• 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

talloulou said:
It's basically saying, "Yeah obviously we use to think women were crap but nevertheless this had no influence on pastoral activity!!!" As if. Like that's even possible.
Click to expand...
Yeah--cuz like Thomas Jefferson-that racist bastard who raped his slaves--like he couldn't possibley fashion a solid document asserting freedom and justice for all and have it be real and true because like --he was a slime-ball racist pig, so the whole US must also be founded upon inequality and racism and hatred because the founders were.:doh

Sometimes leaders are effective despite their personal flaws.


None the less, back to Pope Gregory and his mistake you're excusing him for. Aren't popes supposed to be infallible????
Click to expand...
Not in everything they say.:roll: I KNOW you've been told that before.
 
Felicity said:
Yeah--cuz like Thomas Jefferson-that racist bastard who raped his slaves--like he couldn't possibley fashion a solid document asserting freedom and justice for all and have it be real and true because like --he was a slime-ball racist pig, so the whole US must also be founded upon inequality and racism and hatred because the founders were.:doh
Click to expand...

What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you're effectively saying folks need to be looked at and judged in the context of their historical environment; I completely agree. One would expect that the church of the past was misogynistic. You are the only person I know who has ever even attempted to claim that isn't true. Most people accept it as falling in line with the times. Even the vatican understands that women within the church have long been written about with prejudice. Yet, you deny it. Make excuses for it.

In any event I can overlook that from a "It was in the past, " position easily if it didn't seem to still hold true today.

Not in everything they say.:roll: I KNOW you've been told that before.
Click to expand...

Actually I know very little about the pope as my mother never paid him much mind. She's Catholic but has an unfavorable opinion of the whole "pope" business. :mrgreen:

Being irreligious, ultimately I don't care. But the church does have a misogynistic past both in literature and action and they are not up to date in their way of thinking about women even today.
 
talloulou said:
bwahahaha A direct quote from:
INTER INSIGNIORES
Declaration on the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (15 October 1976)
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Click to expand...

Did you read that document? It is very clear as to many of the theological reasons for the male priesthood--but no...you'd rather pick ONE sentence that references that some people within the Church have inappropriately characterized women, and you want that to somehow mean that the Church herself is misogynistic. What a load of crap. The Church can't acknowledge humans within her ranks who fail to live and speak in an appropriate way with regard to women, because to admit that you then swoop in and claim since some people fail, the whole Church is misogynistic. BALONEY! If your dad was a lying cheat, does that mean YOU are? --or that your whole family is, or that those are the values that the talloulou's live by since her family has shown to fail in a particular regard? Not hardly.:roll:
 
talloulou said:
Even the vatican understands that women within the church have long been written about with prejudice. Yet, you deny it. Make excuses for it.
Click to expand...
I'm taking issue with your over-generalization.
In any event I can overlook that from a "It was in the past, " position easily if it didn't seem to still hold true today.
Click to expand...
There are people in the Church STILL TODAY that hold anti-woman positions. THAT does not mean that the CHurch does--it means THAT INDIVIDUAL does. The Church is far more than some of the people in it--even if they are influential people.
 
Last edited:
Felicity said:
Did you read that document? It is very clear as to many of the theological reasons for the male priesthood--but no...you'd rather pick ONE sentence that references that some people within the Church have inappropriately characterized women, and you want that to somehow mean that the Church herself is misogynistic. What a load of crap. The Church can't acknowledge humans within her ranks who fail to live and speak in an appropriate way with regard to women, because to admit that you then swoop in and claim since some people fail, the whole Church is misogynistic. BALONEY! If your dad was a lying cheat, does that mean YOU are? --or that your whole family is, or that those are the values that the talloulou's live by since her family has shown to fail in a particular regard? Not hardly.:roll:
Click to expand...

The church was misogynistic. I'll allow that today the level of misogyny remaining is somewhat debatable. Clearly there's not total equality. The fact that the Church has misogynistic roots though is completely non-debatable. You can't debate facts.
 
talloulou said:
The church was misogynistic. I'll allow that today the level of misogyny remaining is somewhat debatable. Clearly there's not total equality. The fact that the Church has misogynistic roots though is completely non-debatable. You can't debate facts.
Click to expand...

