Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
jugoso

Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

85 posts in this topic

I am not a church goer,corse I don.t trust catholic religion anyway nor do I like the Poop,oops I mean the Pope.Still I don't or wont listen to women preach,To me I feel that religion is false and evil for they allow one to worship Idols' and they took books from the bible out and placed their own books in it,In my opinion I really don't care what they do as long as they keep that stuff away from me.I am all for the women movement,They want Equil rights and all that stuff,Good I have no problem treating them like they want to be treated,They should have every right to do what they want,But they should also get the same rewards and punishments the men do.But as for not letting them be preachers,Hey If they want to follow that religion and not be allowed to preach,then I think they should do what they are told to do"YEAH RIGHT"(cence when do women listen to men anyway) Hey Im being sarcastic in this post so I dont want any of you bleeding heart crybabies to take me serious and hate me for the crap I just posted.In reality Women should have the right to do what ever their heart's desire.If it were not for some women in this world we would not be here.Message to the Pope:Dude......You blow chunks.May the fleas of a thousand Camels infest your arm pits.

Haha, your comments should not be offensive. You are a true feminist. A rare thing even in the feminist movement. Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have little problem with it (then again I'm atheist). Basically the Church is a group with rules, if the leader(s) don't want someone to hold a position based on race or sex, thats their decision, if it paints them in a bad light so be it.

A more extreme example would be something like the KKK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sexist male will say - It should not be allowed

A decent perosn will say - Why not? I say go for it... God doesn't care who does it

Others would not care...each to their own

Like I said decent folks will not care or discriminate

In general ....I do not see ANY point in trying to excuse your own discriminations..... If you are sexist and show it... Don't excuse it... Well you can try IF you think there are stupid people that will believe you

Im afraid its more complex than that. There are theological reason about why women cant, and its not something that can be changed overnight or based on the caprice of a pope.

It will take many years to figure it out and maybe it will never happen, without changing the core of the RCC. But at least its not a problem unique to Catholics.

Hi Jugoso,

I'm a cradle Catholic... born 1960 (:P ) I'm not sure your comment that "many woman raised Catholic have progressed to different religions with no hierarchy based on gender" rings true. Look at what is happening in the Church of England because of woman being ordained, they are coming over to the Catholic Church in their droves!

Also Catholic schools are thriving... my girls age 21, 19 and 14 see no problem with woman not being ordained into the RCC! Jesus knew what he was doing at the time of choosing his Apostles... or don't you think he had the foresight to see that times would change?

edit: to add a link on the RCC reason for not ordaining woman

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

Good link thanxs for posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leo and Star

Without making this a personal criticism, Star, as it may be applied (imo) to any Catholic woman who feels as your daughters do, do you not consider this [the highlighted] may be a result of indoctrination, rather than reason?

I am unsure how reason would determine this contrary to Star's and her daughters' position, nor why the only alternative basis for preference on offer is indoctrination.

A priest in any religion that has them is an officially designated presider over a religious sacrifice. It is a role, and the principal criterion for fitness is ritual appropriateness. Now, there are other apsects of the job in the Roman Catholic case, such as a limit to how high any woman can rise in church management because only priests can be top management. But the core job is to play an assigned role in the re-enactment of the events of Jesus' Last Supper.

The producer of the re-enactment, the Church, wants to cast a man in this role. How is this different in rationality from a producer of The Tempest auditioning only male actors for the role of Prospero?

Surely reason does not support the inability of actresses to discharge the role adequately. Helen Mirren did a great job as "Prospero."

Actually, though, she played Prospera, not Prospero. It's a different work when a woman plays the part than when a man does. And it would be different still if she had played the role as if she were a man (as women have played Hamlet, as it is written, and Dame Mirren has expressed some hope that she might yet do). The producer may have a preference about which Tempest she wishes to stage, and the foundation for that preference may be rational.

Gender matters in the theater and on film. Even in jurisdictions where gender discrimination in employment is closely regulated, gender distinctions in casting decisions are usually protected as reflecting a bona fide job qualification.

How could gender not matter in a situation where the audience believes that they are not merely spectators at a re-enactment, but participants witnessing the prelude to a literal indwelling of God within themselves? They are apt to be offended that I mentioned theater in the same paragraph as this, which for them so transcends any other re-enactment.

