.

Whatever the case, the "falseness" argument still seems to rely on the my-faith-is-the-one-true-faith idea, which can cause people to perceive their beliefs, actions and decisions to be superior. It all depends on interpretation of course, but the worrying aspect is always when people take this believed superiority-of-position as the sole/central justifier for their approach to life. i.e. perceiving one type of murder as being better than another for example (as in the suicide-bombing interpretation of the koran), or a cultural-approach being better than another (as is often the case with empire-expansions etc).

It's this aspect of viewing other faiths/approaches etc as "false" per se which is the worrying thing, and can be extended to very damaging extents by some individuals and groups.As I've pointed out many times before, any belief held with anything resembling consistency and confidence is subject to the exact same potential pitfalls. Regardless, this is part of our larger, ongoing spirituality debate, and no so much related to what I was getting at in my last post.

Golgot

12-15-03, 03:06 PM

Heheh, okay, yeah, let's save the bulk of this for the other thread (bler, not looking forward to the semantics side :))(i agree with your first point, i was just puzzled by the second sentence is all. It didn't seem to tally).

Alright, but taking the simple idea that one faith (i never declared which one at the beginning either :p ;)) believes itself to be the "true-est", but can of course overlap with others where they agree.....what do you think of example i tacked on to the last post?

What i DO have a problem with is when religions DISagree with another. In that example, both sides have beliefs, and both might refuse to investigate the reality of the situation coz of a belief in their own "rightness".

As it is, the situation is more complex than that. In that particular example, the christian belief-system really doesn't encourage investigation of the matter because the matter is decided in advance. They are right and capable of doing no wrong (so they believe). The native-american stance requires a type of respect that the christian one does not, which prescribes examination of the situation (to at least gauge if wrong is being done to the land - even if their might be a prediliction to perceive such things).

Now from my perspective (which, incidently, i disagree is contingent on one central perception of truth, which you assert again...but....other thread, other thread ;))....observation of the facts should be used to resolve disagreement. But if the Christian believes he's right already, why should he investigate or negotiate? He won't. It so happens the native-american stance (even if taken as being dogmatically-insistant of their rightness on their side too) involves investigating the situation.

I say, this is a central problem with faiths in general when they are overly assertive of their own automatic rightness in areas of discord. And, as it happens, i don't like the interpretation of the world being something to which we can do no wrong, which some christians walk around with. Heigh ho.

Golgot

12-15-03, 03:24 PM

To try and be a bit clearer:

In areas where a religion disagrees with another religion or belief-system: how do you decide who is "right" (or at least closer-to-the-truth)?

Surely the belief-system which doesn't assert its own automatic rightness is more likely to assess the available information and be reasonable about it?

Yoda

12-15-03, 04:04 PM

Heheh, okay, yeah, let's save the bulk of this for the other thread (bler, not looking forward to the semantics side :))(i agree with your first point, i was just puzzled by the second sentence is all. It didn't seem to tally)Perhaps it was a poor example on my part, then. Glad it's cleared up now, regardless. :)

Alright, but taking the simple idea that one faith (i never declared which one at the beginning either :p ;)) believes itself to be the "true-est", but can of course overlap with others where they agree.....what do you think of example i tacked on to the last post?

What i DO have a problem with is when religions DISagree with another. In that example, both sides have beliefs, and both might refuse to investigate the reality of the situation coz of a belief in their own "rightness".I think your example is the result of disagreement of any kind. It happens with or without religion. When people disbelieve in religion, more often than not they're going to find another central tenet, be it political or personal. People will always make SOMETHING their God, be it money, sex, drugs, their reputation, or their political party. For better or worse (I say better), it is clearly innate in virtually all mankind to place something at the center of their lives.

Or, as Chesterton put it: "when people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing...they believe in anything."

Also, I don't see the basis for your claim that both "refuse to investigate the reality of the situation." Ideas are misrepresented and skewed in all walks of life. You don't need religion for that.

I anticipate that your reply will claim that religion in general is more conducive to the steadfast adherence to misguided beliefs. This might be true, but even if it is, it doesn't speak to the truth of religion. Like virtually anything of significant power or usefulness, it is dangerous in the wrong hands. That doesn't, however, make it a bad thing. Just a potent thing.

As it is, the situation is more complex than that. In that particular example, the christian belief-system really doesn't encourage investigation of the matter because the matter is decided in advance. They are right and capable of doing no wrong (so they believe).This is flat-out false. One of the core beliefs of Christianity is the fallibility of man. At no point does it teach that we are always right, and capable of doing no wrong. It teaches the exact opposite. It is God who can do no wrong. Our imperfection of interpretation and inherent biases are pretty much spelled out, however.

What you're talking about is little more than a caricature.

The native-american stance requires a type of respect that the christian one does not, which prescribes examination of the situation (to at least gauge if wrong is being done to the land - even if their might be a prediliction to perceive such things)."Love thy neighbor as thyself." Seems pretty respectful of me.

Regarding the land: I've never interpreted "fill the earth and subdue it" to mean that we can trash the place. Just that it's here for us to make use of in productive ways. Disagreements over what is and is not acceptable use are unavoidable.

Now from my perspective (which, incidently, i disagree is contingent on one central perception of truth, which you assert again...but....other thread, other thread ;))....observation of the facts should be used to resolve disagreement. But if the Christian believes he's right already, why should he investigate or negotiate? He won't. It so happens the native-american stance (even if taken as being dogmatically-insistant of their rightness on their side too) involves investigating the situation.The caricaturization continues. You make it sound as if becoming a Christian is an arbitrary choice. It isn't. Speaking for myself, becoming a Christian is a choice which requires inspection, analysis, self-addressed questions, and a heck of a lot of reading on the matter.

As I've said before, it's not so much believing the religion you choose, so much as choosing the religion you believe. And people don't choose religions which do not jibe with the same logical faculties and moral sensibilities they'd use to investigate things in the first place. The investigation you speak of and praise is present in the choosing of a religion, as well as the person's dealings afterwards.