I deny that is true. I do. The Church is not the individuals in it. All you have are individuals and your completely theologically ignorant judgement of the all-male priesthood. Give me an example of misogyny that is part of Church Doctrine and I'll beg your pardon. Your unlearned assertions due to your failure to look in to what the Church ACTUALLY teaches concerning women and their dignity as persons is not adequate evidence for your accusations.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Lent didn't exist when Jesus was feeding crowds. Though, you are right, I am no biblical scholar.
Click to expand...

Lent did not exist, of course. However, we take many of our current traditions from Biblical examples. As we are celebrating a sacrifice to Christ, it would make sense to make use of the diet that Jesus fed his followers as an act of obedience and sacrifice.
 
EgoffTib said:
It's his good news according to the people who compiled the Bible. That is what irks me a bit about the Bible: all of the gospels that were rejected were considered apocryphal and tossed out. How do we know who is telling the truth? In effect, a lot of information was censored by those who had more power and influence, allowing them to shape the Bible into whatever they deemed suitable.
Click to expand...

They weren't completely tossed out. Many were refered to by early Church Fathers and are not considered completely useless in a life of Faith. However, the early Fathers did not believe that they reached the level of authority that the four gospel accounts that WERE included meet. These people have a lot more knowledge of their authenticity than we have. I tend to accept their word for it more than I would yours.
 
talloulou said:
It's commonly accepted that Pope Gregory was the first to slander Mary Magdalene's reputation. When they trace her awful and unfounded reputation back through time the first person to vilify her was in fact Pope Gregory. After him her reputation spiraled more and more out of control with no literary proof. But he was the first one to go after her, take her down, and ensure that she was not taken more seriously than a groupie following their favorite band around the country.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the word peccatrix means? I don't care what is commonly accepted. I care about historical fact. If it is commonly accepted to accept a slander against the pope, that says more about the slanderers and those who blindly accept it rather than look at the original meaning, intent, and text of what was said.
 
talloulou said:
None the less, back to Pope Gregory and his mistake you're excusing him for. Aren't popes supposed to be infallible????
Click to expand...

Excuse him for what? For calling Mary Magdalene a sinner?

And, as so often happens - you show a lack of basic understanding of the doctrine of infallibility.
 
ludahai said:
Excuse him for what? For calling Mary Magdalene a sinner?

And, as so often happens - you show a lack of basic understanding of the doctrine of infallibility.
Click to expand...

How many years did it take for the Vatican to officially squelch the rumors and admit that there was no historical basis for believing Mary Magdalene was a whore? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't all that long ago.
 
ludahai said:
Lent did not exist, of course. However, we take many of our current traditions from Biblical examples. As we are celebrating a sacrifice to Christ, it would make sense to make use of the diet that Jesus fed his followers as an act of obedience and sacrifice.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he first came to earth today if he would have fed them Long John Silvers. :)
 
talloulou said:
How many years did it take for the Vatican to officially squelch the rumors and admit that there was no historical basis for believing Mary Magdalene was a whore? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't all that long ago.
Click to expand...

You are the one who claimed Pope Gregory called her a whore. That is a lie. In fact, the Church has long held a place of honor for Mary Magdelene. She is regarded as a Saint of the Church.

Is the Church suddenly responsible for rumors and stories trotted out by others?
 
ludahai said:
I am a native New Englander. Long John Silver's and Red Lobster are for those who know nothing of the true grandeur of seafood.
Click to expand...

I lived in Hawaii for a number of years and I second that.

Fresh mahi-mahi and Ahi straight from the boats was awesome. It make Long John Silvers and Red Lobster look like McDonalds.
 
ludahai said:
I am a native New Englander. Long John Silver's and Red Lobster are for those who know nothing of the true grandeur of seafood.
Click to expand...

Ah, but the eating fish is supposed to be giving up the luxury of meat. Anyone could catch a fish back in the day.

Don't forget Joe's Crab Shack. :2razz:

I have had real sea food from the coasts. It is good. Here in the midwest, not as good, unless you catch your own fresh fish, but it's different fish.
 
But back to misogyny. When men were writing the bible, the world was largely misogynistic. A new religion in that day would have to follow suit in order to be taken seriously. Back then, everything had a male hierarchy. In fact, until very recently, that was still the case. I don't see how anyone could think that the Catholic Church would have been exempt from this. If they were, they would have surely marketed and touted this new thinking. They would have have been attacked back in the day for being non-misogynistic.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
But back to misogyny. When men were writing the bible, the world was largely misogynistic. A new religion in that day would have to follow suit in order to be taken seriously. Back then, everything had a male hierarchy. In fact, until very recently, that was still the case. I don't see how anyone could think that the Catholic Church would have been exempt from this. If they were, they would have surely marketed and touted this new thinking. They would have have been attacked back in the day for being non-misogynistic.
Click to expand...

Misogyny means "woman hate."

misos "hatred" (from misein "to hate") + gyne "woman"

Simple sexism is not misogyny.

You guys are throwing the word Woman-hater at the Church and you don't know what you mean? :shock:

Do you wonder why it might be offensive to accuse a whole religion of hate, if you really only mean that there was "typical sexist views?" That is a TOTALLY different charge than misogyny!
 
ludahai said:
You are the one who claimed Pope Gregory called her a whore. That is a lie. In fact, the Church has long held a place of honor for Mary Magdelene. She is regarded as a Saint of the Church.

Is the Church suddenly responsible for rumors and stories trotted out by others?
Click to expand...

Pope Gregory went off on her, lambasted her, in a sermon on morals. Called her not just a sinner but claimed that Mary Magdalene was the same Mary in the Bible from whom 7 devils were cast out. In the sermon he went on to say that the 7 devils represented the 7 capital sins she was guilty of. Her reputation as a whore is traced back to Gregory and essentially blamed on Pope Gregory by every source I've looked at. The "sinner" part would not have made a whore. We're all sinners. It was the 7 capital sins part that was so slanderous. Not only did Pope Gregory morph 2 different Marys into one person he went a step further and amped up the story by equating the casting out of 7 demons as confirmation of the presence of 7 capital/deadly sins. He then went through and listed them making Mary guilty of pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia, ". From Gregory's sermon on her reputation was forever tarnished and not corrected by the church till a long while later. She was celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church for being a penitent all the way up until 1969 when revisions were finally made Roman Missal and Mary was no longer the woman who reformed herself after committing the 7 deadly sins.
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
Pope Gregory went off on her, lambasted her, in a sermon on morals. Called her not just a sinner but claimed that Mary Magdalene was the same Mary in the Bible from whom 7 devils were cast out. In the sermon he went on to say that the 7 devils represented the 7 capital sins she was guilty of. Her reputation as a whore is traced back to Gregory and essentially blamed on Pope Gregory by every source I've looked at. The "sinner" part would not have made a whore. We're all sinners. It was the 7 capital sins part that was so slanderous. Not only did Pope Gregory morph 2 different Marys into one person he went a step further and amped up the story by equating the casting out of 7 demons as confirmation of the presence of 7 capital/deadly sins. He then went through and listed them making Mary guilty of pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia, ".[2] From Gregory's sermon on her reputation was forever tarnished and not corrected by the church till a long while later. She was celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church for being a penitent all the way up until 1969 when revisions were finally made Roman Missal and Mary was no longer the woman who reformed herself after committing the 7 deadly sins.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with being a penitent? I have committed all 7 deadly sins--I am a sinner. I am also a penitent. Mary was too. Psssssst....we all are.

He was more than a little enthusiastic in his pointing that out about her--but HEY! Pope Gregory was a sinner in need of penance and redemption TOO!:doh:cool:
 
Oh--and BTW--no one reforms herself...The Grace of God works in our lives and through acccepting that grace we are able to be reformed.
 
Felicity said:
What's wrong with being a penitent? I have committed all 7 deadly sins--I am a sinner. I am also a penitent. Mary was too. Psssssst....we all are.

He was more than a little enthusiastic in his pointing that out about her--but HEY! Pope Gregory was a sinner in need of penance and redemption TOO!:doh:cool:
Click to expand...

