There will never be women priests

alphabeat

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/there-will-never-be-any-women-priests-insists-papal-nuncio-3291011.html


he he 'Dr Brown ' says so .

HowAreWe

Great input there OP.

JohnMarston

Im in favour of them

jester77

Would there even be any women that would want to

Duggy747

Because male priests have had a clean record so far.......

Franticfrank

That would be an ecumenical matter.

RikkFlair

What about Fr. Sinead O'Connor?

Penn

Yeah, in a few years when the number of priests decrease so much and there are priests serving different parishes on different weekends, then we'll start to see women priests, married priests, gay priests, dog priests, atheist priests etc.

Ah who am I kidding, the church will never change anything. To change one thing is to invite calls to change other things. The church would rather die out than compromise.

seamus

jester77 wrote: »

Would there even be any women that would want to

Thousands of them.

Women are carrying the Catholic church. If it wasn't for mammies and grannies guilting their children into going to mass, the catholic church would have disappeared in ireland 30 years ago.

I say more of this sort of thing. Eventually educated women will come to their senses and stop supporting a religion which defines them as second-class citizens.

Sin City

Lets do away with priests, cardinals bishops popes and religion all together

Immaculate Pasta

Penn wrote: »

Yeah, in a few years when the number of priests decrease so much and there are priests serving different parishes on different weekends, then we'll start to see women priests, married priests, gay priests, dog priests, atheist priests etc.

Ah who am I kidding, the church will never change anything. To change one thing is to invite calls to change other things. The church would rather die out than compromise.

I for one would like to see this.

Fr. Fido, Parish priest for Ballygobackwards

"Aah how's it going father. How you feelin'?"

"Woof"

"Aah were you on a mad session last night were ya?"

:cool:

suicide_circus

Meh , their club - their rules. Don't see why any of the atheist church bashers in here would feel like they should have any opinion or input on the matter. Except of course to use it as another stick to hit the church with.

syklops

there will never be Catholic women priests

FYP OP.

syklops

suicide_circus wrote: »

Except of course to use it as another stick to hit the church with.

Because the church has never hit anyone on here with a stick.

SEPT 23 1989

Its their loss

Ottway

Trick question / statement as they'll be Priestesses.

jimmycrackcorm

syklops wrote: »

Because the church has never hit anyone on here with a stick.

Unless of course you attended a Christian Brothers school

rednik

The sermons are already long enough.;)

PlainP

suicide_circus wrote: »

Meh , their club - their rules. Don't see why any of the atheist church bashers in here would feel like they should have any opinion or input on the matter. Except of course to use it as another stick to hit the church with.

Well the church have used enough sticks to beat helpless children for years so at least ours are just metaphorical sticks.

suicide_circus

syklops wrote: »

Because the church has never hit anyone on here with a stick.

Oh did the priest beat you at school ? Sure no secular teacher ever issued corporal punishment back in the day don't ye know. Cry me a river.

syklops

suicide_circus wrote: »

Oh did the priest beat you at school ? Sure no secular teacher ever issued corporal punishment back in the day don't ye know. Cry me a river.

I didnt get beaten, but I know plenty who were and worse.

Your lack of empathy might have surprised me years ago, but having heard over the weekend that according to Benedict Groeschel, Reverend of the Franciscan Friars of Renewal, when speaking about the churches involvement in alleged abuse, that it was often the case that priests were seduced by teenagers., your contempt for anyone who appears against the church no longer surprises me.

suicide_circus

I am agnostic, non catholic, non mass goer so my "lack of empathy" is due to the unbalanced and lazy approach to commenting on the church which is the norm today. When it was acceptable for teachers and clergy to beat kids, it was also normal for parents to beat kids. There is very little context given in any retrospective analysis of the church. It wasnt all laundies and songs for raggy boys but that view isnt too poplar.

Death and Taxes

suicide_circus wrote: »

Oh did the priest beat you at school ? Sure no secular teacher ever issued corporal punishment back in the day don't ye know. Cry me a river.

I dont know if that is trolling or just highly insensitive, but either way it is supremely insensitive bearing in mind the thousands of Irish children tortured, beaten, and raped in establishments run by the RCC, not to mention all those killed in such places.
Very very sad.

syklops

suicide_circus wrote: »

I am agnostic, non catholic, non mass goer so my "lack of empathy" is due to the unbalanced and lazy approach to commenting on the church which is the norm today. When it was acceptable for teachers and clergy to beat kids, it was also normal for parents to beat kids. There is very little context given in any retrospective analysis of the church. It wasnt all laundies and songs for raggy boys but that view isnt too poplar.

