The Newest Catholic Church Uproar

[Eraddd]

I'm sure many of you who read the news know that the Catholic Church has deemed the ordination of women a sin comparable to molestation and sexual abuse, raising the ire of many women groups across the globe, and some religious groups who oppose this ruling. The Catholic Church (via Wikipedia!) has said that the ordination of men is only permissible due to the fact that "the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." Furthermore, they cite "that masculinity was integral to the personhood of both Jesus and the men he called as apostles. The Roman Catholic Church sees maleness and femaleness as two different ways of expressing common humanity." (Again, all taken from Wikipedia, I'm pretty ignorant on the subject here but curious about it). But I don't see any reason why the ordination of women actively blocks the work of Christ or is detrimental to it. I don't see how the argument the apostles were all male, means that women thus cannot become priests.

Does anyone want to shed light on the subject, or talk about other reasons why women SHOULD be ordained?

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...law-labels-sex-abuse-female-priests-as-crimes

 

[MrIndigo]

Who actually decided this? Was it a statement by the pope?

 

[cantab]

This is fairly typical of Catholicism and indeed Christianity in general. Child abuse is a sin. It's going against the rules.

Ordinating or being a woman priest - that's heresy. That's challenging the rules. Christianity has always tolerated sinners, but come down like a ton of bricks on heretics. To be honest secular dictatorships typically behave the same way.

 

[Deck Knight]

So how many people didn't already know the Catholic Church does not and will not ordain women priests before this? This isn't some damning new revelation, this is ancient (we're talking ca. 2000 years here) news and this group of "women priests" is just trying to cash in on what they have tried to warp to a moral equivalency. There are perennial articles about women whose sole purpose is to drag the reputation of the Catholic Church in the mud for personal gain whenever they reaffirm the same thing they've been teaching for the last 19 centuries.

Nobody forced these women to join the Catholic Church. Nobody has forced them to be nuns or religious sisters. If they do not have the decency to even read the vast tracts of text regarding Christ's selection of the priesthood (Apostolate) solely among men, their only motivation is to get 15 minutes of fame with feigned outrage.

This is the same kind of disgusting moral equivalency gotcha's these types always try and pull. The fact the Catholic Church is going to excommunicate any woman who tries to ordain you or presides over such a ceremony does not put such an act on the same level of moral repugnance as child molestation. That these women think it does is only an indication of their supreme self-absorption, not the Catholic Church's latent misogyny. If you get kicked out of a nightclub for getting too shitfaced and collapsing on the floor and someone else gets kicked out of the same nightclub for attempted date rape, you both got excommunicated from the nightclub that night, but one can hardly argue the fainted drunkard is morally equivalent to the rapist.

A more accurate title would be: "Same Shit, Different Day: Another angry, fame-seeking woman discovers Catholic Church does not allow women priests, seeks to malign Catholic Church over it."

 

[NC]

I read both your link and the Vatican rules revision and I am not seeing where it says sexual abuse is "comparable" to ordination of women. It is just saying both are sins, or "grave delicts."

 

[cantab]

If you get kicked out of a nightclub for getting too shitfaced and collapsing on the floor and someone else gets kicked out of the same nightclub for attempted date rape, you both got excommunicated from the nightclub that night, but one can hardly argue the fainted drunkard is morally equivalent to the rapist.

But what if the date rapist (the child abuser) doesn't get kicked out (excommunicated)? Then does the nightclub (the Catholic Church) not imply getting shit-faced (ordaining or being a woman priest) is WORSE than date rape (child molestation)?

 

[Brain]

My suggestion to any Catholic who is worried by this would be to pick a less misogynistic branch of Christianity (or another religion, or agnosticism, or atheism), the rationale being that the best incentive for Catholicism to change is a drop in its followers. After all, no ancient principles would be worth losing 50% of their flock.

This said, religion is not usually something you choose. For most people, religion is a matter of upbringing, location, peer pressure, and so forth. When you have been brainwashed into thinking Catholicism is true (edit: that is not meant to imply that Catholicism is false - people can and are brainwashed into other religions, atheism, communism and libertarianism all the time - but it seems obvious that mainstream religions, among others, get a lot of their following from indoctrination at a young age, or through immersion), you can't reasonably be expected to boycott it, so you are at your "spiritual leaders"'s mercy in a similar way that one would be at the mercy of their country's dictator. Most Catholics are forced to be Catholics by circumstances, even if they seldom realize this. Thus I would say that the people who control a religion have some kind of responsibility to adapt it to modern society.

