• 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!

Catholics angry as church puts female ordination on par with sex abuse

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is actually a difference. The bible never mentions that you can't eat meat on Fridays or that you have to go to confession. However, the bible does clearly state that women should not be priests.

Hi, Buck -- my point was that there is much dogma in the church that is absurd. If we're going by The Bible, if that's really the standard, we'd all be blind and toothless, yes? Hey! Maybe that's the problem. ;-)
 
Hi, Buck -- my point was that there is much dogma in the church that is absurd. If we're going by The Bible, if that's really the standard, we'd all be blind and toothless, yes? Hey! Maybe that's the problem. ;-)

But there are at least two problems with simply going by the Bible.

1. This limits God to a finite piece of literature. I would not DARE to even attempt to place any limitations on God whatsoever.
2. It ignores the fact that Jesus said He would leave the Holy Spirit as a guide. If you go simply by the Bible, that implies the Christian and salvation story ENDED with the writing of the scriptures nearly 1900 years ago. This is both non-sensical and non-scriptural.
 
I believe that's chi. Gods are something else entirely, discrete entities with their own preferences and agendas. Of course, any righteous god would be greatly concerned with the spiritual and moral health of his followers.

Good point.

Korimyr the Rat said:
I believe that he is a fallen angel, a former servant of the God of Abraham who rebelled against him. I have no dealings with him, so I have no means by which to determine whether he is malevolent or merely rebellious, but I would err on the side of caution and fear that trafficking with him might lead to irreparable spiritual harm. My dealings with those who claim to worship him-- as opposed to LaVeyan "Satanists"-- have certainly reinforced this suspicion.

This is dead on. I haven't met a huge number of satanic followers because I avoid them for the precise reason that the ones I met were disturbed individuals. I understand their lighter precepts of self-indulgance but there is something psychospiritually off about them that I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe it's more of an intuition than an exact knowledge. I have never been afraid of the idea of Satan so I don't automatically have that aversion instilled in me, but I do now that I have met some of his followers.
 
But there are at least two problems with simply going by the Bible.

1. This limits God to a finite piece of literature. I would not DARE to even attempt to place any limitations on God whatsoever.
2. It ignores the fact that Jesus said He would leave the Holy Spirit as a guide. If you go simply by the Bible, that implies the Christian and salvation story ENDED with the writing of the scriptures nearly 1900 years ago. This is both non-sensical and non-scriptural.

Re your #1, I don't understand what you mean here.
Re your #2, Are you saying that the Pope (whoever is the Pope at any particular time) is the Holy Spirit?
 
But man, by way of the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II, attributed it to their God by making it an "Infallible" decree that they've not been granted the authority to do so.

And if you disagree with that I STRONGLY advocate that you not join the Catholic church...
 
Hi, Buck -- my point was that there is much dogma in the church that is absurd. If we're going by The Bible, if that's really the standard, we'd all be blind and toothless, yes? Hey! Maybe that's the problem. ;-)

Assume that there is an extremely powerful and unique being. One that has existed forever and was/is capable of creating the entire universe. He specifically created intelligent beings on a planet and communicated with them. This being also exists outside of time as we know it. He knows everything that has happened and everything thats gonna happen. For him, it is all the same.

Do you think it is possible for a human being like yourself to be able to completely understand such an entity and know everything about it?
 
Re your #1, I don't understand what you mean here.
Re your #2, Are you saying that the Pope (whoever is the Pope at any particular time) is the Holy Spirit?

1. This was in response to the notion that the Bible IS Christianity and Christianity IS the Bible. However, Christianity and God are both much more than that. The so-called "dogma" is a reflection of the Bible AND Church tradition.

2. The Pope is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides the Church as the body of believers.
 
Hi, Buck -- my point was that there is much dogma in the church that is absurd. If we're going by The Bible, if that's really the standard, we'd all be blind and toothless, yes? Hey! Maybe that's the problem. ;-)

No, not really. If you were only going by the old testament of the bible, then you may be right. But if you're going by the entirety of the bible, then not so much.