I say, this is a central problem with faiths in general when they are overly assertive of their own automatic rightness in areas of discord. And, as it happens, i don't like the interpretation of the world being something to which we can do no wrong, which some christians walk around with. Heigh ho.You seem to be singling out Christianity as more sure of itself than other religions. Why? Is there a piece of scripture which conveys this?

Yoda

12-15-03, 04:10 PM

To try and be a bit clearer:

In areas where a religion disagrees with another religion or belief-system: how do you decide who is "right" (or at least closer-to-the-truth)?The same way you do without a religion: use your head. If you conclude that the other system is clearly in the right, perhaps you've misinterpreted your own. If you're certain you haven't, then perhaps you've chosen to believe the wrong thing.

Using your critical faculties under a religious worldview is the same, fundamentally, as using them without one. I really think you're missing that.

Surely the belief-system which doesn't assert its own automatic rightness is more likely to assess the available information and be reasonable about it?How can you teach anyone anything without asserting that it is right? Even teaching people to doubt presupposes it to be the right thing to do.

Golgot

12-15-03, 04:38 PM

The same way you do without a religion: use your head. If you conclude that the other system is clearly in the right, perhaps you've misinterpreted your own. If you're certain you haven't, then perhaps you've chosen to believe the wrong thing.

Using your critical faculties under a religious worldview is the same, fundamentally, as using them without one. I really think you're missing that.

I respect that in your case and many others this last point is true. But i don't think all religious people operate in that way. Many dig in their heels and don't evaluate things in a very open way (and many non-believers are the same). The nature of the religion/beliefs facilitate that.

But beyond that, would you renounce your belief of Christ/God if i could prove murder can be right in a way which conflicts with the commandment and contingent interpretations? No, you're far more likely to dodge round this clash-of-"truths" through the interpretation issue. (i.e. change your interpretation, within the limitations of the bible perhaps, but not the idea that all the interpretations pertain to a one-true-god)

How can you teach anyone anything without asserting that it is right? Even teaching people to doubt presupposes it to be the right thing to do.

Not really - to teach doubt, you can just point out inconsistancies in something. (And if you do end up communicating that various systems of interpretation and "truth" can contradict yet inter-mingle and maintain a type of validity, well, so long as you admit you could be wrong about it all, you're hardly asserting or teaching "the truth" :))

Argghhh, and in the interests of simplicity and brevity, that's all i'm going to say. I would love to say more :) :rolleyes:

Golgot

12-15-03, 04:58 PM

Perhaps it was a poor example on my part, then. Glad it's cleared up now, regardless. :)

Cool. I went over-wordy on it unhelpfully as it was :)

I think your example is the result of disagreement of any kind. It happens with or without religion. When people disbelieve in religion, more often than not they're going to find another central tenet, be it political or personal. People will always make SOMETHING their God, be it money, sex, drugs, their reputation, or their political party. For better or worse (I say better), it is clearly innate in virtually all mankind to place something at the center of their lives.

Or, as Chesterton put it: "when people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing...they believe in anything."
Also, I don't see the basis for your claim that both "refuse to investigate the reality of the situation." Ideas are misrepresented and skewed in all walks of life. You don't need religion for that.

Sure, whether religious or not we can fail to investigate and cling to preferred interpretations. I disagree again tho with the idea that all non-religious people find a central tenet. i think most of us find multiple ones. But if you want a central tenet from which they all spring - it's "the world" :)

I anticipate that your reply will claim that religion in general is more conducive to the steadfast adherence to misguided beliefs. This might be true, but even if it is, it doesn't speak to the truth of religion. Like virtually anything of significant power or usefulness, it is dangerous in the wrong hands. That doesn't, however, make it a bad thing. Just a potent thing.

Aha - see. Your going to insist the truth at the centre of your religion is the truth because it is the truth. At the end of the day, so long as you're prepared to be flexible about interpretations surrounding this, it's all cool with me. The problem is when people get too limited by the texts and prescribed habits etc. That's my major beef with religions (and yes, i therefore think they do facilitate skewed perception)

This is flat-out false. One of the core beliefs of Christianity is the fallibility of man. At no point does it teach that we are always right, and capable of doing no wrong. It teaches the exact opposite. It is God who can do no wrong. Our imperfection of interpretation and inherent biases are pretty much spelled out, however.

What you're talking about is little more than a caricature.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself." Seems pretty respectful of me.

Regarding the land: I've never interpreted "fill the earth and subdue it" to mean that we can trash the place. Just that it's here for us to make use of in productive ways. Disagreements over what is and is not acceptable use are unavoidable.

Ahh, that "subdue" term is one that troubles me. I've seen you say in posts from about 2 years ago that you don't believe humans could have a huge impact on god's creation. That's the sort of attitude i'm talking about, which stems from religious appreciations, when i suggest certain faiths may not investigate a problem coz they don't think it could happen.

The caricaturization continues. You make it sound as if becoming a Christian is an arbitrary choice. It isn't. Speaking for myself, becoming a Christian is a choice which requires inspection, analysis, self-addressed questions, and a heck of a lot of reading on the matter.

As I've said before, it's not so much believing the religion you choose, so much as choosing the religion you believe. And people don't choose religions which do not jibe with the same logical faculties and moral sensibilities they'd use to investigate things in the first place. The investigation you speak of and praise is present in the choosing of a religion, as well as the person's dealings afterwards.

You may choose to believe that (:)), but from what i can see, even amongst born-again-christians, the time spent in formative years surround by that centralised beliefs structure limits choice, in the sense that some powerfully instinctive/unconscious side of you believes god exists etc, in the form described.

You seem to be singling out Christianity as more sure of itself than other religions. Why? Is there a piece of scripture which conveys this?

I've been singling out Christianity in the GM example given mainly because of the potential for the "subdue" thing etc to be badly interpreted etc. And respect for the earth is something very close to my heart. I didn't mean to convay that christianity was more sure of itself in terms of core-belief. All religions are contingent on the centralised-beliefs-set-up, but i do worry about the simple good-bad divisions in all monotheistic religions - i think they are more likely to extend into a rather simplified perception of good-n-bad, yes. The slightly chaotic categorisations of hindusim, native-american-beliefs (as i vaguely understand them), and buddism do seem to offer a less simply-segregated belief-structure. My personal belief (taken from observation of the world, as far as i can tell) is that there is good and bad in all, and my feeling is that this is a healthier perception, which is less likely to lead to entrenched positions of the i'm-obviously-right, this-therefore-must-be-wrong variety.