Of course, the more people we can get to turn away from misogynistic religions, the better.

If you get kicked out of a nightclub for getting too shitfaced and collapsing on the floor and someone else gets kicked out of the same nightclub for attempted date rape, you both got excommunicated from the nightclub that night, but one can hardly argue the fainted drunkard is morally equivalent to the rapist.

On the other hand, if the nightclub kicks women out whenever they have the audacity to order a drink, would it not deserve to get its reputation dragged in the mud?

 

[capefeather]

Honestly, I'm tired of people comparing religion to dictatorships. Newsflash, guys: there are vast, obvious differences between the Third Reich, 1984, Scientology, major religions and their extremist versions. Comparing anybody to the Third Reich or 1984 is beyond stupid and invalidates anything one has to say on the matter tbh.

I don't know about the consistency within the Catholic system, but I do know that the people within it are fallible like everybody else. There will be miscarriages of justice there just as there are miscarriages of justice in our court system. A big part of Christianity is acknowledging that everybody is flawed.

Another newsflash: Just about every established system of rules is resistant to change. Rules are forged over long periods of debate and consideration. So much of the time people are justified in resisting usually naive challenges to the rules. Even here in Smogon, we lock every thread trying to revive the Stealth Rock debate and politely direct the topic creator to the original discussion. Is Smogon a dictatorship?

I disagree heavily with using the masculinity of the 12 Apostles as a justification for this, but I won't be quick to judge the decision. That would make me a hypocrite.

 

[Brain]

Honestly, I'm tired of people comparing religion to dictatorships. Newsflash, guys: there are vast, obvious differences between the Third Reich, 1984, Scientology, major religions and their extremist versions. Comparing anybody to the Third Reich or 1984 is beyond stupid and invalidates anything one has to say on the matter tbh.

You confuse dictatorship with totalitarianism. A dictatorship is just a political system where the authority is not bound by feedback by its subjects (other than through uprisings or voluntary accommodation). By that criterion, organized religion is very much like a dictatorship - either a dictatorship "by the book", where the book, by its very nature, fails to adapt to changes in society, or dictatorship through carefully selected leaders. It might be a benevolent dictatorship, for all we know, but that doesn't make it any less of one.

The vast majority of past societies have been dictatorships (see: all non-constitutional monarchies ever), and the vast majority of them have been mostly harmless. 1984 and the Third Reich are far, far removed from the average dictatorship. Nobody's comparing any religion to these.

 

[Deck Knight]

Holy Orders are basically the equivalent to marriage and, in Catholic theology, marriage is generally the higher regarded of the two. Catholic priests take a vow to God and its the laity that is charged with bringing children up in the Catholic Faith. Women can become religious sisters and can perform many of the functions of priests (and indeed, fill much of the church's internal office positions), just not celebrating the mass, consecrating the host, etc.

Quite frankly if someone thinks the priesthood is a position of power they probably shouldn't become a priest. The priest is supposed to be a servant to the laity. They are supposed to shepherd them to God, yes, but ultimately they, with Christ as the example, are to be the servants of the laity. To rail against the church because they aren't allowing you to become a priest based on the theological message they've laid out since their inception either means the person complaining has a very narrow vision of contributing to God's work or views the priesthood as a privileged class rather than a servant class. That is an entirely wrongheaded approach suitable only to feed prejudices and stoke hatred.

I find the Catholic Church thus to be one of the least misogynistic organizations in the world. The Catholic Church never rejects help from anyone, in fact, many of the most ardent Catholics working in the cities are women. I have met more strong Catholic women who pour their hearts and souls out for people despite the things they have to sacrifice for it. If anything it is the men who have abdicated their duties in the Catholic Church, not the women.

The Catholic Church is in fact the best organization for progress because it does not "get with the times," dragging itself ever lower into the pit of the dumbed-down society. Change for the sake of change isn't progress, it's barbarism, only by keeping tradition and knowing history can a decent society be maintained. The shiftless have their heroes, yes, somebody always wears the cape in their fantasies (be they public educators, scientists, professional athletes, whatever) , they put their faith in something, it's just they serve a God by another name.