Although I do like the idea of some catholic priests suffering through the eye for an eye bit. Maybe Take a little something off... I dunno.
 
I certainly agree with your assessment. I find it strange that people become obsessed with the minutia of doctrine to the exclusion of the fundamental moral precepts of their faith. I do not understand how a Christian who hates another Christian over a point of doctrine could possibly be walking in the grace of his God..


I tend to agree with you, but would merely point out that there is much difference between "hates" and "strongly disagrees with".

For instance... I have mentioned that I am not Catholic. I do not believe in the Papacy and oppose the idea that any man can speak directly for God except he do so by quoting scripture (and even that to be done cautiously, in proper context and humble awareness of our own fallibility in interpretation). I fear that Papist doctrines may have led many Catholics astray from the "best-possible" relationship with God.

However, I still consider them to be my co-religionists, with whom I have far more in common than in difference. I do not hate them at all, though I am not overly fond of their leadership and hierarchy.

Still, you will have noticed that I tend to back them up and speak in their favor when they are subject to what I would view as unjustified criticism. A Catholic and a Protestant certainly have far more common intrests than either does with a militant atheist. :mrgreen:


Christiandom, and its varied factions, have learned to coexist despite disagreements. We've learned to recognize those differences do not constitute reason to go to war with each other.

Given the history of the world, where everything from tribal affiliation, language or dialect, religion or legal system, political structure or nationality or economic preference or skin color or any damn thing has been used as an excuse for war for millenia, I think we're doing rather well to have learned to live and let live. :mrgreen:
 
And if you disagree with that I STRONGLY advocate that you not join the Catholic church...

The issue for me isn't me joining the Catholic church, I already left the Catholic church a long time ago.

It's my wife's desire to raise our kids in the Catholic church.

This was clarified very early on in this thread.
 
Do you think it is possible for a human being like yourself to be able to completely understand such an entity and know everything about it?
No, absolutely not. I don't believe any human being can understand 'such an entity...' including the pope and his bishops.

@ Ludahai -- I agree with you that the Holy Spirit is seen to guide every Christian church. And every believer. As to your first assertion, it's the 'church tradition' I have a problem with. And that it would seem the Catholic Church reflects/interprets the Bible differently as time goes on.

@ Buc -- Shall we throw out God's words in the Old Testament? Maybe just 'buy' Genesis? Or do we believe that Christ's mission was to change the promises and threats in the Old Testament?
 
The issue for me isn't me joining the Catholic church, I already left the Catholic church a long time ago.

It's my wife's desire to raise our kids in the Catholic church.

This was clarified very early on in this thread.

You guys DID talk about that before you had kids, right?

Ive always thought that raising children in ANY religion was pretty much fine. Teach kids values, build relationships and trust, and eventually (ultimately) let them choose for themselves. I get that it can be a conflict in families...but less so if it is dealt with in a healthy positive way in advance.

BTW...Im not Catholic nor advocating one way or the other...
 
You guys DID talk about that before you had kids, right?

It's actually the reason we don't have kids yet.

Ive always thought that raising children in ANY religion was pretty much fine. Teach kids values, build relationships and trust, and eventually (ultimately) let them choose for themselves. I get that it can be a conflict in families...but less so if it is dealt with in a healthy positive way in advance.

The thing is, I don't want my kids to build relationships and trust with an ornginization that has proven itself to be a danger to children. Again, this was all explained earlier.
 
The issue for me isn't me joining the Catholic church, I already left the Catholic church a long time ago.

The Vatican's decision is consistent with maybe 2000 years of Christianity.

Why all of a sudden are you expressing this "feigned outrage" about female apostles, priests, etc when Scripture says nothing of the kind? God did not ordain women and the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church teaches that they are not to be ordained. God simply does not will it.
 
It's actually the reason we don't have kids yet.



The thing is, I don't want my kids to build relationships and trust with an ornginization that has proven itself to be a danger to children. Again, this was all explained earlier.