Benedict is a bureaucrat, and gave a bureaucrat's (or worse, a lawyer's) answer to a fundamental question about his faith and its ritual repertoire. Maybe Star and her daughters gave a congregant's answer. There's an argument for management reform in that, but not so much an argument for women to serve as Catholic or Orthodox priests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Im afraid its more complex than that. There are theological reason about why women cant, and its not something that can be changed overnight or based on the caprice of a pope.

It will take many years to figure it out and maybe it will never happen, without changing the core of the RCC. But at least its not a problem unique to Catholics.

You'd nearly think the pope or any Christian leader has NEVER made changes eh? Trust me, they will change what they want to change... Women have been trying to become clergy for many years.. it is not some over night decision .. Stubbornness and sexism will prevent it... Some Church leader's allow it...some wont..

Fact is.. if they wish to keep it all male, it still is sexist .. and not wanting to change is stubborn...

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Leo and Star

I am unsure how reason would determine this contrary to Star's and her daughters' position, nor why the only alternative basis for preference on offer is indoctrination.

A fair question, eb, and I will do my best to answer it.

It seems to me, there is no apparent reason by way of ability that a woman cannot be a priest in the Catholic Church. When considering the duties performed by a Catholic priest, there is nothing among those duties a woman would appear to be incapable of.

Thus, by way of reason and setting aside beliefs, one arrives at a conclusion regarding a woman's 'fitness' to be a priest at odds with the Catholic Church's opinion.

To determine why the Catholic Church determines a woman may not be a priest, then, we must look to belief. Because it is a question of belief, and not ability, it follows that the acceptance among Catholic women of the edict that a woman may not be a priest, is one of indoctrination through that belief. Of course, if you disapprove of the word 'indoctrination' we might replace it with a softer-sounding alternative, such as 'socialisation', but the meaning is the same.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To determine why the Catholic Church determines a woman may not be a priest, then, we must look to belief.

Belief is a feature of many religious organizations, and the Catholic Church is a religious organization. It does not follow that a Catholic's agreement with a Catholic ritual policy is irrational or the product of indoctrination.

The belief in question concerns ritual fitness, rather than any supernatural issue. Ritual fitness, like the suitability of an actor to play a theatrical role, can be informed by deliberation, experience, consultation with peers (like the Eastern Orthodox churches in the priestly case) and other rational opinion formation activities.

Because it is a question of belief, and not ability, it follows that the acceptance among Catholic women of the edict that a woman may not be a priest, is one of indoctrination through that belief.

What about that "follows"? Why would the presumptive basis for either men's or women's agreement with a policy be indoctrination? Reasons have been presented for the policy. Surely not everyone who disagrees with you about their merits does so because of indoctrination.

Do you have any evidence that the Roman Catholic Church employs indoctrination techniques that are effective in preventing or overcoming reasoned objections in adult women or adult men to policies about how the Catholic Mass will be conducted?

As to the word, of course Star and her daughters have experienced "socialization." Star knows how to use the written English language, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if her daughters often use the smaller fork for their salad, either. There is nothing about "socialization" that implies an impediment to reason, nor is there any connotation of a one-way relationship for the benefit of one party at the expense of another. The meanings are not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Belief is a feature of many religious organizations, and the Catholic Church is a religious organization. It does not follow that a Catholic's agreement with a Catholic ritual policy is irrational or the product of indoctrination.

The belief in question concerns ritual fitness, rather than any supernatural issue. Ritual fitness, like the suitability of an actor to play a theatrical role, can be informed by deliberation, experience, consultation with peers (like the Eastern Orthodox churches in the priestly case) and other rational opinion formation activities.

Very well, eb.

Why are women incapable of being as "ritually fit" as men, in the specific case in point? What specific quality/ies of women deny them this 'fitness'?

And where did I mention the Catholic belief regarding women's fitness to be priests was irrational? I won't deny my implication it is unreasonable, but I do deny I ever stated it to be irrational.

*edited to add:

Do you have any evidence that the Roman Catholic Church employs indoctrination techniques that are effective in preventing or overcoming reasoned objections in adult women or adult men to policies about how the Catholic Mass will be conducted?

Yes.

The Catholic Church refuses to allow women to be priests - a role that women do not appear to be incapable of performing.

It cannot be argued without doubt that the actions of Jesus in choosing male disciples was a message to future generations that only males were 'fit' to assume the role of messengers/intermediaries. There is sufficient cause to suggest this action was merely indicative of the culture prevalent at the time, and that, being God, Jesus would know that cultures and certain traditions may change without interfering in the relationship between Man and God.

