• 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.
They're just cementing the fact that they prefer choir boys to women. We all knew that already.
 
The Catholic Church does not "think that women are not fully and completely equal," far from it. A priest is not any more or less "equal" in the eyes of God, merely a holder of a particular sacramental position. The prohibition against women is just a question of liturgical tradition, not based on any idea of spiritual inferiority. At the end of the day, all people, clergy and laity, men and women, are equally sinners in the eyes of God, and equally loved by God.

Are the positions which women are allowed to fill in the Church hierarchy equal in either spiritual or secular authority to the positions which may be filled by men? If not, then women are held to be subservient-- if not outright inferior-- to men and any statements about their supposed equality are empty and meaningless. Just because something is a matter of tradition does not mean that it is not discriminatory.
 
You made the choice to marry a Roman Catholic with the knowledge, presumably, that as a Catholic, your wife is obligated to raise her children Catholic.

She also married him with the knowledge that he was not Catholic and that he held deep reservations about Catholic doctrine. Is he not obligated, morally, to raise his children in the fashion he believes best?
 
So just to change the subject just a tad, why is gay marriage such a big deal then? Is it not supposed to be at the discretion of the church/religion? Aboslutely, yet people are rabid on their opinions... even the non-religious. Makes me shake my head.

There is marriage in the eyes of the Church and marriage in the eyes of the law. The former may only matter to members of the same Church, but the law applies to all of us and we all have an equal stake in it.
 
Wasn't referring to you specifically. I'm referring to Catholics who disagree with the Church's stance on moral issues. If they believe that the Church is morally wrong, that it holds false and harmful beliefs, what possible value could still belonging to the Church hold for them? If the Church is wrong, how can it lead them to salvation?

You're a non-religious person, right?

A belief in God is a matter of faith, supported by fact. For that reason, the no-God squad cannot convince a believer that there is no God because, they can't speak the language.

For the same reason, no one is going to convince YOU that there is a God, because you doesn't understand the language of faith. It is bs to you.
 
Your personal animosity toward the Church aside, you couldn't be more incorrect about the above statement. If we do not allow anger to cloud our understanding of the issue, then it becomes clear that we are not talking about the "equality" of women, which the Church unequivocally recognizes. The Catholic Church does not "think that women are not fully and completely equal," far from it. A priest is not any more or less "equal" in the eyes of God, merely a holder of a particular sacramental position. The prohibition against women is just a question of liturgical tradition, not based on any idea of spiritual inferiority. At the end of the day, all people, clergy and laity, men and women, are equally sinners in the eyes of God, and equally loved by God.

If they cannot hold that sacramental position, and thus cannot ever achieve popehood, they are something other than fully and completely equal.

The problem is not my anger, it's your understanding of what "fully and completely' really means.
 
Last edited:
What is absolutely fascinating, though, is everyone "Oh no!" reactions to what the Catholic Church does.

Is it really shocking that they don't respect or value women?
is it really shocking that they don't really hold their priests up to the standard of morality which they expect their believers to follow?

None of this is shocking - it's appalling - but not shocking. The Catholic Church has been like this for a *very* long time.
 
You made the choice to marry a Roman Catholic with the knowledge, presumably, that as a Catholic, your wife is obligated to raise her children Catholic. My wife is Buddhist, and this is something we talked about in depth at the pre-Cana conference we were required to attend prior to marriage in the Church. You knew this, yet you still chose to marry her. So, while you are not Catholic and as such are not obligated to believe what our Church teaches us through the guidence of the Holy Spirit, but if you wife wishes to remain a communicant Catholic, then she is required to follow the teachings of the Church, whether you agree with them or not.

She isn't required to do ****. She chooses to do it.

Much like I chose too marry her despite her Catholicism.
 
There is marriage in the eyes of the Church and marriage in the eyes of the law. The former may only matter to members of the same Church, but the law applies to all of us and we all have an equal stake in it.

Right. But the latter should not affect the population one iota, other than granting the population more equal rights. The biggest complain I hear when it comes to this issue is many say it devalues hetero marriage. If a church decided to marry gays or not, it's at the discretion of the religion and parishioners... not the governent.
 
