Pope Francis says same sex civil unions are fine.

One eyed Jack

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Men and women fulfilling different roles and not being allowed to fulfill either is the textbook definition of inequality. Just because it happens in the name of some imaginary sky person doesn’t make it right, and make no mistake the treatment of women is about money pure and simple.

I’m not sure what other context you think is relevant?

The RCC is not and has never claimed to be a democracy, so while you’re entitled to think it’s not right, it’s precisely because it’s done in the name of some imaginary sky fairy that makes it right for those people who share that world view.

Obviously if someone doesn’t share their world view, they’re going to see it as wrong or think women are treated as second class citizens or think how women are treated is all about money, which is obviously their issue.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Men and women simply fulfil different roles within the Church is all.

It's just an unfortunate coincidence that it's the male roles which hold all the power...

Odhinn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nah I don’t think remiss, I just think different expectations of what either of us considers to be men and women regarded as equal within the Church. Men and women simply fulfil different roles within the Church is all. I think you’d be remiss if you didn’t notice that one of the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant Churches is how the Catholic Church regards Mary as the Queen of Heaven and Earth, and how motherhood is kind of a big deal within the Catholic Church.

*splutter

Odhinn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's just an unfortunate coincidence that it's the male roles which hold all the power...

No. In fairness women have the power to brew the tea weak, medium or strong, and pick what biccies get put on the tray.

MontgomeryClift

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Men and women fulfilling different roles and not being allowed to fulfill either is the textbook definition of inequality. Just because it happens in the name of some imaginary sky person doesn’t make it right, and make no mistake the treatment of women is about money pure and simple.

Why is it not right?

excludedbin

Why should the words of a bronze age religion trump modern ethics? And why only that one in particular? People are awful quick to point out how backwards Islam is but they're unsurprisingly quiet (or object) when the same criticism is fairly levelled at Christianity.

MontgomeryClift

excludedbin wrote: »

Why should the words of a bronze age religion trump modern ethics? And why only that one in particular? People are awful quick to point out how backwards Islam is but they're unsurprisingly quiet (or object) when the same criticism is fairly levelled at Christianity.

What ethics?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's just an unfortunate coincidence that it's the male roles which hold all the power...

I think it’s fair to say it’s more down to tradition than coincidence. I’m ok with that tradition, in the same way as I’m ok with the fact that motherhood is exalted within the Catholic Church and I don’t think that’s unfair, because men can’t give birth. Men can be fathers, but again - they’re different roles within the family. They complement each other rather than aiming for what I think is a nonsense - the idea of 50/50 division of labour in the pursuit of someone else’s idea of equality.

That’s why in the same way as I think it’s silly for Pope Francis to be commenting on civil matters that are outside his domain, I don’t put any weight in people’s opinions who are outside the Church, pointing fingers at the Church and telling them what they should do to improve themselves either. That being said I don’t have much time for Mary McAleese either, not because she’s a woman, but simply because I disagree with her ideas. I don’t think the Church is any “Empire of misogyny” :pac:

lawrencesummers

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it’s fair to say it’s more down to tradition than coincidence. I’m ok with that tradition, in the same way as I’m ok with the fact that motherhood is exalted within the Catholic Church and I don’t think that’s unfair, because men can’t give birth. Men can be fathers, but again - they’re different roles within the family. They complement each other rather than aiming for what I think is a nonsense - the idea of 50/50 division of labour in the pursuit of someone else’s idea of equality.

That’s why in the same way as I think it’s silly for Pope Francis to be commenting on civil matters that are outside his domain, I don’t put any weight in people’s opinions who are outside the Church, pointing fingers at the Church and telling them what they should do to improve themselves either. That being said I don’t have much time for Mary McAleese either, not because she’s a woman, but simply because I disagree with her ideas. I don’t think the Church is any “Empire of misogyny” :pac:

Tradition?
The church traditionally did a lot of things and it doesn’t make any of them right.

In time eventually the church will have to give equality to the genders, it will just happen a long time after the rest of society.

When there is a woman pope the world will be an equal place.

One eyed Jack

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Tradition?
The church traditionally did a lot of things and it doesn’t make any of them right.