Neither can it be argued without doubt that the argument PA makes, about the relationship between Christ and the Church, literally, or even figuratively, reflects the relationship between priest and congregation in the Catholic Church. The priest is not the representative of Christ on Earth in Catholic tradition, but is an intermediary only.

Given the Catholic Church could make a case, using a reasonable argument, for the inclusion of women into the priesthood, but given they do not make such a case but instead use an argument based on tradition to exclude women from that position, the implication is that it is not a case of women cannot be priests, but that the Catholic Church do not want them to be priests.

The invoking of a divinity as underpinning this unreasonable action, in combination with the religious adherents assumed devotion to the divinity, suggests the Catholic Church's intention to reinforce this unreasonable edict in the mind of the adherent. This methodology of inculcating this desire into the adherents of the Catholic faith is thus an indoctrination through belief.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And where did I mention the Catholic belief regarding women's fitness to be priests was irrational? I won't deny my implication it is unreasonable, but I do deny I ever stated it to be irrational.

I didn't say you did. When I write, I use words of my choice. My choice in this case reflects how I interpreted your question to Star,

do you not consider this [the highlighted] may be a result of indoctrination, rather than reason?

Was it your intention to leave open the possibility of a rational compliance with indoctrination, or were you thinking more along the lines of a reasonable compliance?

The priest is not the representative of Christ on Earth in Catholic tradition, but is an intermediary only.

I commented about the priest's role in the eucharistic ritual. Let's see what the catechism says about that, emphasis added

1348 All gather together. Christians come together in one place for the Eucharistic assembly. At its head is Christ himself, the principal agent of the Eucharist. He is high priest of the New Covenant; it is he himself who presides invisibly over every Eucharistic celebration. It is in representing him that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer. All have their own active parts to play in the celebration, each in his own way: readers, those who bring up the offerings, those who give communion, and the whole people whose "Amen" manifests their participation.

In the Eucharistic ritual, the Catholic view of the role of the priest is as I described it to be, and that is the only aspect of the priestly function I commented upon at any length.

It cannot be argued without doubt that the actions of Jesus in choosing male disciples was a message to future generations that only males were 'fit' to assume the role of messengers/intermediaries.

As you know, that isn't what I have argued. I have already commented upon one version of that line of argument. So, this is where I came in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He probably realized that women would be better at runung the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it your intention to leave open the possibility of a rational compliance with indoctrination, or were you thinking more along the lines of a reasonable compliance?

A person's compliance to indoctrination is no more irrational than a person's compliance to religion (or any belief) is. Indoctrination is simply the inculcating of a belief in a person. My argument is that the indoctrinated do not comply through reasoned argument, but through the force/suggestion of the indoctrination.

I commented about the priest's role in the eucharistic ritual. Let's see what the catechism says about that, emphasis added

1348 All gather together. Christians come together in one place for the Eucharistic assembly. At its head is Christ himself, the principal agent of the Eucharist. He is high priest of the New Covenant; it is he himself who presides invisibly over every Eucharistic celebration. It is in representing him that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer. All have their own active parts to play in the celebration, each in his own way: readers, those who bring up the offerings, those who give communion, and the whole people whose "Amen" manifests their participation.

In the Eucharistic ritual, the Catholic view of the role of the priest is as I described it to be, and that is the only aspect of the priestly function I commented upon at any length.

Which is fine, and merely suggests a woman priest would not be allowed to perform the Eucharist ritual. This does not prohibit a woman from being a priest, unless the core function of the priesthood is to perform the ritual of the Eucharist and all other functions/rituals are secondary to, or devolve from, that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My argument is that the indoctrinated do not comply through reasoned argument, but through the force/suggestion of the indoctrination.

Then it would seem we are in agreement. You asked Star whether the basis of her willingness to embrace what she believes was the fruit of her own deliberative faculty, or whether it instead originated outside of her own deliberative faculty and persists without regard to it.

There are unboundedly many interchangeable ways to ask that. I think I'm on my third version right there. Since it is obvious that we both understand the question, and neither of us is so innocent as to miss its argumentative edge, perhaps we should simply celebrate our shared knowing as we await Star's answer, about which there is no authentic suspense.

Which is fine, and merely suggests a woman priest would not be allowed to perform the Eucharist ritual.

That is what "priest" means, and not just in Catholicism, a person who presides at a sacrifice. Who doesn't preside at a sacrifice isn't a priest. The Eucharist is the chief sacrifice in the Catholic Church, and its performance is ordinarily a daily duty of the office they call "priest."

We apparently have a different understanding of logical necessity. If A and B are two necessary conditions for C, then B needn't derive from A, nor need A be secondary to B. If your job doesn't involve performing the Catholic Eucharist, then your job isn't being a Catholic priest. End of story.

In closing, I was a little disappointed that you would argue

The priest is not the representative of Christ on Earth in Catholic tradition, but is an intermediary only.

How can you type that sentence without your mind's ear hearing it as the stereotypical Protestant critique of Catholicism that it is? Not that there's anything wrong with Protestants, but they are obviously not the best source about actual Catholic beliefs and practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In closing, I was a little disappointed that you would argue

How can you type that sentence without your mind's ear hearing it as the stereotypical Protestant critique of Catholicism that it is? Not that there's anything wrong with Protestants, but they are obviously not the best source about actual Catholic beliefs and practices.

I can accept your disappointment without contrition, eb.

One of the pillars of Catholicism is the infallibility of God. As God on Earth, Jesus was likewise, infallible.

The Catholics have a tradition of Papal infallibility in matters of doctrine, but they have no tradition of priestly infallibility otherwise. I cannot see how they can argue the priest is representative of Christ(God) on Earth without maintaining a tradition of the infallibility of the priest?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the Pope, as leader of his cult religion, can impose whatever rules on his followers he wants?

Why anyone who believes in the teachings of Jesus, who thus believes in forgiveness, respect, equality and non discrimination, would want to follow and listen to the bigotry preached by the Pope etal is another matter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Without making this a personal criticism, Star, as it may be applied (imoto any Catholic woman who feels as your daughters do, do you not consider this [the highlighted] may be a result of indoctrination, rather than reason?

Hi Leonardo,

I understand where you are coming from... My daughters are very modern uptodate girls and are independent, educated and smart. They have been educated on all faiths and know that other Christian sects have ordained woman. My youngest doesn't attend a Catholic school and she has no problem with the fact that woman can't be ordained in the RCC, even though she is in a secular school it doesn't faze her at all, it is just how it is. Interestingly they question going to confession more than the issue of male priests only! I took my girls to Mass as little children but when they got to the age where they didn't want to go anymore, I let them decide for themselves. They like the rituals and traditions of the RCC and it is part of their life. There are somethings my girls don't agree with the RCC on and they let me know, which is fine with me.

I have asked them about the issue of woman not being ordained and they can see no issue with it. There really isn't any 'indoctrinating' on the issue, it's not hammered into them at Mass or when my two older daughters went to the local Catholic school it wasn't even mentioned, it just is accepted. It's part of being Catholic.. we just don't see it as a big deal as there are so many other roles that woman play within the Church. Anyhow, my daughters have said they would run a mile at the thought of being a Priest! :w00t:

Edited by Star of the Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leo and Star

I am unsure how reason would determine this contrary to Star's and her daughters' position, nor why the only alternative basis for preference on offer is indoctrination.

A priest in any religion that has them is an officially designated presider over a religious sacrifice. It is a role, and the principal criterion for fitness is ritual appropriateness. Now, there are other aspects of the job in the Roman Catholic case, such as a limit to how high any woman can rise in church management because only priests can be top management. But the core job is to play an assigned role in the re-enactment of the events of Jesus' Last Supper.

The producer of the re-enactment, the Church, wants to cast a man in this role. How is this different in rationality from a producer of The Tempest auditioning only male actors for the role of Prospero?

Surely reason does not support the inability of actresses to discharge the role adequately. Helen Mirren did a great job as "Prospero."

Actually, though, she played Prospera, not Prospero. It's a different work when a woman plays the part than when a man does. And it would be different still if she had played the role as if she were a man (as women have played Hamlet, as it is written, and Dame Mirren has expressed some hope that she might yet do). The producer may have a preference about which Tempest she wishes to stage, and the foundation for that preference may be rational.

Gender matters in the theater and on film. Even in jurisdictions where gender discrimination in employment is closely regulated, gender distinctions in casting decisions are usually protected as reflecting a bona fide job qualification.

