• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope condemns sexual violence against women

It's laughable that the church has a rigorous process that pedophiles can slip through yet women cannot.

Talk about a non sequitur. A little easier to tell the difference between a man and a woman than it is to tell a man who will take the responsibilities of being a priest responsibly (which is the vast majority) and one who may commit a crime against a child. Nice try though.

The bible is a collection of old writings that someone siphoned through cherry picking which would make it in and which wouldn't.

A little more than Cherry Picking. That was Martin Luther, NOT the Catholic Church. The Church went through an extended process of determining which books made the cut and which did not.

When women wanted to vote and were not allowed I'm sure it didn't mean diddly squat to them that there were plenty of things they were allowed to do other than voting. :roll:

What does voting have to do with the service of God?
 

This is laughable. Large segments of the Catholic faith openly opposed womens suffrage in the 19th century. Just because 1 priest supported the right for women to vote means NOTHING.

There are priests TODAY who support the right for women to lead within the church. There are priests today who are kicked out of the Catholic Church for allowing female priests.

Vatican city TODAY is one of the few last remaining places where women STILL CANNOT VOTE TODAY!!!!:rofl
 
I know lots of people in the Catholic faith. I know many women who will readily admit it's a male dominated hierarchy and they just put up with it while hoping and praying the church eventually evolves into something that is relevant in this century.
Of COURSE the hierarchy is full of males--as I've said REPEATEDLY, Jesus was male. That does not mean that the Church is misogynistic. A male hierarchy does not equate to misogyny.



I don't consider you a woman hater. I'm not sure if you believe a woman's role is to be submissive or if you are just so blind by loyalty that you will defend your church in the face of any and all criticism.
Do I come off "submissive?" It's not about being "less than"--it's about being empowered by who you are. I am powerful in my position precisely BECAUSE I utilize that which is God-given gift of femininity. Femininity in this regard is not the cliche "girliness"--but rather what it is that I was made to be.

But it really doesn't matter as my criticisms are of the church and not yours to be taken personally. If you can't separate yourself from the church so much so that any arrow thrown in their direction pierces your heart - that's not my problem.
Ironic that you would say arrow piercing my heart. Ludahai will probably understand why I take that as a compliment.
0813icon-7arrows03-thumb.jpg
 
This is laughable. Large segments of the Catholic faith openly opposed womens suffrage in the 19th century. Just because 1 priest supported the right for women to vote means NOTHING.

There are priests TODAY who support the right for women to lead within the church. There are priests today who are kicked out of the Catholic Church for allowing female priests.

Once again, the Church is NOT a Democracy.

Vatican city TODAY is one of the few last remaining places where women STILL CANNOT VOTE TODAY!!!!:rofl

Of course, you mean besides places where NO ONE can vote. The Church is not a democracy, nor was it ever meant to be. BTW, just HOW MANY people are citizens of the Vatican?
 
This is laughable. Large segments of the Catholic faith openly opposed womens suffrage in the 19th century. Just because 1 priest supported the right for women to vote means NOTHING.
Did you read what he said?:roll:


Vatican city TODAY is one of the few last remaining places where women STILL CANNOT VOTE TODAY!!!!:rofl

:rofl:rofl Regular men can't either--it's only cardinals. nice try with half the info.:roll:
 
And by the church you mean a collection of fallible men.

Through the guidence of the Holy Spirit. They did a good job - unlike Martin Luther who took out parts of the Holy Scriptures on a whim because they didn't fit with his theological opinions.
 
The sin was original sin, and the result is part of the struggle that is people not treating others with the respect they are due, and people not being treated with respect. In other words (as JPII thoroughly explains in his letter): Both man and woman are wounded by sin and one of the wounds to both is misogyny--it harms BOTH the misogynist, an those on the receiving end.

From your source:

In one of his Discourses Paul VI said: "Within Christianity, more than in any other religion, and since its very beginning, women have had a special dignity, of which the New Testament shows us many important aspects...; it is evident that women are meant to form part of the living and working structure of Christianity in so prominent a manner that perhaps not all their potentialities have yet been made clear"

I think that there are women who feel that the fact they can't be Pope (which means "Father") offends their dignity. God isn't telling women this, men are.
 
Yep. It's a place of supreme dignity and value--no less important than that of man.

The water coming out of the "colored" water fountains is just as wet.
 
Name calling, my dear. You call the Church hateful and misogynistic. I am part of that Church. Do you consider me a "woman hater?"

You are a woman. You aren't part of the policy making process of the Church.
 
A little more than Cherry Picking. That was Martin Luther, NOT the Catholic Church. The Church went through an extended process of determining which books made the cut and which did not.