One...smart decision to hold off on the kids thing...and I dont mean that in a flippant way. Ive seen far too many marriages that are simply irreconcilably damaged due to cultural conflicts...

and Two...I know a LOT of Catholics...and Baptists...and school teachers...who arent pedophiles. I dont think the Catholic church advocates pedophilia in their canons...I DO get that they have ignored the problem and thats inexcusable. But I also know of families that are involved with their childrens lives and participate in church and never experience the problems others have. Healthy parental relationships is the greatest safeguard...Catholic church or any other setting..Boy Scouts...sports teams...whatever...it goes a long way to ensuring those children are NOT (as) vulnerable to attack and exploitation.

And I get that Im just blathering...I am sure you know all this...
 
The Vatican's decision is consistent with maybe 2000 years of Christianity.

Then why do the other Christian sects allow female ministers and such?

Why all of a sudden are you expressing this "feigned outrage" about female apostles, priests, etc when Scripture says nothing of the kind?

I left the catholic church over 20 years ago, so the "all of a sudden" tripe you spew has no mertit in fact. Don't pretend to know me.

As far as "feigned outrage" I don't think you actually know what that means.
 
You guys DID talk about that before you had kids, right?

Ive always thought that raising children in ANY religion was pretty much fine. Teach kids values, build relationships and trust, and eventually (ultimately) let them choose for themselves. I get that it can be a conflict in families...but less so if it is dealt with in a healthy positive way in advance.

BTW...Im not Catholic nor advocating one way or the other...

Lol, the way you put that makes it sound so simple when really it's not.
Another reason why when a couple are not of the same religion, it is a bit more difficult. Alot of negotiation and compromises has to occur to please both parties. Probably the main reason I haven't had a child.
 
One...smart decision to hold off on the kids thing...and I dont mean that in a flippant way. Ive seen far too many marriages that are simply irreconcilably damaged due to cultural conflicts...

and Two...I know a LOT of Catholics...and Baptists...and school teachers...who arent pedophiles. I dont think the Catholic church advocates pedophilia in their canons...I DO get that they have ignored the problem and thats inexcusable. But I also know of families that are involved with their childrens lives and participate in church and never experience the problems others have. Healthy parental relationships is the greatest safeguard...Catholic church or any other setting..Boy Scouts...sports teams...whatever...it goes a long way to ensuring those children are NOT (as) vulnerable to attack and exploitation.

The issue here is that you are not separating Catholic people from the Catholic Church as an orginization, and I am.

The Catholic Church, as an orginization, covered up pedophilia within their ranks for decades. That is a fact. What the church says in its canons don't mean **** in light of htis fact.

I do agree with you that healthy parenting is the ultimate safeguard. When teh crap with Michael Jackson kept coming up, I often said "What kind of parent allows their child to be around Michael Jackson after he's had all of these accusations?"

I heard many people say the same types of things. They'd say "I'd never let my kid be around that guy."

Well, the Catholic Church, as an originization, has proven itself far more dangerous to children than even Michael Jackson was. The ****e they've vomitted out ove rthe past few years alone shows me that they aren't really interested in taking ful responsibility for their actions, and that is, for me, inexcusabel AND unforgivable. They haven't done **** to show me that they've changed. They'd rather try to sweep as much as they can under the rug.

I do realize that, as individuals, the pedophile priests were, most likely, a minority of the total priest population. But that doesn't mean ****. Priests are people who a child is supposed to be able to trust. And they can't. Not only becasue of the minority that actually commited the acts, but because of the even more eggregious and disgusting actions taken by the Church to cover it all up when it happened and transfer priests around, trusting that they truly felt remose.

Any orginization that has shown it can't be trusted to protect children from monsters within it's ranks is one that children should be kept away from at all costs, IMO.

IMO, good parenting includes preventing children form being in situations that are known to be dangerous. Being around priests is known to be dangerous. A big reason that this issue with wanting female priests exists is because of teh vile and disgusting actions of the Church and it's male preists.