Everyone has their religion (save agnostics, who at least have the wisdom to claim ignorance in absence of faith), some just think it doesn't count because their belief doesn't have the trappings of a more formally organized religion. I simply have the good sense to know what mine is, its rules, its purpose, and its goals.

 

[capefeather]

I just felt like the term "dictatorship" was being used in a negative way. Now I look at cantab's post and realize that it's not necessarily a negative connotation, but I have lurked this forum and posted a couple of times here before, so that may have made me jump to conclusions.

 

[MrIndigo]

So how many people didn't already know the Catholic Church does not and will not ordain women priests before this? This isn't some damning new revelation, this is ancient (we're talking ca. 2000 years here) news

This is what my question was trying to target; I don't know why this is a "newest outrage", nor whether it was the word from the Pope or just some random guy who happens to be a Catholic priest, like the last one was.

 

[J-man]

I'm surprised the CC couldn't come up with the more accurate and biblical response that it was not permissible for women to serve as priest via Christ's authority through Paul in 1 (2?) Timothy... It's not just precedental, it's commanded.

 

[Zacchaeus]

I've never seen an ordained woman anyways so this wont bother me at all, although I am Protestant

 

[TubaKing]

So how many people didn't already know the Catholic Church does not and will not ordain women priests before this? This isn't some damning new revelation, this is ancient (we're talking ca. 2000 years here) news and this group of "women priests" is just trying to cash in on what they have tried to warp to a moral equivalency. There are perennial articles about women whose sole purpose is to drag the reputation of the Catholic Church in the mud for personal gain whenever they reaffirm the same thing they've been teaching for the last 19 centuries.

Nobody forced these women to join the Catholic Church. Nobody has forced them to be nuns or religious sisters. If they do not have the decency to even read the vast tracts of text regarding Christ's selection of the priesthood (Apostolate) solely among men, their only motivation is to get 15 minutes of fame with feigned outrage.

This is the same kind of disgusting moral equivalency gotcha's these types always try and pull. The fact the Catholic Church is going to excommunicate any woman who tries to ordain you or presides over such a ceremony does not put such an act on the same level of moral repugnance as child molestation. That these women think it does is only an indication of their supreme self-absorption, not the Catholic Church's latent misogyny

A more accurate title would be: "Same Shit, Different Day: Another angry, fame-seeking woman discovers Catholic Church does not allow women priests, seeks to malign Catholic Church over it."

Although I am not a big fan of organized religion, I have to agree with this portion of what Deck Knight said. This is nothing new. The Catholic Church (who is certainly not alone is this respect) is extremely resistant to change and nothing will be done about this anytime soon. It would seem to me that a woman raised in the Catholic faith would grow-up with an understanding of this fact and be grateful for the opportunity to serve her deity and her community in any way she can, even if she thinks it less "glorious" than the titles that men can obtain, however misogynistic this may seem.

 

[Altmer]

HEY GUIZE

WE ARE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND WE BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT WERE OUTDATED TWO MILLENIA AGO

THERE IS NOTHING NEW HERE

THANK YOU, CONTINUE WITH YOUR DAY

thats pretty much the message, I pity the brainwashed

 

[Morm]

Is anyone surprised that the intellectual inbreeding within Christianity is once again prohibiting it from moving forward in a world that's moving past it at a very rapid rate?

The Catholic Church is in fact the best organization for progress because it does not "get with the times," dragging itself ever lower into the pit of the dumbed-down society. Change for the sake of change isn't progress, it's barbarism, only by keeping tradition and knowing history can a decent society be maintained. The shiftless have their heroes, yes, somebody always wears the cape in their fantasies (be they public educators, scientists, professional athletes, whatever) , they put their faith in something, it's just they serve a God by another name.

The best part is where they speculate on whether or not the Aliens have Original Sin.

 

[X-Act]

I am a Catholic, but I am against the argument that ordination should be only for men.