Speaking of a lazy approach to commenting, your previous comments make you come across as a church sympathiser.

RGDATA!

in before "papal nonce-io"

Madam_X

suicide_circus wrote: »

I am agnostic, non catholic, non mass goer so my "lack of empathy" is due to the unbalanced and lazy approach to commenting on the church which is the norm today. When it was acceptable for teachers and clergy to beat kids, it was also normal for parents to beat kids. There is very little context given in any retrospective analysis of the church. It wasnt all laundies and songs for raggy boys but that view isnt too poplar.

Some fair points - however it really was not necessary to word your post in such an unpleasant, provocative, hard-hearted way.

"Cry me a river" is a phrase to dismiss those whinging about trivial stuff, not something major like child abuse.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Meh , their club - their rules. Don't see why any of the atheist church bashers in here would feel like they should have any opinion or input on the matter.

Be nice if they could be consistent when it came to their rules. Yawn at "atheist" as a perjorative. The "openminded" atheist backlash can be a bit of a pain in the hole at times tbh. Ok, fair enough when it comes to the genuinely arrogant, condescending ones, but sometimes any atheist at all gets attacked in here simply for being atheist.

Ellis Dee

Penn wrote: »

The church would rather die out than compromise.

And far be it from me to stand in its way if that is what it wants to do.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

syklops

jester77 wrote: »

Would there even be any women that would want to

Being a priest would be a dream job for many women.

• Get paid to speak at length on whatever subject fascinates you at the time
• free dress
• Communal wafers are very slimming
• Often being the centre of attention
• Get invited to all the parties, stations of the cross, weddings, funerals etc
• Free house
• Errrr....

suicide_circus

Madam_X wrote: »

Some fair points - however it really was not necessary to word your post in such an unpleasant, provocative, hard-hearted way.

"Cry me a river" is a phrase to dismiss those whinging about trivial stuff, not something major like child abuse.

Ok maybe i was a little harsh. I condemn all atrocities against children by the church . But these atrocities were committed with pretty much full collusion of the state and GENERAL POPULATION.

moose_shooter

syklops wrote: »

Speaking of a lazy approach to commenting, your previous comments make you come across as a church sympathiser.

the above comment reads like an accusation against someone for being a nazi or communist sympathiser

gozunda

It's the lack of logic of male only celibate priests in the RCC that cracks me up...

You have to have goolies to become a priest BUT you are not allowed (ahem) to use them.....

Unless of course you are a peadophile and then the RCC will just deny everything and claim it was nothing to do with them....

Time the RCC took stock of itself and gave some thought to the denial of sexuality, depravity and outright sexism inherent in the organisation

It is of note that it was only in the Middle Ages that priests were forbidden to marry and the right of women to hold independent positions of responsibility within the church was completely removed.

This medieval mindset will not be changed until all these fckers are dead and buried imo....

moose_shooter

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ok maybe i was a little harsh. I condemn all atrocities against children by the church . But these atrocities were committed with pretty much full collusion of the state and GENERAL POPULATION.

yes indeed they were , the guards and pensioner generation which most seem to hold in such esteem willfully ignored what was happening three decades ago

Leftist

rsed.

about as relevant as there will never be purple unicorns.

Madam_X

The church is still mostly to blame - no point in directing blame disproportionately; then the state. General population - dunno. More complex than that. Those who had the power to do something but didn't bother, yeh maybe. Some would have tried though.

Eramen

suicide_circus wrote: »

I am agnostic, non catholic, non mass goer so my "lack of empathy" is due to the unbalanced and lazy approach to commenting on the church which is the norm today. When it was acceptable for teachers and clergy to beat kids, it was also normal for parents to beat kids. There is very little context given in any retrospective analysis of the church. It wasnt all laundies and songs for raggy boys but that view isnt too poplar.

I agree with you completely on that point. I'm not a Catholic myself, but I find there is an incapability among commentators and some members of the population to address any issue regarding the RCC with any sort of sensibility, or even fairness.