I didn’t say that. I said it was fair to say that the idea of not ordaining women in the Church has to do with tradition, and I’m ok with that particular tradition. Regarding homosexuality as sinful and homosexuals as intrinsically disordered also has more to do with tradition than it has to do with anything scriptural or spiritual, and that’s a tradition I don’t agree with.

lawrencesummers wrote: »

In time eventually the church will have to give equality to the genders, it will just happen a long time after the rest of society.

When there is a woman pope the world will be an equal place.

The Church already has what it sees as equality of the sexes? They complement each other.

And for what it’s worth I don’t think even if it were to happen, that it would have any difference on the world if the Pope were a woman, and certainly the world would look no different in terms of what you call equality.

The new Pope even if they were a woman would be just as likely to take the same position as the current Pope Francis - advise that there should be a way in society to facilitate civil unions (note that he didn’t say the Church should have to do anything).

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m ok with that tradition, in the same way as I’m ok with the fact that motherhood is exalted within the Catholic Church

One follows from the other. Women are basically regarded by the RCC as little more than baby factories. I notice you ignored the question of the power within the church all being held by men - the same men who say that women are good for certain roles, just not the roles with any power.

That’s why in the same way as I think it’s silly for Pope Francis to be commenting on civil matters that are outside his domain

Yet he does it constantly as do the Irish RCC hierarchy, they have made total fools out of themselves during referendum campaigns in recent years. Particularly for marriage equality, they would have been far better off if they'd stood back and said that as this was entirely a civil legal matter, it had nothing to do with the church's rules or rites on marriage - which it didn't. But no, they just couldn't help themselves.

I don’t put any weight in people’s opinions who are outside the Church, pointing fingers at the Church and telling them what they should do to improve themselves either.

This highly mysogynistic organisation (among its many other failings) still has massive influence on our education system, and that's something everyone should be concerned about. We shouldn't tolerate an education system where schools are controlled by an organisation which regards women as inferior to men.

This "complementary roles" stuff is quite frankly a load of complete bollox, it's like when racists in the US maintained that segregation was OK because it was "separate but equal", well it was far from equal, as are the roles of women vs. men in the catholic church.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

One follows from the other. Women are basically regarded by the RCC as little more than baby factories. I notice you ignored the question of the power within the church all being held by men - the same men who say that women are good for certain roles, just not the roles with any power.

Obviously I don’t agree with your perspective. I didn’t ignore the question of power within the Church being held by men either. Whichever way either of us chooses to portray it whether I say it’s about men and women having different responsibilities within the Church or you saying it’s all about men having all the power - we’re just going to disagree.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This highly mysogynistic organisation (among its many other failings) still has massive influence on our education system, and that's something everyone should be concerned about. We shouldn't tolerate an education system where schools are controlled by an organisation which regards women as inferior to men.

I’d be concerned about it if I imagined they were a highly misogynistic organisation. I’d also be concerned if they regarded women as inferior to men.

That’s not even coming close to saying that they shouldn’t be permitted to control and manage their own schools and how they choose to educate the children of their religious communities. Their right to do that is protected by the Irish Constitution. Same as the right of those who don’t share their world view has a right to be protected in a democratic society. It’s the Department of Education is at fault for the current lack of progress in regards to alternatives for parents in education in terms of schools which they feel are appropriate for their own children.

I certainly wouldn’t want anyone else telling me how to raise my own child or allow anyone else to have any say in how my child should be educated. I extend the same courtesy to others, regardless of their world view - they are their children’s parents and the Family is the natural and primary educator of the child.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This "complementary roles" stuff is quite frankly a load of complete bollox, it's like when racists in the US maintained that segregation was OK because it was "separate but equal", well it was far from equal, as are the roles of women vs. men in the catholic church.

It’s nothing like racism. It’s an acknowledgment that men and women are fundamentally different, and therefore fulfil different roles that complement each other in terms of the family. In the RCC it’s all about the family, all about the traditional view of the family, which is why the idea of the family with two parents of the same sex, is as controversial as it is, and why Pope Francis knowing full well that he doesn’t want to look bad, tried to put responsibility for accommodating families with parents of the same sex, on wider civil society, rather than something the Church should have to address.