The way I see it, the Church has two different kinds of laws; those that were directly provided by God and those that it makes itself. Lack of divorce is from the former; the ordination of men only is the latter. So I can understand why the Church will always be against divorce, for instance, but I don't understand why the Church won't allow females to become priests, sometime. There is nowhere in the Bible that says explicitly that priests should be males. Okay, so the apostles were males but (i) the apostles were the first bishops, so to say, not the first priests, so, if anything, the Church should say that females cannot become bishops at least, not that they cannot become priests, and (ii) even the fact that Jesus chose his first "bishops" to be all males does not suggest in any way that all bishops and priests must be males. Just like flipping 12 coins and getting 12 straight heads does not imply that there's only one outcome to flipping a coin.

Not only that, but Jesus always respected women much more than his contemporaries:

1) The apostles "were surprised that he was talking to a woman", when they arrived and saw him talk to the woman of Jacob's well;
2) He said to the woman who committed several adulteries and that was on the verge of being stoned to death: "I won't condemn you too; go, and from now on, do not sin anymore".
3) He defended the notoriously sinful woman who embalmed him with expensive ointment and cried over his feet with "she was forgiven a lot because she loved a lot".
4) Two of his greatest friends were Martha and Mary (last Sunday's reading, incidentally).

... and the list goes on. In a culture where women were mistreated and had virtually no rights, Jesus went against this trend and gave them rights. For Jesus, women meant something, so not allowing women to become priests really goes against the trend set by Jesus himself, I think.

 

[popemobile]

EDIT:on second thought

popemobile, you made a very excellent post there.

nah

 

[Morm]

X-act, I don't see how Jesus treating women well or the same as he would treat a guy in any way speaks to why they should be ordained. Your 4 points there basically outline how Jesus treats people fairly and reasonably, but it doesn't go on to talk about the issue at hand...unless I missed something. I'm just pointing this out because it drives me bonkers when religious folk do this; "prove" a point by using examples that don't explicitly demonstrate what is being debated. Can you provide better examples more specific to the point or explain why your examples back up your stance in the debate?

I think Jesus choosing 12 male apostles was not random chance like your coin flip analogy would suggest. It more likely reflects the fact that at that time selecting female apostles would likely carry significant problems such as unrest or even an outright rejection of what he is trying to say. Not many women back then held any power, it was a total social norm to just pick men. This reflects a cultural issue, which has since been altered in Christian nations. I do however completely agree that him selecting 12 males at the time in no way is a statement for what is expected in the future, unless Deck or someone can show me where it is implicitly written in biblical law (as opposed to church law).

The primary weakness of Christianity is its unwillingness to adapt to new data, new ideas or new social norms.


popemobile, you made a very excellent post there.

 

[X-Act]

I agree with you, Kitten Bukkake. My point was that Jesus was willing to go against the trends of society and give women a chance. Maybe the time was not right for him to call female apostles at that time, I agree. But surely, now the time is right?

 

[Morm]

now could be the right time. It's pretty clear that the current dogmatic views of the church, regardless of the original intent, are simply not as progressive as they could be. So, until the church is ready, the time isn't right. Forcing a woman ordination down the throats of catholics who are unready would be pretty nasty, considering how many have strong feelings about it one way or the other.

Unfortunately, as always, the slowest tend to set the pace for the rest of the group. So until those with more archaic views catch up, it's pretty assured that those who wish to see female ordination will have to wait.

As an aside, the fact that the son of God was nice to women is pretty much a nothing issue in this as far as I'm concerned. He loves everyone, period. It's the way he is, so to treat women less would reflect drastic favoritism and unleash yet another hypocrisy into Catholicism.

 

[Jack Jack]

See, that's the point : God. loves. everyone.

If he loves women as much as men, why can't women be priests?

 

[MrIndigo]

Because God loving you as much as men doesn't necessarily mean you're suitable for the same role?

God loves men as much as women, but men can't give birth.

 

[Jack Jack]

Yes they can, ask the governor of California XD.

But hold it right there...

Since when is (the catholic god, hence simply God even if the catholic god is not God, but PM me for that if you want an explanation ) responsible for human biology? I thought that was random chance and evolution...

Since it's not God's fault that men can't give birth, you can't use that as an argument to say that he may want different things for men and women. Who knows, maybe he would have wanted both men and women to give birth. It just so happen that species who normally reproduce assexually have less chance to survive in the long run. So most of them have gone extinct.