It is curious how the Apocrypha has stories about women disproportionately to the current bible.
 
From your source:



I think that there are women who feel that the fact they can't be Pope (which means "Father") offends their dignity. God isn't telling women this, men are.

I guess I don't get your point. :confused:
 
It is curious how the Apocrypha has stories about women disproportionately to the current bible.

Define disproportionately? There are MANY stories of incredibly faithful and strong women in the Bible.

While there is nothing that can be said to be "THE Apocrypha", it doesn't mean that such books are not valuable to the Faith. Many ARE. However, there are various reasons why such books are not in the canon.
 
Define disproportionately? There are MANY stories of incredibly faithful and strong women in the Bible.

While there is nothing that can be said to be "THE Apocrypha", it doesn't mean that such books are not valuable to the Faith. Many ARE. However, there are various reasons why such books are not in the canon.

Oh...IT means rejected texts? --not recently rejected?
 
The "Apocrypha" are in the Catholic Bible--NOT in the Protestant version. ;)

From a Protestant standpoint, this is right. There are other books regarded as Apocraphal. But you are right - what Protestants call "The Apocrypha" is a fundamental part of the Catholic Bible and consists of books Martin Luther took out.
 
Religion is not politics. :doh

Then explain why to this very day Catholics are permitted to eat fish on Fridays during lent.
 
Oh...IT means rejected texts? --not recently rejected?

It can mean both, though after re-reading the original post, the context and the use of the word "the" leads me to believe your original interpretation was correct. However, I will await his explanation before passing final judgement on the post.
 
Through the guidence of the Holy Spirit. They did a good job - unlike Martin Luther who took out parts of the Holy Scriptures on a whim because they didn't fit with his theological opinions.

The holy spirit isn't responsible for the misogyny of the church. Take a look at some of these quotes by men.

The church's legacy of misogyny: scholar unearths medieval thought behind discrimination | National Catholic Reporter | Find Articles at BNET

The late 14th-century canonist, Aegidius de Bellamera, put it bluntly: "But why are women removed from civil and public offices? The reason is because they are fragile and usually less discerning." And further, "The reason for the difference [between the roles of men and women] is on account of the fragility, imbecility and less natural constancy and discernment of women."

* Not only were women naturally weaker in will and mind than men, but also in body. Following Pope Gregory the Great, the canonists called menstruation a defect of women's nature that carried severe consequences. Balsamon, the 12th-century Orthodox authority on canon law, explained that menstruation was the reason for the disbanding of the office of deaconess. "Once when the orders of canons of deaconesses were recognized, they had their own status at the altar. However, the defilement of the ministry by those menstruating expelled them from the divine and holy altar." The Western canonists followed Isidore of Seville in describing the horrible effects of menstruation: "And in fact this blood is so detestable and unclean that ... through contact with it, fruits do not produce, wine turns sour, plants die, trees lack fruit, the air darkens; if dogs eat [the blood], they are then made wild with madness."

* Women are also responsible for introducing sin into the world. Quoting Ambrose, a law contained in the 12th-century Decretum explained, "Adam was deceived by Eve, and not Eve by Adam. The woman summoned him to sin; it is just that he takes on the guidance of her, lest he be ruined again by female recklessness." The 13th-century canonist Guido de Baysio explained that this is why a woman cannot receive orders: "A woman was the effective cause of damnation since she was the origin of lying and Adam was deceived through her, and therefore she was not able to be the effective cause of salvation since Orders effects grace in another and thus salvation." William of Rennes in the 13th century put it crudely: "A woman taught one time and the whole world was overthrown."

* Women then need to be completely subject to men. According to the Decretum, "It is the natural order in humans that females serve males and children parents, since in this is justice that the lesser serve the greater." Huguccio puts it succinctly, "A female yields to a man like a reed in the wind."

It's hardly surprising that the church has misogynistic roots. It is however surprising that they still cling to male domination in this day and age and that women within the faith apologize for it.
 
The "Apocrypha" are in the Catholic Bible--NOT in the Protestant version. ;)

Really?

Aren't they considered to be of dubious nature? Or are you only speaking of Catholic apocrypha?
 
I guess I don't get your point. :confused:

Sorry, I had a couple thoughts going on at once. I wasn't clear. It appears that there is acknowledement that women's roles could change. That's what my quoted part was about.

My words were another thought.
 
Really?

Aren't they considered to be of dubious nature? Or are you only speaking of Catholic apocrypha?
The question is what books are you talking about. "The Apocrypha" are what Protestants call Deuterocanonical books that are in the Catholic Bible, but not in the Protestant version. Name one book that you are referring to and I can tell what you're speaking of.
 
Back
Top Bottom