That’s why when you said that women are treated as second class citizens within the Church, I disagreed. You’d have had a legitimate point if you had said lesbian women and gay men, but I didn’t accuse you of ignoring the fact that you would have to include men if you want to talk about who is or isn’t treated as second class citizens. It would have made your points about second class citizens and misogyny within the Church redundant.

ILoveYourVibes

Odhinn wrote: »

No. In fairness women have the power to brew the tea weak, medium or strong, and pick what biccies get put on the tray.

not in my house:rolleyes:

lawrencesummers

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t say that. I said it was fair to say that the idea of not ordaining women in the Church has to do with tradition, and I’m ok with that particular tradition. Regarding homosexuality as sinful and homosexuals as intrinsically disordered also has more to do with tradition than it has to do with anything scriptural or spiritual, and that’s a tradition I don’t agree with.





The Church already has what it sees as equality of the sexes? They complement each other.

And for what it’s worth I don’t think even if it were to happen, that it would have any difference on the world if the Pope were a woman, and certainly the world would look no different in terms of what you call equality.

The new Pope even if they were a woman would be just as likely to take the same position as the current Pope Francis - advise that there should be a way in society to facilitate civil unions (note that he didn’t say the Church should have to do anything).

Do you hold the similar misogynistic views about any other aspects of life? Are there other jobs that women should be excluded from?

Traditionally women were not allowed to vote, and had to quit their jobs if they married. Presumably those changes were bitter pill for you to swallow.

Hotblack Desiato

Pure waffle OEJ. An organisation which considers women useful for popping out babies and making tea, where all the positions of power are for men only, is somehow not misogynistic. No point trying to have a discussion not rooted in reality.

One eyed Jack

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Do you hold the similar misogynistic views about any other aspects of life? Are there other jobs that women should be excluded from?

Traditionally women were not allowed to vote, and had to quit their jobs if they married. Presumably those changes were bitter pill for you to swallow.

You’re obviously free to disagree, but I don’t see it as misogynistic.

As to whether or not there are employment opportunities where women or men can be excluded from in civil law, there does exist in Irish law a concept called a genuine occupational requirement, which means that a person can lawfully be discriminated against on the basis of their sex, and that’s not misogynistic either.

There’s no bitter pill for me to swallow here at all, but it appears to be a bitter pill for you to swallow that an organisation is permitted by law to make their own rules as to what criteria they set when considering someone suitable for a vocational position within their organisation. The criteria also excludes married men from the priesthood and regards celibacy as one of the conditions of the vocation. That was a bitter pill for me to swallow alright when at one point I considered the priesthood. Celibacy regarded as a gift from God? Dunno ‘bout that, personally speaking :pac:

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Pure waffle OEJ. An organisation which considers women useful for popping out babies and making tea, where all the positions of power are for men only, is somehow not misogynistic. No point trying to have a discussion not rooted in reality.

I don’t accept what you call reality is reality though, because you want to frame your interpretation of something as misogynistic, and I’m supposed to go along with it? I can’t when I don’t view it the same way as you do. On that basis no, there’s no point in having a discussion based only upon your terms of reference and there’s no allowance for an alternative interpretation.

Graces7

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Tradition?
The church traditionally did a lot of things and it doesn’t make any of them right.

In time eventually the church will have to give equality to the genders, it will just happen a long time after the rest of society.

When there is a woman pope the world will be an equal place.

equal does not mean cloned or homogeneous.

We are equal in value , in skills . just different - for which I give thanks daily!

BloodBath

Who gives a F what the pope says about anything.

I think we're past the point of taking moral advise from an organization with a history as evil and disgusting as the RCC's.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no bitter pill for me to swallow here at all, but it appears to be a bitter pill for you to swallow that an organisation is permitted by law to make their own rules as to what criteria they set when considering someone suitable for a vocational position within their organisation.

Strawman alert! Nobody said they weren't. And everyone else is entitled to form their own opinion of that organisation and its rules and for most people it's not a favourable one.

BloodBath wrote: »

Who gives a F what the pope says about anything.

I think we're past the point of taking moral advise from an organization with a history as evil and disgusting as the RCC's.

We should be, but they control over 90% of secondary schools, a large number of voluntary secondary schools, and set the RE curriculum and have "diocesan inspectors" ensuring it's taught to their satisfaction in about half of ETB secondaries - these schools are fully owned by the State!

lawrencesummers

Graces7 wrote: »

equal does not mean cloned or homogeneous.

We are equal in value , in skills . just different - for which I give thanks daily!

Equality means equality of opportunity, everyone is different, you will never find two candidates the same But to rule someone out of a job because of gender alone where you have every other skill necessary is not equality.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Strawman alert! Nobody said they weren't. And everyone else is entitled to form their own opinion of that organisation and its rules and for most people it's not a favourable one.

It wasn’t intended as a strawman, I was making the point that there are a number of occupations where it isn’t unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex. The poster I was responding to was asking me were there any other jobs women should be excluded from. I can’t think of any other jobs off the top of my head, but the legislation exists for jobs where the sex of the candidate is a genuine occupational requirement. I was making the point that it’s neither misogynistic, nor is it a bitter pill for me to swallow that there are jobs where I could be discriminated against on the basis of my sex, or where women could be discriminated against on the basis of their sex. For sure everyone is entitled to their own opinion too, but opinions on whether something is misogynistic or not are not obligated to be taken seriously, especially when the accusation of misogyny is unwarranted.

To be clear on what constitutes misogyny, can we at least agree on what constitutes misogyny?


feelings of hating women, or the belief that men are much better than women


We don’t have to be restricted to the dictionary definition either, but there or thereabouts even, it would be unreasonable IMO to suggest that there is any implication of hating women, or resentment of women, or the belief that men are much better than women, in the RCC as an organisation deciding that only unmarried men may qualify to serve as ordained clergy in the RCC -


A Catholic Youth Catechism states, "In male priests the Christian community was supposed to see a representation of Jesus Christ. Being a priest is a special service that also makes demands on a man in his gender-specific role as male and father." This catechism also states that it is not demeaning to women that only men receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. "As we see in Mary, women play a role in the Church that is no less central than the masculine role, but it is feminine."


Women in the Catholic Church


I’ve never argued that the RCC couldn’t be criticised for their position in regards to the ordination of women, but that’s a far cry from suggesting that the reasons are anything to do with misogyny or men maintaining power over women or any of the rest of that stuff.

lawrencesummers

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re obviously free to disagree, but I don’t see it as misogynistic.

As to whether or not there are employment opportunities where women or men can be excluded from in civil law, there does exist in Irish law a concept called a genuine occupational requirement, which means that a person can lawfully be discriminated against on the basis of their sex, and that’s not misogynistic either.

There’s no bitter pill for me to swallow here at all, but it appears to be a bitter pill for you to swallow that an organisation is permitted by law to make their own rules as to what criteria they set when considering someone suitable for a vocational position within their organisation. The criteria also excludes married men from the priesthood and regards celibacy as one of the conditions of the vocation. That was a bitter pill for me to swallow alright when at one point I considered the priesthood. Celibacy regarded as a gift from God? Dunno ‘bout that, personally speaking :pac:

I don’t agree with your views, but I can somewhat admire that you ardently stick to them.

But Let’s be clear, it’s Textbook Misogynistic to discriminate Against someone because of their gender.

The GOR covers a number of things like age for physical work, height for Gardai (which has changed over time) nationality etc.

The thing that your missing is the reason why the church excludes women in the way it does, and why it insists on Celibacy.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was making the point that there are a number of occupations where it isn’t unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex.

Years ago that would have been regarded as the norm - but today we have female firefighters and soldiers, male childminders, etc. Society has moved on. Well, almost all of it has...

I can’t think of any other jobs off the top of my head, but the legislation exists for jobs where the sex of the candidate is a genuine occupational requirement. I was making the point that it’s neither misogynistic, nor is it a bitter pill for me to swallow that there are jobs where I could be discriminated against on the basis of my sex, or where women could be discriminated against on the basis of their sex.

You can't think of any, but you're sure they exist. Okay.
I can't think of any either - religious posts aside.
Does that not tell you anything..?

To be clear on what constitutes misogyny, can we at least agree on what constitutes misogyny?