Ultimately i think we have to generate our own "truth", via promptings from the wealth of human history surrounding us. These truths can't be imparted through text, or even observation, alone. We have to experience these things (and hopefully not have to deal with too rigid a belief structure while trying to reconcile them with our inner worlds)

nebbit

12-15-03, 09:49 PM

Yes :yup:

Naisy

12-16-03, 09:02 AM

Yoda

12-16-03, 01:57 PM

I'm busy as all get-out, but since Naisy was nice enough to ask twice... ;)

I am really really interested in what Chris has to say on the topic, because as far as I look at it, im all for female priests BUT the bible forbids its (i believe dont quote me its just popular opinion that the bible forbids women in a position of power)....oh please Chris reply, oh please reply we havent had a religious debate for sooo long :D im s-s-s-uffering withdrawlsThe Bible doesn't really say it. I believe St. Paul says something about women not having power over men, but as there are plenty of female Priests, obviously it's far from definitive just what that means. I think this is another case of people confusing Christians with Christianity.

CujoLink

12-18-03, 01:32 PM

Back to the question on hand, Should women Priests be allowed?

Only if they're hot

jamesglewisf

12-26-03, 12:57 AM

So in other words you think what my Native American elders taught me was false? That I should not treat others with love, respect, and kindness… nor should I be willing to share or sacrifice all that I have for another whose need is greater… nor should I take full responsibilities for my actions… nor should I care for the earth as the Mother because she provides that which I need to survive and that I should never take more then I actually need… nor should I believe the Great Father provides for the needs of all his children and not just a chosen few?Caitlyn, when I say that other religions are false, I mean that they are false from the standpoint that they reject the teaching that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins and rose from the dead to purchase a place for us in heaven. The other religions teach what we are supposed to do to get into heaven, while Christianity teaches what Christ has already done to get us into heaven. It is "what I have to do" versus "what was done for me."

Christianity, unlike other religions, teaches that we are all sinners and incapable of earning a place in heaven. The only way we can get there is to confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9-10).

Any religion that rejects this teaching or doesn't address it at all is false to a Christian who believes that the Bible is true.

jamesglewisf

12-26-03, 01:08 AM

Here is what the Bible says:1 Timothy 3:1-13
3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
NAS"Overseer" is also interpreted as "Bishop," "Pastor," and "Elder."Titus 1:5-9
5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
NAS

Escape

07-19-04, 09:32 PM

If you're speaking of women becoming Catholic Priests then no they should not be and will never be allowed to be. The Church is not a democracy for the worldly views of men to leak over into Her.

Knoxville

07-20-04, 06:39 AM

Golgot

07-20-04, 09:33 AM

If you're speaking of women becoming Catholic Priests then no they should not be and will never be allowed to be. The Church is not a democracy for the worldly views of men to leak over into Her.

Who made the Church if not worldly men with views?

Who has altered the Church over the years if not wordly men with views?

Caitlyn

07-20-04, 10:42 AM

"Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything." - Catholic Church's edict against women.

:rolleyes:

Sleezy

07-20-04, 11:07 AM

"Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything." - Catholic Church's edict against women.

:rolleyes:

Sounds like male priests. :yup:

Okay, not all male priests...

Golgot

07-20-04, 11:21 AM

"Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything." - Catholic Church's edict against women.

:rolleyes:

Oh well, at least they didn't say "and were made from a rib". Maybe that's some sort of advancement :rolleyes:

That is just astounding.

Escape

07-21-04, 01:18 AM

Ok I'll add my comments to this debate, should women be priest? Yes if they can do the job, after all, they can't do any worse a job than the male priests. But then again, I'm not religious, so I guess I don't really care either way.
Actually, the male priest are supposed to represent Christ on earth. Christ was a male and can only be represented through a male.

Who made the Church if not worldly men with views?

Who has altered the Church over the years if not wordly men with views?
Golgot, if you ask me then I have to say Christ made the Church. And the Church cannot change Dogmas, just develop them.

"Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything." - Catholic Church's edict against women.

I'm Catholic and If you say things like this then you better be able to back them up.

Caitlyn

07-21-04, 01:45 AM

I'm Catholic and If you say things like this then you better be able to back them up.

Ask your Priest... I got the information from one here.

Escape

07-21-04, 02:38 AM

Ask your Priest... I got the information from one here.

Really? Now who's being judgmental. Quite disappointed in you Caitlyn. Such hostility and prejudece towards the Church.

nebbit

07-21-04, 02:46 AM

Really? Now who's being judgmental. Quite disappointed in you Caitlyn. Such hostility and prejudice towards the Church.

I don't think Caity was being judgmental, it is the church or the priest who said the statement about woman. :rolleyes:

Escape

07-21-04, 03:08 AM

I don't think Caity was being judgmental, it is the church or the priest who said the statement about woman. :rolleyes:

Nebit, her very words ended in saying that it was the Catholic Church who said that. I'm sure she is smart enough to understand that one individual doesn't make the Church. I asked her to find me some info on this and she repied with a "ask your priest" nonsence. If she was sensible enough she would have looked up why the Church doesn't allow women in certain roles and not take it from one man's answer (if indeed a priest said such a thing in a serious manner.) She never would have found an absurd statement such as that anywere in
Her(Catholic Church) teachings.

nebbit

07-21-04, 08:15 AM

she would have looked up why the Church doesn't allow women in certain roles and not take it from one man's answer (if indeed a priest said such a thing in a serious manner.) She never would have found an absurd statement such as that anywere in
Her(Catholic Church) teachings.

That may be so, but i guess that most people beleive what priests have to say, as they are the messenger of the church. :)

CrazyforMovies

07-21-04, 09:45 AM

Then can men become nuns?
Women priests? I guess if she wants to wear the pants.