Sure but she was painted as the sinner of sinners. Celebrated because she was proof that even the most sinful of sinners could find redemption. Roman Church and the Orthodox Church were split on this for years and years. The Orthodox church continued to teach about Mary Magdalene as a good women, to be looked up to, to be a role model. While the Roman Catholics celebrated her as the woman who sinned the most, the height of female sinning. Pope Gregory's sermon was not a little thing where he briefly mentioned Magdalene as a sinner among many sinners. It was a speech about morality. A sermon about the worst sins man can be capable of and Mary was to be celebrated for one reason and one reason only; she somehow overcame her horrible sinful vile nature. :roll: To brush it off as a casual, "Oh yeah Mary was a sinner, like we're all sinners, " is to minimize what Pope Gregory did to her reputation. While the Orthodox Church continued to view her as an honorable woman who lived an honorable life she became the whore of the west. Even in art she was painted as a topless whore, repetitively. The Roman Catholic church KNEW that the Orthodox Church did not agree with this portrayal. The Roman Catholic Church also KNEW Gregory wrongly morphed different Marys into one Mary. They knew there was no evidence her life was full of anymore sin than the average woman and yet they allowed her to continue on with this false reputation until finally it got out that Mary Magdalene was no whore, there was no evidence that she was an outrageously sinful woman, etc. When confronted with this, the church backed down and corrected her reputation to save their own lying face.
 
Felicity said:
Misogyny means "woman hate."

misos "hatred" (from misein "to hate") + gyne "woman"

Simple sexism is not misogyny.

You guys are throwing the word Woman-hater at the Church and you don't know what you mean? :shock:

Do you wonder why it might be offensive to accuse a whole religion of hate, if you really only mean that there was "typical sexist views?" That is a TOTALLY different charge than misogyny!
Click to expand...

Oh so you'll agree that the church is sexist, was sexist, always has been sexist but not that they're misogynistic?

What male saint was made out to be a wild outrageous whore with not a shred of evidence?

Do you honestly think it was a coincidence that Mary Magdalene was a giant whore for so long? That she was represented as a whore in religious art? Was it really a coincidence that when a pope needed a "sinner of all sinners" he choose a woman? I don't believe that for a second. If it was a mistake, it wouldn't have taken over 1000 years to correct.
 
talloulou said:
Oh so you'll agree that the church is sexist, was sexist, always has been sexist but not that they're misogynistic?
Click to expand...
What are you not understanding about the nature of the Church? The Church is far more than the individuals in the Church. The problem is you calling "the Church" misogynistic or even merely sexist rather than putting the error where it belongs--on the misogynistic or sexist individual/s.


What male saint was made out to be a wild outrageous whore with not a shred of evidence?
Click to expand...
Um...there is evidence that Mary had "seven demons" cast out of her and she was a sinner like all of us. Augustine was quite the man-whore while his momma Monica prayed incessantly for his conversion.

Do you honestly think it was a coincidence that Mary Magdalene was a giant whore for so long? That she was represented as a whore in religious art? Was it really a coincidence that when a pope needed a "sinner of all sinners" he choose a woman? I don't believe that for a second. If it was a mistake, it wouldn't have taken over 1000 years to correct.
Click to expand...
And you are the one with the issue concerning it all. So what? She's in heaven--Mary Magdalen gives hope to those lost in sin of all kinds. I bet she's darned pleased that she can be of such service. I hope I get a chance to ask her how she feels about it someday.
 
Part of Pope Gregory's sermon,


"It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. "

It was not clear. None of it. Pope Gregory in some perverted fashion went on about the oils she used to make her hair seductive. The body oils she used to tempt men. The church now denies that Mary Magdalene was the same Mary from whom demons were cast. Furthermore, there's evidence that the casting of demons was the curing of ailments. So even if Mary Magdalene was the same Mary from whom demons were cast out it was intellectually dishonest of Pope Gregory to paint her as a whore.

As to the so what? Mary Magdalene is one of the most important female figures in the Bible. The fact that the church attempted to diminish her by purposely turning her into a whore is no small thing. She was a powerful woman who walked at Christ's side and the church refashioned her into a sinful perfumed whore. And you say, so what? :roll:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom