There will never be women priests

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?

coffee_cake

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:)

bronte

I'm simply just devastated.

28064212

Eramen wrote: »

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.

Your logical conclusion is exactly equivalent to:

penis ≠ vagina
∴ women can't play football
∎

"But women are perfectly capable of playing football"
"Well football-wise, I am not up to date with the full concepts, but anthropologically this stands on it's own two feet"

Benny_Cake

Eramen wrote: »

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?

The main reasons that are given for restricting the priesthood to men only are:that's the way that it's always been, and that Christ was a man, as we're his apostles. I think that is a weak defence of the status quo, and can see no problem with women becoming priests personally, but this is the usual reason that is given.

Penn

Eramen wrote: »

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?

Eramen, the reasons why the Catholic Church don't allow women priests has nothing to do with biology.

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

And from the Bible itself:
Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."


It has nothing to do with biology, but rather the misogynistic attitudes of that era. Like I said, the Church can't compromise on one thing, because if they did, people would be calling on them to compromise on other things which could end up dividing the Church even further.

iDave

Well we do have female motorists....female singers.....

RobbieTheRobber

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.

What about if those atheists are not allowed under catholic church rules to exit said church?

Should they have a say then?

Benny_Cake

Penn wrote: »

And from the Bible itself:
Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."


It has nothing to do with biology, but rather the misogynistic attitudes of that era. Like I said, the Church can't compromise on one thing, because if they did, people would be calling on them to compromise on other things which could end up dividing the Church even further.

I would agree that Paul's letters do include something of the misogyny of his times. Actually this is an example of something that plenty of churches have compromised on, including the Catholic Church. Women readers are active in most churches now, not to mention fully ordained female clergy in most mainline Protestant denominations.

Winty

suicide_circus wrote: »

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.

Boards.ie was started just for that reason.
People have a right to bash the Church, Banks , GAA or whatever we wish

The Church got away with handing out free sweets to kids because people did not speak about it

Sorry Father but I will bash and bash till I blow your house down

Red Pepper

seamus wrote: »

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.

Yeah this always confuses me. Women are the staunchest defenders of the RCC and yet the RCC have always looked down on them. Why?

Eramen

seamus wrote: »

"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?

I do understand the policy, but in scientific and anthropological terms, not in Catholic theology to the fullest degree.

You're mistaken though, I do not identify as a 'traditionalist' in social terms like you allude. I never really have.

Yet as Dostoevsky often sought to illustrate, the customary tradition is simply a safety-valve, it constraints people to a degree, yes; but it also saves them from their own self destruction through a person's lack ability to make of value giving decisions. People can't do this without personal responsibility and leadership, and both of these are lacking in this entertainment driven, sound-byte educated, consumer haven Ireland.

The question is if people are unable to live in their own freedom (of the current values) which results in their destruction, then how can they let go of traditional structures and from a new culture? They can't.

This is why notions such as 'complete equality', 'economic globalisation', 'one world culture' etc have been such a catastrophe - and a catastrophe that you so happily gloss over and try to blame on the 'old ways' instead. The old ways have their evils undoubtedly, but modernity has infinitely more.

We live at a time when people are treated as so many stock shares, when the purpose of nations and states is simply to be found in the international/domestic trade of money and services, administered to by parasitic banks under the direction of a soul-crushing international commercial code.

'Mass Equality' has brought about the elimination of our very humanity and imposed extreme social injustice. There are no more people, no sexes, no origin, no ethnicity, no value, no family, no future, no definitions, nature is unknown, life is cheap. We are all the same now, branded as economic classes of workers and pitted of our own human personality.

You call out apathy, injustice? Look at what 'your' ideas have done. The world is more violent and tumultuous than ever. I don't defend tradition in the broad sense, but at least people owned their humanity and self under its guidance.

The ends don't justify the means. All authoritarian regimes have begged to differ, including the anti-science, anti-intelligence, anti-meritocracy one that has imposed the baseless equality and economic slavery we have today worldwide.

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


So why don't you change your thinking and do something to change it? Your ideas of equality are completely fabricated and are not original, indeed its not even real equality. Real equality never robbed people of their identity and possessions. The 'equality' of today demotes man to little more than economic swine to be sucked dry. Step back for a second and look at it.