How could gender not matter in a situation where the audience believes that they are not merely spectators at a re-enactment, but participants witnessing the prelude to a literal indwelling of God within themselves? They are apt to be offended that I mentioned theater in the same paragraph as this, which for them so transcends any other re-enactment.

Benedict is a bureaucrat, and gave a bureaucrat's (or worse, a lawyer's) answer to a fundamental question about his faith and its ritual repertoire. Maybe Star and her daughters gave a congregant's answer. There's an argument for management reform in that, but not so much an argument for women to serve as Catholic or Orthodox priests.

Hi Eight Bits,

Again, Eight Bits you have hit the nail on the head. There are roles, rituals and reasons behind what you see at Mass. 'It is what it is' and Mass is the re-enactment of the last supper and which Catholics know and fully understand. It is a fantastic analogy that you have used and it perfectly demonstrates the Mass and what it encompasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Leonardo,

I understand where you are coming from... My daughters are very modern uptodate girls and are independent, educated and smart. They have been educated on all faiths and know that other Christian sects have ordained woman. My youngest doesn't attend a Catholic school and she has no problem with the fact that woman can't be ordained in the RCC, even though she is in a secular school it doesn't faze her at all, it is just how it is. Interestingly they question going to confession more than the issue of male priests only! I took my girls to Mass as little children but when they got to the age where they didn't want to go anymore, I let them decide for themselves. They like the rituals and traditions of the RCC and it is part of their life. There are somethings my girls don't agree with the RCC on and they let me know, which is fine with me.

I have asked them about the issue of woman not being ordained and they can see no issue with it. There really isn't any 'indoctrinating' on the issue, it's not hammered into them at Mass or when my two older daughters went to the local Catholic school it wasn't even mentioned, it just is accepted. It's part of being Catholic.. we just don't see it as a big deal as there are so many other roles that woman play within the Church. Anyhow, my daughters have said they would run a mile at the thought of being a Priest! :w00t:

Thanks for the reply, Star, and I'm not debating/questioning to make it personal, it's simply that you are in a position to relate "the other pov".

I understand your daughters, and you, may accept that the CC doesn't ordain women as priests, but that wasn't really what I was intimating at with my argument. I accept the right of the CC to not ordain women as priests, even though I dispute their reasons behind that exclusion.

What I would like to know is whether they [your daughters] and you think the reasons the CC do not ordain women as priests are right, well-reasoned and valid in their/your minds? I am fully accepting I may not have been correct in suggesting there is an issue with indoctrination in their/your case, but that does not mean there is no issue with indoctrination among a more general cross-section of female Catholics.

Even the attitude "it's just not really a big deal" may be indicative of indoctrination vs reasoned argument.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Catholic female who doesn't find it insulting, infact I don't know any Catholic females who do :)

;):tu::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd nearly think the pope or any Christian leader has NEVER made changes eh? Trust me, they will change what they want to change... Women have been trying to become clergy for many years.. it is not some over night decision .. Stubbornness and sexism will prevent it... Some Church leader's allow it...some wont..

Fact is.. if they wish to keep it all male, it still is sexist .. and not wanting to change is stubborn...

Nope a Pope cannot go against the doctrine. The pope is infallible through the light of the rcc theology, but cannot go against it at least not apply permanent changes and revolutions like the one we are talking about. Like he cannot suddently claim that Zeus is a god at pair with the heavenly father. So he cannot just like magic pop female pristes out of the blue.

So to find the way to allowing the ministry for women it will be a compromice and they will never be 100% equal with male priest. Sad but true. IMO the entire structure of the church has to change and thats not a esasy thing to do. Sadly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for the reply, Star, and I'm not debating/questioning to make it personal, it's simply that you are in a position to relate "the other pov".

I understand your daughters, and you, may accept that the CC doesn't ordain women as priests, but that wasn't really what I was intimating at with my argument. I accept the right of the CC to not ordain women as priests, even though I dispute their reasons behind that exclusion.

What I would like to know is whether they [your daughters] and you think the reasons the CC do not ordain women as priests are right, well-reasoned and valid in their/your minds? I am fully accepting I may not have been correct in suggesting there is an issue with indoctrination in their/your case, but that does not mean there is no issue with indoctrination among a more general cross-section of female Catholics.

Even the attitude "it's just not really a big deal" may be indicative of indoctrination vs reasoned argument.