Sleezy

07-21-04, 11:47 AM

Caitlyn, when I say that other religions are false, I mean that they are false from the standpoint that they reject the teaching that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins and rose from the dead to purchase a place for us in heaven. The other religions teach what we are supposed to do to get into heaven, while Christianity teaches what Christ has already done to get us into heaven. It is "what I have to do" versus "what was done for me."

Christianity, unlike other religions, teaches that we are all sinners and incapable of earning a place in heaven. The only way we can get there is to confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9-10).

Any religion that rejects this teaching or doesn't address it at all is false to a Christian who believes that the Bible is true.

Yet, you must respect that others believe in something as well (though different than your own beliefs), as one who really has no authority to disprove another faith.

CrazyforMovies

07-21-04, 02:30 PM

The Catholic church always gets a bad rap. However we must look beyond the people that run the church since they are deemed imperfect ; and make our own judgements and that is to understand that there was a person that came here to teach us something about humanity and how to deal with life.

Zeiken

07-21-04, 06:09 PM

"Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything." - Catholic Church's edict against women.

:rolleyes:

thats one of the most disgusting things ive never heard, seriously a pretty ignorant thing to say.

A wise man once said that ignorance is a breeding ground for prejeduce. Catholic Priests define women using the age-old definitions, set down by thousands of years of sexual discrimination. Unless these men can get past their ignorance, theres no way any of their prejeduce will change. I suppose the best way to change their thoughts of women is simply by setting the prime example of what a woman can do, which is, in fact, what women have been doing since they achieved equality. That leaves only time as the real remedy.

Personally i dont know a whole lot about women at all. I couldnt figure them out for the life of me, but i have met a few special ones, who just make me feel so incredibly good, that i no longer have any reservations about their ability to carry out a job like this.

You go girl(s)! :idea:

Golgot

07-21-04, 07:08 PM

Nebit, her very words ended in saying that it was the Catholic Church who said that. I'm sure she is smart enough to understand that one individual doesn't make the Church. I asked her to find me some info on this and she repied with a "ask your priest" nonsence. If she was sensible enough she would have looked up why the Church doesn't allow women in certain roles and not take it from one man's answer (if indeed a priest said such a thing in a serious manner.) She never would have found an absurd statement such as that anywere in
Her(Catholic Church) teachings.

Fair enough, it seems Cait shouldn't have attributed it to current doctrine
without being able to back it up.

(a quick search of the web suggests there might be medeival precedents tho)

However, it's interesting to note a recent criticism by Tony Blair's wife that the Catholic Church are still treating women as 'workers' but not as 'thinkers'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1110253,00.html

I don't know how accurate that accusation is (her and her hubby are ardent Protestants after all, i think), but it seems to fit this priesthood example.
Is the sole justification for this type of application of Dogma that Jesus was a man? What other grounds does the Church have for pronouncing women incapable of being priests?

The Catholic church always gets a bad rap. However we must look beyond the people that run the church since they are deemed imperfect ; and make our own judgements and that is to understand that there was a person that came here to teach us something about humanity and how to deal with life.

For sure. Secularists like myself gain a lot from going beyond the more dogmatic and flawed aspects of religious infrastructures and learning about Jesus's teachings... and the Old Testament's teachings...and the Bhagavad Ghita's...and the Koran's...and Lao-Tze's etc etc etc.

The main problems seem to arise when re-assessment of an interpretation or proposed truth of these sources proves unacceptable to their proponents. That's when the whole thing starts to get silly, and the benefits of their truths become negatives.

Releasing 'ammendment' edicts only complicates matters further (although i do think the current pope has done a good job on the whole in his mouthpiece-of-god role)

Escape

07-22-04, 12:55 AM

That may be so, but i guess that most people beleive what priests have to say, as they are the messenger of the church.
Nebbit, lets say an american politician said the exact same thing. Would you likewise say "America thinks this of women" and then end it with an edict of America against women? Not likely. I'm sure you would look up the Constitution and make sure it says such a thing before slandering the countries name on the internet.

A wise man once said that ignorance is a breeding ground for prejeduce. Catholic Priests define women using the age-old definitions, set down by thousands of years of sexual discrimination. Allow me to say something. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the highest of God's created beings, and the only sinless creature who ever lived (according to Catholicism) is a woman ,the Blessed Virgin Mary?And a woman who first saw the risen Jesus (Mary Magdalene: John 20:11-18). No man by virtue of "unfair" biology ever had the immense, unfathomable honor of "bearing God" and thus entering into incomprehensible biological intimacy with Deity. Out of anyone born of a woman, who of course was not God, it is a Woman who we honor the most. The Catholic Church puts Her as close as anyone can and will get to God. Prejudice against women, not likely.

However, it's interesting to note a recent criticism by Tony Blair's wife that the Catholic Church are still treating women as 'workers' but not as 'thinkers'.
It is because they are protestants that makes this suspicious. They are joined with a heretical sect. who has lost many truths contained in Sacred Tradition. I wouldn't expect them to understand. To me, they follow the traditions of men. I don't want to offend any protestants and start a war but this is the difference between a Catholics beliefs and a Protestants. They will likewise say things about us such as what linda blair said. I have nothing against protestants. I believe many try the best they can with what they have.

Is the sole justification for this type of application of Dogma that Jesus was a man? What other grounds does the Church have for pronouncing women incapable of being priests?
Jesus Christ was a Man. Given the fact that every validly ordained priest functions as an alter Christus at Mass (since it is Christ Himself who transforms the elements and performs the supernatural consecration, not the priest, who "stands in" for Him), it is altogether appropriate that men only are ordained. None of the twelve disciples were women. Jesus must have had a good reason for that, whether or not we understand it. I myself would much rather trust Him and apostolic, Christian Tradition, rather than the trends of our post-modern, sexually liberated age.

nebbit

07-22-04, 04:48 AM

Nebbit, lets say an american politician said the exact same thing. Would you likewise say "America thinks this of women" and then end it with an edict of America against women? Not likely. I'm sure you would look up the Constitution and make sure it says such a thing before slandering the countries name on the internet.
.