If it makes you feel better, you could call it systematic, institutionalised gender discrimination instead... doesn't change the reality though.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Years ago that would have been regarded as the norm - but today we have female firefighters and soldiers, male childminders, etc. Society has moved on. Well, almost all of it has...

It’s still the norm today in occupations where sex is regarded as a genuine occupational requirement, eg occupations where there may be issues with physical contact, privacy or decency. It’s true to say that society has moved on somewhat, but there are still occupations where a requirement of the role is that it is specifically applicable only either to men or to women, depending upon the nature of the role. It depends upon the employer what they are looking for in a suitable candidate.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You can't think of any, but you're sure they exist. Okay.
I can't think of any either - religious posts aside.
Does that not tell you anything..?

All it tells me is that neither of us are trying too hard to think of any occupations where a genuine occupational requirement is based upon sex. I can think of occupations where it might apply in circumstances where there is physical contact or privacy or decency considerations, but no specific occupations. The point was that the RCC is not alone in discriminating on the basis of sex or marital status when it comes to ordination.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If it makes you feel better, you could call it systematic, institutionalised gender discrimination instead... doesn't change the reality though.

It’s not about making me feel better, you can continue to call it institutionalised misogyny all you want and it won’t make a blind bit of difference to me personally, but at least calling it systematic, institutionalised sex discrimination is a hell of a lot more accurate and closer to reality than trying to portray it as misogyny. Calling it misogyny is just an attempt to be intentionally inflammatory, especially when the intent behind the idea and it’s context has already been explained enough times already.

I’m critical of ideas where criticism is warranted, such as the idea that people who are homosexual are intrinsically disordered, or that homosexual acts are sinful, but in terms of qualifications for ordination? The only time I was bothered by that is when I considered it for myself, and realised the commitment that was expected. I think that’s one of the main reasons for the decline in the numbers of men and women choosing vocations within the RCC, but it just doesn’t bother me if it remains in place. People will choose for themselves if they want to make that commitment or not, same as any other occupation or vocation.

The One Doctor

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I think he's the anti-Pope, destroying the church from the inside. It's not the first time he's done something like this, ....

The anti-Pope isn't what you think it is...

The One Doctor

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I think he's the anti-Pope, destroying the church from the inside. It's not the first time he's done something like this, ....

The anti-Pope isn't what you think it is...

Cluedo Monopoly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Pure waffle OEJ. An organisation which considers women useful for popping out babies and making tea, where all the positions of power are for men only, is somehow not misogynistic. No point trying to have a discussion not rooted in reality.

Why is it that women, usually older women, are often fanatical in their support and work for the church and the priests given they are treated as 2nd class citizens by Rome? They are always the ones organising church events, helping with fundraising, giving out communion at mass etc etc. They seem to see no wrongs in the church whatsoever. It's like they have made their bet and they cannot cash out before the race is over.

BloodBath

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Why is it that women, usually older women, are often fanatical in their support and work for the church and the priests given they are treated as 2nd class citizens by Rome? They are always the ones organising church events, helping with fundraising, giving out communion at mass etc etc. They seem to see no wrongs in the church whatsoever. It's like they have made their bet and they cannot cash out before the race is over.

Stockholm syndrome.

J.O. Farmer

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Why is it that women, usually older women, are often fanatical in their support and work for the church and the priests given they are treated as 2nd class citizens by Rome? They are always the ones organising church events, helping with fundraising, giving out communion at mass etc etc. They seem to see no wrongs in the church whatsoever. It's like they have made their bet and they cannot cash out before the race is over.

Maybe they don't feel like second class citizens. Many of those things are also for the benefit of the community and maybe it makes them feel good doing those things. If it makes them happy leave them at it. They're generally not doing anybody any harm.

Why is it that people usually younger who don't believe in god or orfanised religion get so worked up about the injustices they see in the RCC and condemn Catholicism as a religion for it as they can't see any difference between an organisational structure and the thing it has been organised around. Do they get equally wound up about Islam which has even more followers worldwide or are their worldy views confined to Ireland and Rome.

It's like finding fault with the GAA leadership and so Gaelic football and hurling are bad and nobody should play them and also wondering why the local parent down the road is involved in coaching.