Hi Leonardo,

I have never come across any other Catholic female who doesn't fully 'grasp' what Christ put into motion when he chose his Apostles. Catholic females recognise that if Christ wished to appoint woman as his Apostles, then he would of done so. But, he didn't! Therefore in our opinion, as Christ is the font of all wisdom, we follow his judgement as being 'sound and valid'. So what follows on from Christ is echoed in the RCC tradition of not appointing female priests.

The Catholic Church is not being 'sexist' IMO by not ordaining females as Priests. The RCC has 'NO' authority to 'usurp' Christ. That is the bottom line, we follow and reverie Christ's decisions. If Christ had chosen females, then there would of been females ordained from the very beginning, it's really as simple as that. This is why it's not a big deal to us, as we know the reasoning comes from Christ and not just from the Church. With female Catholics there is no offense taken by Christ's decision at all or at the RCC following Christ's example. Even though we are 2000 year or so on nothing will change the words of Christ having the same impact on us. We could go deeper into the reason for Christ's decision for only appointing men, but I dare say that is another thread!

Edited by Star of the Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Leonardo,

I have never come across any other Catholic female who doesn't fully 'grasp' what Christ put into motion when he chose his Apostles. Catholic females recognise that if Christ wished to appoint woman as his Apostles, then he would of done so. But, he didn't! Therefore in our opinion, as Christ is the font of all wisdom, we follow his judgement as being 'sound and valid'. So what follows on from Christ is echoed in the RCC tradition of not appointing female priests.

The Catholic Church is not being 'sexist' IMO by not ordaining females as Priests. The RCC has 'NO' authority to 'usurp' Christ. That is the bottom line, we follow and reverie Christ's decisions. If Christ had chosen females, then there would of been females ordained from the very beginning, it's really as simple as that. This is why it's not a big deal to us, as we know the reasoning comes from Christ and not just from the Church. With female Catholics there is no offense taken by Christ's decision at all or at the RCC following Christ's example. Even though we are 2000 year or so on nothing will change the words of Christ having the same impact on us. We could go deeper into the reason for Christ's decision for only appointing men, but I dare say that is another thread!

But do you really think the RCC is a credible source that Jesus did only choose male Apostles? After all, they were behind making out Mary Magdalene to be a prostitute and later had to right that wrong? I know this is going to sound so Da Vinci Code, but the gnostic writings show the tension between Peter (the rock which the Catholic church was built) and Mary Magdalene and the story goes from there, her being made out to be a prostitute while she may have very well been an Apostle. This is all very "what the RCC says" more than what Jesus says, imo, or that's how I see it, but I'm not Catholic so I guess I don't have the faith in them a I think my hesitance is trusting everything they say is well-deserved based on their history. But I guess in carrying on in St. Peter's tradition, the not allowing female priests makes sense and it really does seem to me in my eyes, more his church than Jesus'. To me, it's hard not to wonder if Jesus didn't give Mary Magdalene an important role, very well an apostle, maybe even a leadership role.

Edit: Because my laptop mouse thingy is a demon from hell and has a mind of its own. :P

Edited by ChloeB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The older I get, The harder it is for me to "swallow" statements such as those above. I find it to be "out-of-date" and also quite insulting to women.

Thank You!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have checked it out. And in the earliest days (aka, the centuries immediately after Christ) women were given Rights previously unheard of. When Christianity became the "Official Religion" (4th-5th Centuries) even then women largely retained those Rights. Then as the Church gained in power and influence, so they grew in their desire for more power and more influence, and slowly the Rights of women were taken away. By the time the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church split, the Rights of women were virtually non-existent. None of that takes away from the early centuries of Christianity when women were given greater Rights than they had previously had.

~ PA

I agree with you about womens' places of leadership in the church. Also, from the beginning of the Tabernacle and the Temples there was only ONE high priest. The high priest was the earthly high priest until the heavenly one, Jesus, came. He is now the high priest and all believers are now "a priesthood of believers." That means all believers - - women as well as man. That eliminates ALL POPES as high priest because they are earthly. The book of Hebrews tells us that that form was just foreshadows and was taken away when Jesus came. There can't be two high priests -- one on earth and one in heaven. The high priest makes intercession for the congregation. The POPE can't do that now. That's Jesus' place.

Instead of getting rid of the women leadership in the church, THE POPE is out of place and should cease.

In the New Testament and the first century women functioned in every capacity as men in the church and shed their martyred blood just as freely. Phoebe was a "diakonos" of the church at Cenchrea. (Same word is translated servant, deaconess, deacon, & minister other places.) She was a minister of the church at Cenchrea. Typhaena and Tryphosa were women who "labor in the Lord." Persis "labored much in the Lord." Phil. 4:3 "help those women who labored with me (Paul) in the gospel." In 2nd John letter he wrote to the "elect lady and her children" meaning a female pastor of a church and her congregation. Never was/is a male pastor addressed as "lady." My church history tells how the Roman military was trying to crush Christianity by killing the leaders. A letter was written asking whether to kill two women who were called deaconesses since they were women. This was about 100 A.D.

Little by little women's religious place has been put down. It was never so with Jesus. If, "in the last days your daughters shall prophesy" how are they going to do that when they are told to be seen and not heard??

Just as Muslim women accept such a degrading subordinate place because that is all they have been taught, I suspect Catholic women take such a subordinate place in church worship because they don't know better.

God bless us all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine, who was raised in the RCC, said Mary Magdalene could have been an apostle, as she went everywhere with Jesus, spreading his message. She also believes Mary could have been present at the last supper; there is no list in the bible that says who exactly was there, and if she wasn't there, it could have been because of an old Jewish tradition of not allowing men & women in the same room, or that her presence wasn't mentioned after the fact. She said Mary Magdalene wrote a gospel, which was excluded from the bible at the Council of Nicea. RE: indoctrination, how about catechism, a ritual set of questions with required answers?

I know several women who've left the Church for several reasons, among them gender bias. I also have friends who would never consider leaving the church. It's a very personal decision and everyone needs to do what's right for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Leonardo,

I have never come across any other Catholic female who doesn't fully 'grasp' what Christ put into motion when he chose his Apostles. Catholic females recognise that if Christ wished to appoint woman as his Apostles, then he would of done so. But, he didn't! Therefore in our opinion, as Christ is the font of all wisdom, we follow his judgement as being 'sound and valid'. So what follows on from Christ is echoed in the RCC tradition of not appointing female priests.

The Catholic Church is not being 'sexist' IMO by not ordaining females as Priests. The RCC has 'NO' authority to 'usurp' Christ. That is the bottom line, we follow and reverie Christ's decisions. If Christ had chosen females, then there would of been females ordained from the very beginning, it's really as simple as that. This is why it's not a big deal to us, as we know the reasoning comes from Christ and not just from the Church. With female Catholics there is no offense taken by Christ's decision at all or at the RCC following Christ's example. Even though we are 2000 year or so on nothing will change the words of Christ having the same impact on us. We could go deeper into the reason for Christ's decision for only appointing men, but I dare say that is another thread!

Christ said nothing regarding the ordaining of women as priests. However I can understand that spinning his actions - made to be acceptable within the culture he was operating in - can be made to suggest his intentions.

Christ also never spoke about female emancipation, or the women's rights movement - because that also would have been unacceptable in the culture he operated in. Do you see those modern social phenomena as "anti-God", or "anti-Christ"? Does the CC endorse women's rights, among other modern social freedoms either not mentioned in the bible, or actually contrary to the common practices in the culture of that time?

If so, and the CC is comfortable 'second-guessing' Christs thoughts despite his silence on modern issues, then why can they not 'second-guess' the issue that the gender of the priest is irrelevant - except that this issue relates directly to the Church's own authority?

Christ is not portrayed in the bible as a sexual being, despite the references to him being "the Son of God/Man" and his undoubted maleness. The message Christ carried would work whether Christ was man, woman or asexual. This asexuality of Christ as portrayed in the bible is actually very much against the tradition of the culture he lived in, as a good Jewish man of his age would be expected to be married and probably have children. An argument relying on Christ's traditionality and adherence to culture, to invoke tradition as the reason for doctrine, falls flat right there.

So why is it necessary, and forgive the coarseness, for the ecclesiastical representative of that non-sexual Christ to own a pair of testicles?

Especially in light of the Church's own admonition that those testicles should be non-functional (through the practice of celibacy) in order that the priest properly represent that Christ? Do those two contradictory edicts not suggest a reason other than "being faithful to Christ" for the edict on a male-only priesthood?

Unless it is also held in Catholic tradition that only the male, and a celibate male, is 'holy' enough to represent the Christ in the flesh?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.