Catholics teach that there are important differences between men and women, and these are encouraged as beneficial; certain orders are reserved for both men and women, some are separate, both achieving the same mission with the best approaches possible. This is the basis of priests as male-only, and other roles are female only. It cuts in both ways.

I myself just don't see that problem with any organisation's acknowledgement of the biological difference of sex and its implications, and who want to integrate it into their lifestyle. I'm also certain that its scientifically provable, the fact that there are two sexes and its repercussions, for those of us who embrace the trend of irreligion, and wouldn't consider a messenger's word purely because he wore the clerical collar.

It's testament to the social ideologies that have gripped society today when intelligent, 'open minded', men and women can't make sense of this reasoning. It shouldn't even mutate into a issue. But these people will continue to dance to the pipers tune unawares.

Grayson

I'm perfectly ok with the lack of women priests and think that the churches teaching is consistant. Obviously it's God's will. It's got nothing to do with how competitant they are. It's because God hates women. Between giving them a body that makes them suffer cramps every month and making them go through child birth, he must have a chip on his shoulder against them. I mean have you seen the crap that they have to go through in leviticus?

So women, don't get all uppity and think you can ask for equal rights. You'll just piss off God and we'll have some kind of biblical retribution.

Grayson

Eramen wrote: »

I agree with you completely on that point. I'm not a Catholic myself, but I find there is an incapability among commentators and some members of the population to address any issue regarding the RCC with any sort of sensibility, or even fairness.

Catholics teach that there are important differences between men and women, and these are encouraged as beneficial; certain orders are reserved for both men and women, some are separate, both achieving the same mission with the best approaches possible. This is the basis of priests as male-only, and other roles are female only. It cuts in both ways.

I myself just don't see that problem with any organisation's acknowledgement of the biological difference of sex and its implications, and who want to integrate it into their lifestyle. I'm also certain that its scientifically provable, the fact that there are two sexes and its repercussions, for those of us who embrace the trend of irreligion, and wouldn't consider a messenger's word purely because he wore the clerical collar.

It's testament to the social ideologies that have gripped society today when intelligent, 'open minded', men and women can't make sense of this reasoning. It shouldn't even mutate into a issue. But these people will continue to dance to the pipers tune unawares.

There isn't one logical reason why a woman couldn't do the job as well as a man. All that claptrap that catholics teach is rubbish made up to justify their current position. Originally the gospel was spread by men an women. Both men and women were martyred for their beliefs.

It's just a bunch of men scared that if they let women join the club they'll do the job better and look better than them in a dress.

Eramen

Grayson wrote: »

I'm perfectly ok with the lack of women priests and think that the churches teaching is consistant. Obviously it's God's will. It's got nothing to do with how competitant they are. It's because God hates women. Between giving them a body that makes them suffer cramps every month and making them go through child birth, he must have a chip on his shoulder against them. I mean have you seen the crap that they have to go through in leviticus?

So women, don't get all uppity and think you can ask for equal rights. You'll just piss off God and we'll have some kind of biblical retribution.

This is not an equal rights issue. Men and women are legally equal within the Catholic chruch. Often when people can't handle the biological facts that men and women have differences they invent the most absurd superstitions. Thanks for the demonstration.

moose_shooter

why do the equality police have to impose their agenda on every single sector

Namlub

moose_shooter wrote: »

why do the equality police have to impose their agenda on every single sector

What exactly do you find objectionable about equality?

moose_shooter

Namlub wrote: »

What exactly do you find objectionable about equality?

the term equality is entirely subjective

vincent brownes idea of equality is likely to be different to leo varadkars and so on

Eramen

Grayson wrote: »

There isn't one logical reason why a woman couldn't do the job as well as a man. All that claptrap that catholics teach is rubbish made up to justify their current position. Originally the gospel was spread by men an women. Both men and women were martyred for their beliefs.

It's just a bunch of men scared that if they let women join the club they'll do the job better and look better than them in a dress.

I agree with you on the spreading of the gospel that both sexes were extremely involved. But Christians are (supposed) to be looking at each other as brothers and sisters, part of a unified soul; sex politics shouldn't even play a part as they are 'all Christians'

But material concerns in 'the world' come into play, men and women diverge into different works of service. And not just within the CHurch, but in every possible way. Often it is very similar mind you. Women probably could do the job just as well in the main, and I'm sure some would be exceptional female priests. But looking at the larger picture males have obtained the leadership (or missionary) role because it's likely more supportive of their sex, not the other way around.