I probably would, but I know A lot of Catholics who wouldn't, I shared a house with 3 very devout catholics once, I read a lot of the christian literature they left around, one article in the Catholic weekly paper, was about believing Gods word unquestionably, i asked one of my flatmates about it (he was studying to be a priest, then dropped out twice :eek:), he agreed with the article, if we question every priest then are we not going against the teachings of God, thats what priests are supposed to specialise in :o

Escape

07-22-04, 02:08 PM

I probably would, but I know A lot of Catholics who wouldn't, I shared a house with 3 very devout catholics once, I read a lot of the christian literature they left around, one article in the Catholic weekly paper, was about believing Gods word unquestionably, i asked one of my flatmates about it (he was studying to be a priest, then dropped out twice :eek:), he agreed with the article, if we question every priest then are we not going against the teachings of God, thats what priests are supposed to specialise in :o

There is nothing wrong with a Catholic questioning a priest with the answers he gives them. I see it all the time in Catholic apolgetics forums. They wonder if what the priests tell them is proper Catholic doctrine and teachings and if it goes against Her teachings. It is actually a good way for a Catholic to get to know their faith. Afterall, priests are only human and can make errors. (I heard people say that priests told them it was ok to live out of wedlock, or that birth control was ok to use. and just recently, someone brought up that after the Mass, the priests threw out what was remaining in the Chalice. A definite no no for the Presecious Blood of Christ must be consumed entirely and NEVER be mistreated by throwing It on the ground or spilling some. The only thing Catholics have to adhere to are the sound and constant teachings of the Magistrium of the Church by the Apostilic See or the Infallible Teachings of the Pope.

CrazyforMovies

07-23-04, 11:20 PM

I highly doubt that one persons negative comment towards women reflect the whole way in which the Catholic Church thinks towards women.
It perhaps was made in another context yet it is taken way out of context. This comment is not what the Catholic Church thinks at all, it could be someones bitter attidute towards some isolated incident.
To say that the Catholic Church has this kind of idea is simply sheer speculation and judgemental.

I think there is much more negativity towards women in other religion denomations for that matter or even in some way men view women in certain high ranking positions of authority.

I doubt it very much the Catholic Church made such a negative statement....
"Originally Posted by Caitlyn"
"Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything." - Catholic Church's edict against women.

Caitlyn

07-23-04, 11:57 PM

Really? Now who's being judgmental. Quite disappointed in you Caitlyn. Such hostility and prejudece towards the Church.

Do you mind explaining to me how I was being judgemental, hostile and prejudice? I had assumed that since a Priest here was the one who gave me the information that a Priest in your area should be able to do the same… and to be quiet honest, I doubt very seriously if I will ever lose any sleep over the fact you are disappointed in me…

Nebit, her very words ended in saying that it was the Catholic Church who said that. I'm sure she is smart enough to understand that one individual doesn't make the Church. I asked her to find me some info on this and she repied with a "ask your priest" nonsence.

I have since asked the Priest in question about the information he gave me and he confirmed it was an edict from the Catholic Church… but a rather old one… which he neglected to tell me in the beginning… so I apologize for assuming it was more recent….

If she was sensible enough she would have looked up why the Church doesn't allow women in certain roles and not take it from one man's answer (if indeed a priest said such a thing in a serious manner.) She never would have found an absurd statement such as that anywere in Her(Catholic Church) teachings.

If you were sensible enough you would not have jumped to the conclusion that I was Catholic just because I talk to a priest…

Fair enough, it seems Cait shouldn't have attributed it to current doctrine
without being able to back it up.

(a quick search of the web suggests there might be medeival precedents tho)

It was made during The Burning Times (http://www.illusions.com/burning/index2.htm)... sorry...

I highly doubt that one persons negative comment towards women reflect the whole way in which the Catholic Church thinks towards women.
It perhaps was made in another context yet it is taken way out of context. This comment is not what the Catholic Church thinks at all, it could be someones bitter attidute towards some isolated incident.
To say that the Catholic Church has this kind of idea is simply sheer speculation and judgemental.

I think there is much more negativity towards women in other religion denomations for that matter or even in some way men view women in certain high ranking positions of authority.

I doubt it very much the Catholic Church made such a negative statement.…

You need a history lesson…

D'yer Mak'er

07-24-04, 03:03 AM

Are you saying that there aren't other religions out there with more prejudice and sexist views?

I once heard that the Catholic church welcomed other religions(Muslim, Islam, Judaism, etc) to pray with them because they beleived there is no use fighting over specifics of teachings seeing we all pray to the same god.

Ofcourse i am questionable of my source.

ps. don't hurt me cos i don't know enough about religion :(

Garrett

07-24-04, 03:09 AM

I doubt it very much the Catholic Church made such a negative statement....

You know, I always thought that a Catholic priest was sort of a representative of the Catholic church... I guess I could be wrong though.

Escape

07-24-04, 05:07 AM

Do you mind explaining to me how I was being judgemental, hostile and prejudice? I had assumed that since a Priest here was the one who gave me the information that a Priest in your area should be able to do the same… and to be quiet honest, I doubt very seriously if I will ever lose any sleep over the fact you are disappointed in me…
I already explained above how I think you jumped to the conclusion from one man's rhetoric . I certainly would have said "A priest told me etc." Not "this is exactly what the Church thinks" Your answer was misleading. Your answer represented the entire Church and approx. 1 billion of Her faithful. Again, I would have been absolutly positive to make sure I don't commit slander.

I have since asked the Priest in question about the information he gave me and he confirmed it was an edict from the Catholic Church… but a rather old one… which he neglected to tell me in the beginning… so I apologize for assuming it was more recent…. Are you sure this priest is a Catholic Priest? Has he been removed from the Church? How do you have access to him. If he is still an ordained priest and not excommunicated then he is wrong about this. Pure and simple.

If you were sensible enough you would not have jumped to the conclusion that I was Catholic just because I talk to a priest… It never even crossed my mind that you were Catholic. It doesn't take a Catholic to look in the Cathechism to find out the beliefs of the Church.

It was made during The Burning Times (http://www.illusions.com/burning/index2.htm)... sorry...
Link doesn't work. I don't have javascript. All I get is a very suspecious looking page. How about copy and paste it? And let me know who it is from. An obvious anti-Catholic web site set to create lies and myths about the Church. Again, back it up with Official Church documents or don't bother continuing to repeat it.

From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

I don't see anything here that says "Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything." Do you?

I highly doubt that one persons negative comment towards women reflect the whole way in which the Catholic Church thinks towards women.
It perhaps was made in another context yet it is taken way out of context. This comment is not what the Catholic Church thinks at all, it could be someones bitter attidute towards some isolated incident.
To say that the Catholic Church has this kind of idea is simply sheer speculation and judgemental.You have a good head on your shoulders.

You need a history lesson…
No, you are the one who needs a history lesson. The Church as a whole has never said such nonsense about women.

Equilibrium

07-24-04, 05:10 AM

"Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything." - Catholic Church's edict against women.
:rolleyes:

You know that statement (especially the impulsive and dangerous part) is very very true.....

...when referring to women's control over men using their sexiness and all the little things they do to get us monkeys (men) to do whatever they wish, like winking at us and touching our thighs under the tables. Or that thing that my baby does with...nvm. :p Basically what I am saying is they definitly have control over us in bed, lmao.

In all seriousness though, I think thats a horrible thing to say about women, and I get the impression that the person who said this was very very old and stubborn too, couldn't get a woman (don't believe him when he says he wasn't looking for one...lol jk). Ok enough of me being bad time for bed. :D

CrazyforMovies

07-24-04, 07:16 PM

nebbit

07-26-04, 04:46 AM

The Catholic Church puts Her as close as anyone can and will get to God. Prejudice against women, not likely.

I have nothing against protestants. I believe many try the best they can with what they have.

If the Church has no prejudice against woman then allow them to be priests, I just think the whole debate about the issue is silly.

What do you mean by "many try the best they can with what they have" :rolleyes:

Escape

07-26-04, 03:33 PM

If the Church has no prejudice against woman then allow them to be priests, I just think the whole debate about the issue is silly.

I could likewise say that God is prejudice because he gave women the ability to concieve and not men. We are different whether you want to believe it or not. A dad can never truly become a mother and a mother can truly never become a father. In Catholicism we say the Holy Spirity Reveals this "only men becoming priest" thing to His Church. Think about it. Jesus did and said some things that seemed to upset alot of Jews at the time. Why didn't He make a single women a part of His 12 apostles? The Pope, college of Bishops and Cardinals and the Priests all represent Jesus and His 12. Now either I'm right and it is true what I say and the Holy Spirit Guides the Church of which this will never change no matter how much this women's equality system try to push it on the Church, or I'm wrong and the Church is just a man-made institution led by men giving only their fallible views to the world.

What do you mean by "many try the best they can with what they have" :rolleyes:
I mean everyone aquires a certain amount of Graces from God to know what is right or wrong when they try to seek the truth. A good faithful muslim has as much chance getting to heaven as a good faithful catholic as long as he does to the best of his ability what he believes to be morally right or morally wrong if of course he is truly invincibly ignorant.

Equilibrium

07-26-04, 04:28 PM

If the Church has no prejudice against woman then allow them to be priests, I just think the whole debate about the issue is silly.

What do you mean by "many try the best they can with what they have" :rolleyes:

The US government has no prejudice against immigrants (supposedly)..yet an immigrant can't ever become a president. So using your arguement one would say "IF there is no prejudice against immigrants, let them become presidents"

nebbit

07-26-04, 08:24 PM

or I'm wrong and the Church is just a man-made institution led by men giving only their fallible views to the world.
.

Could be :yup:

CrazyforMovies

07-27-04, 10:51 AM

Ok, so ::) who's Nah,I don't think so? why can't you say who you are?
Silly! isn't it arguing over personal opinions. Now if I get a red mark is it a bad rep? :eek:

Caitlyn

07-27-04, 11:18 PM

Are you sure this priest is a Catholic Priest? Has he been removed from the Church? How do you have access to him. If he is still an ordained priest and not excommunicated then he is wrong about this. Pure and simple.

Are Catholic Priests only allowed to converse with Catholics? And no, he has not been removed from the Church… nor is he wrong about this.

Link doesn't work. I don't have javascript. All I get is a very suspecious looking page. How about copy and paste it?

There is nothing suspicious about that site. It deals with a period in history known as the burning times with factual accounts of what happened and a list of names taken from court documents. Copy and paste is not an option - 1)it has been disabled on the site 2)there is too much information.

An obvious anti-Catholic web site set to create lies and myths about the Church.

Pretty judgmental considering you said you couldn't even view the site…

Again, back it up with Official Church documents or don't bother continuing to repeat it.

Just for the record… you have no authority over me whatsoever so don't attempt to dictate what I can or cannot do in the future… but considering the fact you apparently need an official document from the Catholic Church in order to believe anything historical actually happened, I suggest you start with the Summis desiderantes and the Malleus Maleficarum.

From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

I don't see anything here that says "Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything." Do you?

No, I don't… but you seem to be basing your whole argument on the fact the edict does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church… so I ask you, where are all the edicts/Papal Bulls that have been issued by various Popes for two thousand years located in the Catechism?

Where is the Summis desiderantes issued by Pope Innocent VIII which allowed the Inquisition to hunt down, torture, and murder thousands of innocent people (the majority woman) over superstitious nonsense.

Where is the Inter Caetera issued by Pope Alexander VI that resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions of Native people?

Just to name two…

No, you are the one who needs a history lesson. The Church as a whole has never said such nonsense about women.

The church "as a whole" (meaning each and every Catholic) may not have said such nonsense about women, but the churches early leaders and teachers certainly did:

"A woman is an incomplete being, a misbegotten male." - Saint Thomas Aquinas - (considered by the Catholic church to be its greatest theologian)

"A woman is her husband's property." - Saint Thomas Aquinas

"Woman was made to be a help to man. But she was not fitted to be a help to man except in generation, because another man would prove a more effective help in anything else." - Saint Thomas Aquinas

"While the soul comes from God, the father supplies the formative power without which the female matter could not receive it. For this reason, a child should love his father more than his mother, since the father principle of his origin in a more excellent way than the mother. He is the active principle, while the mother is a passive and material principle." - Saint Thomas Aquinas

"And in fact this blood [menses] is so detestable and unclean that ... through contact with it, fruits do not produce, wine turns sour, plants die, trees lack fruit, the air darkens; if dogs eat [the blood], they are then made wild with madness." - Saint Isidore of Seville

"Once when the orders of canons of deaconesses were recognized, they had their own status at the altar. However, the defilement of the ministry by those menstruating expelled them from the divine and holy altar." - Balsamon

"Adam was deceived by Eve, and not Eve by Adam. The woman summoned him to sin; it is just that he takes on the guidance of her, lest he be ruined again by female recklessness." - Decretum Gratiani

"It is the natural order in humans that females serve males and children parents, since in this is justice that the lesser serve the greater." - Decretum Gratiani

"A woman was the effective cause of damnation since she was the origin of lying and Adam was deceived through her, and therefore she was not able to be the effective cause of salvation since Orders effects grace in another and thus salvation." - Guido de Baysio

"Orders is for the more perfect members of the church since it is given for the distribution of grace to another. A woman however is not a perfect member of the church, but a male is." - Guido de Baysio (professor of canon law)

"Men must correct and even punish females. A husband is able to judge a wife." - Glossa ordinaria

"It is stated here that if the wives of clerics should sin, they should not kill them, but guard them lest they have the opportunity of sinning in something else, weakening them by beatings and hunger, but not to death." - Glossa ordinaria

"What is lighter that smoke? A breeze. What is lighter than a breeze? The wind. What is lighter than the wind? A woman. What is lighter than a woman? Nothing." - Glossa ordinaria

"Women may not hold positions of authority in the church. Women are forbidden to teach men, lest they think they should be held in esteem." - Huguccio

"Women are inferior from the very moment of creation." - Huguccio

"A male and not a female is said to be the glory of God for three reasons. First, because God appeared more powerful and more glorious in the creation of males than of females, for the glory of God was manifested principally through man since God made him per se and from the slime of the earth against nature, but the female was made from the man. Second because man was made by God with nothing mediating, which is not the case for the female. Third, because a man principally glorifies God, that is with nothing mediating, but a female glorifies God through the mediation of a male since a male teaches and instructs the female for the glorification of God." - Huguccio (professor of canon law)

"The reason for the difference [between the roles of men and women] is on account of the fragility, imbecility and less natural constancy and discernment of women." - Canonist Aegidius de Bellamera citing the reason women could not hold civil and public offices.

"The female sex is easily misled, weak, and without much sense" - Epiphanius

Throughout history, the Catholic Church has played a major role in women being deprived of their right to be treated as equal human beings… and it continues today in the very fact that even though numerous women have stated they have been called to the Priesthood by God, the Church still refuses to allow them to become Priests… thereby sending a clear message that they still believe women to be inferior to men (i.e. God couldn't possibly have told a women to become a Priest).

Zeiken

07-28-04, 02:04 AM

I mean everyone aquires a certain amount of Graces from God to know what is right or wrong when they try to seek the truth. A good faithful muslim has as much chance getting to heaven as a good faithful catholic as long as he does to the best of his ability what he believes to be morally right or morally wrong if of course he is truly invincibly ignorant.

I dont mean to fuel the fire- but 'invincibly ignorant?'

I totally believe in a heaven that all can visit- if they play their cards right- but it seems to me that your saying, for instance- that if someone is born with the twisted idea that killing, rape, that sort of thing- if they do all they can to fullfil that ideal- to satisfy that construct- they are just as deserving for a spot in heaven?
Im just a little confused- not trying to act all into myself. :)

nebbit

07-28-04, 05:15 AM

"Women may not hold positions of authority in the church. Women are forbidden to teach men, lest they think they should be held in esteem." - Huguccio

"Women are inferior from the very moment of creation." - Huguccio

"A male and not a female is said to be the glory of God for three reasons. First, because God appeared more powerful and more glorious in the creation of males than of females, for the glory of God was manifested principally through man since God made him per se and from the slime of the earth against nature, but the female was made from the man. Second because man was made by God with nothing mediating, which is not the case for the female. Third, because a man principally glorifies God, that is with nothing mediating, but a female glorifies God through the mediation of a male since a male teaches and instructs the female for the glorification of God." - Huguccio (professor of canon law)

Who is this guy, one big misogynist :eek:

Escape

07-29-04, 01:04 AM

I dont mean to fuel the fire- but 'invincibly ignorant?'

I totally believe in a heaven that all can visit- if they play their cards right- but it seems to me that your saying, for instance- that if someone is born with the twisted idea that killing, rape, that sort of thing- if they do all they can to fullfil that ideal- to satisfy that construct- they are just as deserving for a spot in heaven?
Im just a little confused- not trying to act all into myself.

Invincible Ignorance (http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/ignorance.htm)

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

These concepts can also be seen in the following Scriptures:

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

John 9
35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Romans 2
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Are Catholic Priests only allowed to converse with Catholics? And no, he has not been removed from the Church… nor is he wrong about this.What’s your problem. Do you think every question I ask is directed in hostility towards you? I’m trying to get to the bottom of this “priest” fellow since there are some out there who are excommunicated yet still wear their vestments and spread untruths about the Church.

Pretty judgmental considering you said you couldn't even view the site…
I’m suspicious about any website that is not Catholic who speak of Catholic issues. There are enough anti-catholic sites out there cause I have encountered many.

Just for the record… you have no authority over me whatsoever so don't attempt to dictate what I can or cannot do in the future… but considering the fact you apparently need an official document from the Catholic Church in order to believe anything historical actually happened, I suggest you start with the Summis desiderantes and the Malleus Maleficarum.
You really are a defensive one aren’t you. If I said something about your family would you just accept my word for it cause I heard it from someone else’s ear, or would you want me to back up with what I said with facts.

No, I don't… but you seem to be basing your whole argument on the fact the edict does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church… so I ask you, where are all the edicts/Papal Bulls that have been issued by various Popes for two thousand years located in the Catechism?
I base my argument on that it official church statement, not something a theologian may have erroniously said. They aren’t infallible. Councils and the Pope when said in a definitive act are.

Where is the Summis desiderantes issued by Pope Innocent VIII which allowed the Inquisition to hunt down, torture, and murder thousands of innocent people (the majority woman) over superstitious nonsense.
Don’t worry, it’s not lost. But again, a Papal bull is not infallible and does not have to be based in Church doctrine.

The church "as a whole" (meaning each and every Catholic) may not have said such nonsense about women, but the churches early leaders and teachers certainly did:
The Church as a whole (meaning clear infallible doctrine constantly taught by the Church through the Councils or by an Infallible statement by the Pope. That’s where you’re problem begins. When I say Church, I mean the Definitive statements issued through Ecumenical Councils which are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. Not church as to what certain theologians believed etc. etc.

Council of Nicaea 1

"Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity" (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).
This is binding on members of the faith therefore dogma. Nothing degrading concerning women here.

And to say this papal document Summis desiderantes were responsible for the witch mania of the two succeeding centuries, is altogether illusory. Not only had an active campaign against most forms of sorcery already been going on for a long period, but in the matter of procedure, of punishments, of judges, etc., Innocent's Bull enacted nothing new. Its direct purport was simply to ratify the powers already conferred upon Henry Institoris and James Sprenger, inquisitors, to deal with persons of every class and with every form of crime (for example, with witchcraft as well as heresy), and it called upon the Bishop of Strasburg to lend the inquisitors all possible support.
Indirectly, however, by specifying the evil practices charged against the witches — for example their intercourse with incubi and succubi, their interference with the parturition of women and animals, the damage they did to cattle and the fruits of the earth, their power and malice in the infliction of pain and disease, the hindrance caused to men in their conjugal relations, and the witches' repudiation of the faith of their baptism — the pope must no doubt be considered to affirm the reality of these alleged phenomena. Abuse of this document continued as a tool to promote the continuation of the witch hunting even though it was a protestant inquisition.

Now as the quotes concerning St. Thomas. Watch your step. The Quotations from Thomas Aquinas are bogas. And I got this from a theologian who studied his works for 7 years. The others are probably mostly bogus, but even if they aren’t, the names attached to them (Huguccio, Guido, Gratian) are mostly canon law teachers at the University of Bologna in the 1200s. All of them quoted texts that they disagreed with in order to argue against them or to pose problems for students, so it is the context of the quotes that are lacking.. Anyways, not one of these peole you mentioned are "authoritive" for Catholic doctrine.

The Maleius Malforum was written by Krammer, an independant lunatic, and was DENOUNCED by the Pope, it was not a Papal Bull. Odd how people get confused, but the Witch Hunting Manual was discredited by the Pope and the majority of Bishops. It was used by hysterical mobs to add some credibility form member of the church even if his mental stability was questionable.
Even you’re quote: "And in fact this blood [menses] is so detestable and unclean that ... through contact with it, fruits do not produce, wine turns sour, plants die, trees lack fruit, the air darkens; if dogs eat [the blood], they are then made wild with madness." - Saint Isidore of Seville
The bracketed portions of the text do not actually appear in the real document. The text is referring to dietary acts, not to a woman’s menstration, and the Bible tells us not to drink blood.

Caitlyn, you are nothing but a feminist anti-catholic bigot. You play the protestant game of getting your info from illegitimate anti-catholic sources, bogus quotes, one liner quotes taking out of context or any other trick to play in your direction. I’m quite disgusted even talking to you about this anymore. You’ve got nothing to offer. I asked for official Chruch documents and you give me this crap. Let me repeat this. If one is to say what the Church thinks of an issue, it MUST be backed up with dogmatic doctrine and not fallible saints or theologians. I see your intent is only to repeat your erroneous view of how the Church looks down upon women.
Again, I will state this. If the Church which to you is run by ordinary men’s views then the constants teachings through the councils of the special Grace bestowed on the Virgin Mary shows this not to be so. I have now quoted form two official councils of why women are not to be priests and not one said the crap you spewed out. And my opinion of that priest of yours. He is just your imaginary little friend. Again, as far as you and I concerned on this subject, I will do as my theologian friend said to do. “Give up on this bigot. “ Those 5 words are wiser than all things you said put together. I am done on this issue as I don’t need to fuel more erroneous quotes from you.

nebbit

07-29-04, 02:34 AM

. And I got this from a theologian who studied his works for 7 years. The others are probably mostly bogus,
to to drink blood.

Caitlyn, you are nothing but a feminist anti-catholic bigot. You play the protestant game of getting your info from illegitimate anti-catholic sources,.

Now stop that, Caitlyn is not feminist an anti-catholic or a bigot, that statement in its self, is not, a balanced description of woman, how would you know what sort of person she is from this one issue. :p

Also, how do you know that your theologian, knows what he is talking about and isn't bogus, :rolleyes:

Equilibrium

07-29-04, 03:05 AM

Now stop that, Caitlyn is not feminist an anti-catholic or a bigot, that statement in its self, is not, a balanced description of woman, how would you know what sort of person she is from this one issue. :p

Also, how do you know that your theologian, knows what he is talking about and isn't bogus, :rolleyes:

Wise woman has spoken, all bow down.

Aniko

07-29-04, 11:21 AM

Caitlyn, you are nothing but a feminist anti-catholic bigot. You play the protestant game of getting your info from illegitimate anti-catholic sources, bogus quotes, one liner quotes taking out of context or any other trick to play in your direction. I’m quite disgusted even talking to you about this anymore.

Cait is not a feminist anti-catholic bigot....or a bigot of any kind. Your remark is insulting and uncalled for. :mad:

And what are you suggesting by.."You play the protestant game"? That could be interpreted a few different ways.