Their constant, unremorseful refusal to end the policies which have made the Church a refuge for pedophiles for years makes the Church an orginization that is almost on par with NAMBLA, in my opinion.

The Church's actions on this matter are a disgrace to the millions and millions of good Catholics in the world.
 
I will try and ignore the immature personal attacks made against the Catholic religion. I am a Catholic, and whether or not you agree is your business, but hateful remarks are not welcomed.

There are two primary reasons why the Catholic Church holds this position, and it is not about repressing women or any type of misogyny.
1. Jesus did not ordain any women as apostles. A common response to this is that it would be against the culture of his time to do so, but that argument doesn't really make sense considering he associated with pretty much everyone his society rejected.
2. The sacrament of holy orders into the priesthood requires ordained priests to act in the person of Christ, and Jesus Christ was male.

Men and woman are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness.
 
I will try and ignore the immature personal attacks made against the Catholic religion. I am a Catholic, and whether or not you agree is your business, but hateful remarks are not welcomed.

There are two primary reasons why the Catholic Church holds this position, and it is not about repressing women or any type of misogyny.
1. Jesus did not ordain any women as apostles. A common response to this is that it would be against the culture of his time to do so, but that argument doesn't really make sense considering he associated with pretty much everyone his society rejected.
2. The sacrament of holy orders into the priesthood requires ordained priests to act in the person of Christ, and Jesus Christ was male.

Men and woman are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness.

Well - both of those things sound quite prejudice, don't they?

Most women hear "You cannot do ___ because you are a female" and connect that to misogyny, sexism, chauvinism or prejudice.

If God/Jesus/whoever decided that men and women were or were not allowed to do same things because of their gender - then isn't that differential treatment, negatively?
Is there anything *in* the catholic church that women can do and men cannot?

Anytime someone holds your natural-born condition against you it is at least one of those things. If someone was born with a physical ailment or mental disorder - and then the Catholic Church said "because you were born mentally inept we cannot permit you to ___" then wouldn't an accusation of being prejudice, then, be accurate and understood?

What if it was a race issue - and Jesus openly spoke out against race (which he doesn't, sure) but what if he did? It might be 'per the religion' but would it be acceptable?
 
Well - both of those things sound quite prejudice, don't they?

Most women hear "You cannot do ___ because you are a female" and connect that to misogyny, sexism, chauvinism or prejudice.

If God/Jesus/whoever decided that men and women were or were not allowed to do same things because of their gender - then isn't that differential treatment, negatively?
Is there anything *in* the catholic church that women can do and men cannot?

Anytime someone holds your natural-born condition against you it is at least one of those things. If someone was born with a physical ailment or mental disorder - and then the Catholic Church said "because you were born mentally inept we cannot permit you to ___" then wouldn't an accusation of being prejudice, then, be accurate and understood?

What if it was a race issue - and Jesus openly spoke out against race (which he doesn't, sure) but what if he did? It might be 'per the religion' but would it be acceptable?

Well, I don't know. Do you think the priesthood should include the mentally inept?
 
Then why do the other Christian sects allow female ministers and such?

God created mankind with free will. The ability to choose good or evil. The freedom to choose God or not. Otherwise, how could love be genuine if there was never a choice?

It seems to me there are some 20 plus Churches that make up, the Roman Communion of Catholic Churches.

Just like each State has its own set of laws, so do the 20 plus churches have their own set of Canons.

You are free to do so....



I left the catholic church over 20 years ago,

Again, your choice, sport

so the "all of a sudden" tripe you spew has no mertit in fact. Don't pretend to know me.

As far as "feigned outrage" I don't think you actually know what that means.

My advice is to get some kind of counseling.
 
I need counseling because you don't know what feigned outrage is or what "all of a sudden" would require? :confused:

oldladywithnaughtyooooo.jpg

HOLY ****! This is the craziest stuff I've ever read!
 
My advice is to get some kind of counseling.

Moderator's Warning:
MY advice is to stop the personal attacks or you will be removed from the thread... at the very least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom