A question about Catholicism . . .

[Berezi]

Tangled Up In Blue

Why won't you two just humor a cranky heretic's facetious ramblings?

...I'm a discussion bigning Wheatie. We've been discusing so much I can't stop. It's like I binge on discussion.

Quote:

Mind you, I'm being quite earnest when I say that any biblical or traditional proscriptions against the ordination of women are quite silly, but I'm not seriously proposing that the presence or absence of divine smiting be used as a litmus test for doctrinal orthodoxy. That would be daft, especially since God hasn't smote anyone in more than a millennium, to say nothing of the fact that if that were how God operated, then we'd already have objective proof of which religion is the One True Faith (everyone else being dead by now).

Agreed. Women in the Bible are teachers, apostles, and many things. Marriage was intended to be an alliance, no one was supposed to subjugate one another, or at least I'd like to think that since the same Hebrew word used for a "helper" (Eve) in Genesis occurs in Jeremiah 47:4 to refer to "helpers"/allies, so presumably that word for "helper" doesn't have the connotations of servant, rather ally.

**end passionate tangent**

Quote:

A lot of your fellows will tell you that it's the latter, and then helpfully point you to the book of Revelation.

Of course!
Oh! A Jehovah's Witness pointed me to revalation for something, too!
I admire his persistence. He hands out his tracts on Wheaton's campus, though it's a strongly evangelical institution. Gotta admire his persistence. He's a nice dude, too.  

[Kittey-chan]

God doesn't need to smite people for himself: he's the one who judges where we go when we die, after all, and that's quite a bit longer then life even of the longest lived people.
So he must smite people for... people.
Maybe he isn't obvious about smiting people now, if he even is, because we have all the examples of smiting we need?
And, the Catholic church has a lot of extra-biblical traditions and rules. Its a really big, old, entity. Its gonna have a few weird shaped wrinkles.

My thought on woman in leadership roles? Its not about discrimination. Its about putting God's gifts to waste. If God gives a woman an ability well, it'd be a waste not to use it. Someone needs to lead- and we certainly need more capable leaders in the world.

And, think about it this way. (though maybe you might not want to?) At the very least, in this day and age with the problems we have, we don't so much have to worry about woman being *****. Because, you know, they really aren't, at least not anywhere even approaching the amount that some men are.

Maybe Catholic churches wouldn't have to go bankrupt if Sister Mary was a priest instead of Brother John?  

[Berezi]

that_fairy

God doesn't need to smite people for himself: he's the one who judges where we go when we die, after all, and that's quite a bit longer then life even of the longest lived people.
So he must smite people for... people.
Maybe he isn't obvious about smiting people now, if he even is, because we have all the examples of smiting we need?

I guess that's kind of where I am. Except, the thing is, justice must be done. True, God didn't have to give us a way to be forgiven, but He did. Although He doesn't have to, He is love, so He wanted to.
If God smites someone, it's not for us, necisarrily. It's for justice. And also so that everyone else knows not to do that same thing. So, I suppose, it is for people to some extent, but there's more to it than that.

Quote:

And, the Catholic church has a lot of extra-biblical traditions and rules. Its a really big, old, entity. Its gonna have a few weird shaped wrinkles.

What religion doesn't? Every denomination of Christianity and every religion in this world has a few weird-shaped wrinkles.

Quote:

My thought on woman in leadership roles? Its not about discrimination. Its about putting God's gifts to waste. If God gives a woman an ability well, it'd be a waste not to use it. Someone needs to lead- and we certainly need more capable leaders in the world.

I agree. I also believe that God gives us gifts for the purpose of using them. Let's say that eyes are leaders in the body, for example. If God made a woman an eye, and she started trying to be a hand instead because she was a woman and is "supposed" to be a hand, wouldn't that be ridiculous? It would be equally ridiculous if God made a man a hand, and he started trying to be an eye because he was a man and is "supposed" to be an eye. Eyes and hands don't function in the same way, and only serve the body when functioning in their proper manners. If God makes a woman leader or a man servant, that is how they should function because otherwise they will be useless to the body.

Quote:

And, think about it this way. (though maybe you might not want to?) At the very least, in this day and age with the problems we have, we don't so much have to worry about woman being *****. Because, you know, they really aren't, at least not anywhere even approaching the amount that some men are.

Unless you find some statistics for that, I'll have to say that this is extremely fallacious. It's like saying that women don't really have libidos because they're women, and men are the only ones that have struggles with lust. That's not true, and it is extremely fallacious to assume so just because of gender.

Not to mention, you have a solid point without this argument. It's a bit unnecessary. I think you've got much more of a ground in the Bible for this. You can refer to scriptures about the body of Christ and how we all have different functions. Then point out what men and women are portrayed as doing in the early church - for instance, the apostle Junia. Then explain that a woman can only take authority from a man if he actually has it. If a woman is given authority from God, she is not stealing it from anyone.

Plus, I don't think, if you were ever in a discussion about this, that the decision would be based on "well, less women are ***** than men." Honestly, complementarians don't care about that because they feel they have a scriptural ground for their point. Neither do egalitarians for the same reason. And they both kind of do. I lean more towards the egalitarian side, though I think that men and women do have differences that are intended to complement each other.

Quote:

Maybe Catholic churches wouldn't have to go bankrupt if Sister Mary was a priest instead of Brother John?

I'm not sure how that applies, but again, you'd have a pretty solid argument without this point. =)  

[Gambol]

Berezi

If God smites someone, it's not for us, necisarrily. It's for justice.

Sorry, Sissy-poo.

But when I read this, I can't help but think:


SMITE FOR GREAT JUSTICE.  

[Berezi]

Gambol

Berezi

If God smites someone, it's not for us, necisarrily. It's for justice.

Sorry, Sissy-poo.

But when I read this, I can't help but think:


SMITE FOR GREAT JUSTICE.

Well, sissy-poo, I have no idea what you're referring to.

And isn't that a bit off-topic anyway?  

[Kittey-chan]

Berezi

Quote:

And, think about it this way. (though maybe you might not want to?) At the very least, in this day and age with the problems we have, we don't so much have to worry about woman being *****. Because, you know, they really aren't, at least not anywhere even approaching the amount that some men are.

Unless you find some statistics for that, I'll have to say that this is extremely fallacious. It's like saying that women don't really have libidos because they're women, and men are the only ones that have struggles with lust. That's not true, and it is extremely fallacious to assume so just because of gender.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs99.pdf, page six, its in bold. For those who dont wish to go to the site, it says "Less than 5% of sex offences against children are known to have been committed by woman".
My point was not that men are more sinful than woman, but rather that woman priests seem less likely to cause the serious, long lasting harm to the individuals and the community from ***** than men.
My point was not even that woman would make better priests than men; rather, we should look at some of the unique traits woman have in common that are much needed now.
An example of a way that that could be used in RL? Well, a priest that spends a lot of time around children (choir, teaching, ect.) would be much more trusted and much less likely not to abuse that trust if they were a woman.
And why did I include that little segment? Because the priest ***** scandals are a large problem today. When people think of priests, esp. non-christians, that is often what they are going to think of because of the media coverage.  

[Kittey-chan]

Berezi

you'd have a pretty solid argument without this point. =)

Thankies 3nodding  

[ioioouiouiouio]

that_fairy

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs99.pdf, page six, its in bold. For those who dont wish to go to the site, it says "Less than 5% of sex offences against children are known to have been committed by woman".
My point was not that men are more sinful than woman, but rather that woman priests seem less likely to cause the serious, long lasting harm to the individuals and the community from ***** than men.
My point was not even that woman would make better priests than men; rather, we should look at some of the unique traits woman have in common that are much needed now.
An example of a way that that could be used in RL? Well, a priest that spends a lot of time around children (choir, teaching, ect.) would be much more trusted and much less likely not to abuse that trust if they were a woman.
And why did I include that little segment? Because the priest ***** scandals are a large problem today. When people think of priests, esp. non-christians, that is often what they are going to think of because of the media coverage.

But you're still not taking into account the fact that the ***** in the church are themselves the minority. Sure, a lot less women molest kids then men, but a whole-bloody-lot-less men molest kids than men that don't. You can't really bring gender into this with that in mind.  

[Kittey-chan]

Cometh The Inquisitor

that_fairy

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs99.pdf, page six, its in bold. For those who dont wish to go to the site, it says "Less than 5% of sex offences against children are known to have been committed by woman".
My point was not that men are more sinful than woman, but rather that woman priests seem less likely to cause the serious, long lasting harm to the individuals and the community from ***** than men.
My point was not even that woman would make better priests than men; rather, we should look at some of the unique traits woman have in common that are much needed now.
An example of a way that that could be used in RL? Well, a priest that spends a lot of time around children (choir, teaching, ect.) would be much more trusted and much less likely not to abuse that trust if they were a woman.
And why did I include that little segment? Because the priest ***** scandals are a large problem today. When people think of priests, esp. non-christians, that is often what they are going to think of because of the media coverage.

But you're still not taking into account the fact that the ***** in the church are themselves the minority. Sure, a lot less women molest kids then men, but a whole-bloody-lot-less men molest kids than men that don't. You can't really bring gender into this with that in mind.

Mmm, it is true that the majority of men *don't* molest children. However, it is still a major problem. When it *does* happen, it's very damaging. Not only does it hurt the victims, it puts a very bad light on the Catholic religion and, when it happens in other sects (though that has less publicity) it puts a bad light on them. The general public has a much stronger reaction to one such negative event like that than the many more positive things that Christian churches do.
Saying that a situation doesn't happen very often isn't a good reason for not having every reasonable safeguard against it. The vast majority of people don't try to carry explosives or guns onto planes; however we have stringent safeguards against it because when it *does* happen, it is devastating.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

that_fairy

Mmm, it is true that the majority of men *don't* molest children. However, it is still a major problem. When it *does* happen, it's very damaging. Not only does it hurt the victims, it puts a very bad light on the Catholic religion and, when it happens in other sects (though that has less publicity) it puts a bad light on them. The general public has a much stronger reaction to one such negative event like that than the many more positive things that Christian churches do.
Saying that a situation doesn't happen very often isn't a good reason for not having every reasonable safeguard against it. The vast majority of people don't try to carry explosives or guns onto planes; however we have stringent safeguards against it because when it *does* happen, it is devastating.

True, but, to use your analogy, that doesn't mean that we don't let muslims on the plane. Or even pull them aside to make sure that they're safe for public travel.

Sure, it looks bad when certain members of the church do things like that, but we can't let public opinion sway us into comprimising our values. I say that the presumption of innocence is basically our only option.  

[Berezi]

that_fairy

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs99.pdf, page six, its in bold. For those who dont wish to go to the site, it says "Less than 5% of sex offences against children are known to have been committed by woman".

Thanks! That certainly helps a bit. Of course, that "are known" bit requires you to take it with a grain of salt. It is also possible that children who have been abused by women are less willing to report it because the stereotype of women as not being ***** is so prominent that if they were to speak, the children would not be believed and then they'd be worse off than if they didn't speak.

Quote:

My point was not that men are more sinful than woman, but rather that woman priests seem less likely to cause the serious, long lasting harm to the individuals and the community from ***** than men.

Yes, that's true, or at least that seems true. But there are other ways that women can cause harm to the community, too. ***** is just one of many sins.

Quote:

My point was not even that woman would make better priests than men; rather, we should look at some of the unique traits woman have in common that are much needed now.

Yes, that's also true. But we can say the same thing of men. Granted, those traits might not be the same, but we can say that men have traits that are needed now, too.

Quote:

An example of a way that that could be used in RL? Well, a priest that spends a lot of time around children (choir, teaching, ect.) would be much more trusted and much less likely not to abuse that trust if they were a woman.

I'd say that they'd be more trusted, in the least. They are less likely, it seems, but I'd be careful how much I highlight those statistics, especially when related to sexual abuse. It takes great courage to report sexual abuse, especially in cases where the informant might be ignored/disbelieved.

Quote:

And why did I include that little segment? Because the priest ***** scandals are a large problem today. When people think of priests, esp. non-christians, that is often what they are going to think of because of the media coverage.

Yeah, that's true. ***** is important, but if so many priests didn't have that issue, they'd have other issues, too.

That's not to say the problem shouldn't be addressed. It does, however, say that it's pointless to ordain women as priests solely because they're not going to be *****. If women are to be ordained, it needs to be because God has called that woman to be ordained. That's the only reason why anyone should be ordained as a priest. Gender or what they will sin in or won't sin in should have nothing to do with it.

And again, I'm still with you that women should be allowed to be priests. God gifts women with leadership, too, and it would be wasteful for them not to assume those positions of leadership if they have that gift.  

[CCubed]

Women don't need to be priests; no i'm not being sexist, just wait. Women already have great responsibilities in the church. No one says women aren't important, I mean, Jesus took Mary directly into heaven, that's saying something. He also saved the woman's life when the pharisees brought her to him and asked him if they should kill her for committing adultery. However, Jesus left the leadership of the church in Peter's hands. He also gave women just as much responsibility. Women are nuns and married to Jesus, and Men are priests and married to the church. So it's an example of marriage. Nuns teach in the diocesan schools, they often are a better example than the priest since they see more children than the priest does most of the time.

Also, the church is referred to as She because in the days after Christ, they referred to the church as "Alma Mater." Some of you graduates will recognize that. Alma Mater in english means Loving mother (It's latin). So thus, the church is referred to as feminine. However, if you think about it, what exactly do priests do? let's do a analysis.

Nuns: Raise money, teach, love, are examples, devote their life to christ.

Priests: give rites, mass, sacraments, matrimony.

So if you think about it, he made it so that the priests need the nuns to operate as much as the nuns need the priests. Yet another perfect example of how God made us to be dependent on others in some capacity. (i'll see if i can't find that painting, it's of two angels, male and female, where they each have one wing, and need each other to fly razz )  

[zz1000zz]

Quote:

Jesus took Mary directly into heaven,

...?  

[ioioouiouiouio]

zz1000zz

Quote:

Jesus took Mary directly into heaven,

...?

It's catholic dogma.  

[Berezi]

CCubed

Women don't need to be priests; no i'm not being sexist, just wait. Women already have great responsibilities in the church. No one says women aren't important, I mean, Jesus took Mary directly into heaven, that's saying something. He also saved the woman's life when the pharisees brought her to him and asked him if they should kill her for committing adultery. However, Jesus left the leadership of the church in Peter's hands. He also gave women just as much responsibility. Women are nuns and married to Jesus, and Men are priests and married to the church. So it's an example of marriage. Nuns teach in the diocesan schools, they often are a better example than the priest since they see more children than the priest does most of the time.

What, then, do you say when God gifts a woman with the abilities to be a priest? Should she waste that gift because that's not her typical gendered role?

Quote:

Also, the church is referred to as She because in the days after Christ, they referred to the church as "Alma Mater." Some of you graduates will recognize that. Alma Mater in english means Loving mother (It's latin). So thus, the church is referred to as feminine. However, if you think about it, what exactly do priests do? let's do a analysis.

Nuns: Raise money, teach, love, are examples, devote their life to christ.

Priests: give rites, mass, sacraments, matrimony.

So if you think about it, he made it so that the priests need the nuns to operate as much as the nuns need the priests. Yet another perfect example of how God made us to be dependent on others in some capacity. (i'll see if i can't find that painting, it's of two angels, male and female, where they each have one wing, and need each other to fly razz )

And if God gifts the man with the gifts needed to be a nun, and a woman with the gifts needed to be a priest, is that somehow wrong? Is it wrong if a man is made as a person with a natural inclination towards nurturing for that man to be a stay-at-home dad? Is it wrong for a woman to be a working mom if God calls her there?

Yes, people are dependent on each other, there's no doubt about that, but I don't think it's safe to lump people in gendered categories like that. God frequently breaks them, and sometimes against our will. Until recently, I wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. However, God's calling me to be a doctor (I think). I may still become a mother, and I'll be a darn good one if God calls me to that, but I will probably still maintain a medical career alongside that. Career maintaining had honestly never come into the picture as a long-term goal. God changed my plans, though they don't fit within certain gendered categories (I know I'm stuck with the mother thing, but the stay-at-home versus career mom thing I'm not).