Men and women are better at different things. If they weren't we'd be screwed as a species.. I know this doesn't sit well with the ideologies founded in the 30's and 60's but hell, what does ideology have to do with reason? The man/women divide has become dangerous and counterproductive.

Grayson

Eramen wrote: »

This is not an equal rights issue. Men and women are legally equal within the Catholic chruch. Often when people can't handle the biological facts that men and women have differences they invent the most absurd superstitions. Thanks for the demonstration.

Actually, I went to an incredibly catholic school. It was a diocessian college run by priests. I had lessons in dogma and doctorine and I know catholic doctorine is based on two main ideas of testament and tradition. Doctorine is based on testament if there is a biblical reference point or on tradition if there isn't. The official reason there are no female priests is because of tradition. There haven't been any in a very long time, so there won't be.

The whole waffle about differences between men and women and how we each have a role in gods plan is a load of bollox. There's no justification for it in the gospels and it stinks of "a womans place is in the home" mentality.

It's incredibly sexist and any anyone who comments is told they don't understand. Well I do understand the reasoning, I just happen to think it's a load of bollox and the only people who buy into it are people who are indoctrinated already.

EDITING BECAUSE I'M CRAP AT TYPING.

keano_afc

Wrong forum, OP.

Cool Mo D

Eramen wrote: »

This is not an equal rights issue. Men and women are legally equal within the Catholic chruch. Often when people can't handle the biological facts that men and women have differences they invent the most absurd superstitions. Thanks for the demonstration.

Can you explain the biological reason women can't be priests then? Does having a vagina interfere with the magic of transubstantiation or something?

alphabeat

alphabeat wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/there-will-never-be-any-women-priests-insists-papal-nuncio-3291011.html


he he 'Dr Brown ' says so .

I don't really see why there would be. I also don't see why women don't cop on and leave and join a different church, but there you go.

Solair

I'm not religious at all, but it does always strike me as very odd that here are no women priests in the Roman Catholic Church. It's hardly a controversial issue !!

I mean, there were plenty of nuns. Surely they could do the same job?

They dress in black and go around telling people what to do too!

After centuries of being dragged toward modernity, the Church of Ireland and other Episcopalian churches opened up to women priests and they're certainly not having any issues with it other than a few sexist old fogies left in protest. Although, I don't think many people were fretting to much about their loss.

To me, not having women priests just does the Roman Catholic Church immense damage by driving yet more wedges between itself and modern reality of how most of its members actually live, but there'd be nothing new in that!

Married priests is the other one. I mean, seriously what's the problem there?!
Always seems a bit daft that people have to go to these pre-marriage courses hosted by an elderly celibate guy. Seems a very unlikely person to know the first thing about marriage or relationships.

Yellowblackbird

Penn wrote: »

To change one thing is to invite calls to change other things.

It would be the thin end of the wedge. The slippery slope.

One week you'd ordain a couple of women. Few weeks later the High Priestess stops mid sermon and demands a human sacrifice of a child.

Eramen

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Can you explain the biological reason women can't be priests then? Does having a vagina interfere with the magic of transubstantiation or something?

I couldn't tell you I'm afraid. Yet as I said, I believe it has its basis on the formation of men and women's natural biological and personality traits when observing the GENERAL population of people.

Anthropologically this stands on it's own two feet, and anyone should be able to ample examples via their own sturdy brain-power. Theologically, I am not up to date with the full concepts.

In summary, to answer you, penis and vagina are different (certainly not equal as in an maths equation in any case) - personal ideology none-withstanding.

What do you believe in?

seamus

"That's the way it's always been, so it must be right".

A statement of apathy and ignorance that's resulted in so much injustice and suffering in this world.

Eramen, if you don't know or understand why this policy is in place, why do you defend it so strongly?

Solair

Maybe the whole organisation is full of lads like Father Dougal. Remember the terrible difficulties he had speaking to members of the opposite sex (apart from nuns) ....

"How's your bra?" etc..

Also, it could be a question of the availability of those black socks in women's sizes and styles. Rather than the VERY VERY VERY VEEERRRY dark blue ones that the rest of us have to put up with!

Habit-hat might not have them in the catalogue yet:)