You're a non-religious person, right?

A belief in God is a matter of faith, supported by fact.

That is the grey area. "Fact" (or scripture) can be construed in many different ways. The same verse can mean different things to different people/religions. So who is right?
 
You're a non-religious person, right?

A belief in God is a matter of faith, supported by fact. For that reason, the no-God squad cannot convince a believer that there is no God because, they can't speak the language.

For the same reason, no one is going to convince YOU that there is a God, because you doesn't understand the language of faith. It is bs to you.

Kori has faith.
 
You're a non-religious person, right?

No, I am not. I am deeply religious and both my worldview and my moral values are derived primarily from my faith. It is for this reason that I cannot fathom how a person can belong to a religion whose moral values they are opposed to.

A belief in God is a matter of faith, supported by fact. For that reason, the no-God squad cannot convince a believer that there is no God because, they can't speak the language.

For the same reason, no one is going to convince YOU that there is a God, because you doesn't understand the language of faith. It is bs to you.

Nothing in my statement pertains to a belief in God. It pertains wholly to belief in Church doctrine and the proper worship of God; if a person believes that Church doctrine is false, how can they not believe that the Church itself is false? How can a Church that follows false doctrine lead a person to a true relationship with God?
 
How can a Church that follows false doctrine lead a person to a true relationship with God?

Exactly. My entire problem with organized religion, and the Catholic faith in particular.

Poor people who ate meat on a Friday and died before they had confession. Before they changed that doctrine, all those people went to hell.

Poor divorced Catholics who remarried. To hell they go....unless, of course, they receive Special Dispensation which translates to around ten grand.

Poor the rest of us who can't receive communion in their church because we aren't Catholic. God invites me to his communion table...not the Catholic Church.

Poor Catholic priests who can't be married. Pullleeeeze. This had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the church getting their property when they died.

The Catholic Church is rife with exclusionary dogma.

I respect those who call the Catholic Church home and am glad they've found one. But...
 
Right. But the latter should not affect the population one iota, other than granting the population more equal rights.

The law affects everyone. People who are opposed to gay marriage believe that it will affect society negatively, and that the State should not endorse those marriages.

If a church decided to marry gays or not, it's at the discretion of the religion and parishioners... not the governent.

True. But the argument over gay marriage is largely not whether the church marries gays or not, but whether the government will do so. Just as whether or not the church marries gays is at the discretion of the church and the people who belong to it, whether the government marries gays or not is at the discretion of the government and the people that belong to it-- and we all belong to the same government.
 
If they cannot hold that sacramental position, and thus cannot ever achieve popehood, they are something other than fully and completely equal.

The problem is not my anger, it's your understanding of what "fully and completely' really means.

I disagree. You are equivocating your position now. What you said previously is that the Church considers women "unequal in the eyes of God." This is emphatically not the case. There is discrimination in the sacrament of ordination, and your are correct that currently a woman could not ascend to the papacy, but this is an Ecclesiastical inequality. The Ecclesia is not God.

If you have changed your position then we have no disagreement. Feel free to have whatever anger towards the Church you feel is reasonable. But you are incorrect that the Catholic Church teaches that women are unequal to men "in the eyes of God."
 
Last edited:
It's a Catholic matter, strictly internal to that church and having no effect outside of those who are voluntarily part of it, and I'm not Catholic.... so I don't much care.

I care not a whit.
 
Exactly. My entire problem with organized religion, and the Catholic faith in particular. ... God invites me to his communion table...not the Catholic Church.

In that case, why have a problem with Catholicism or any organized religion? If God alone decides who belongs with him, their exclusionary doctrine has no power to deprive anyone of his presence; it only affects those who believe in that doctrine, and only then to the degree that their own behavior pleases or displeases God. Those who serve God faithfully will be rewarded regardless of what the Church has to say on the matter, and those who defy God will be punished regardless.

I believe that Catholicism, and indeed the vast majority of Abrahamic faiths, encourages people to do what pleases their God; from my perspective, the moral differences between them are very small and very minor. Only the most corrupt sects lead their followers away from God's grace, and those sects are rightfully condemned by nearly everybody regardless of their faith.
 
Last edited:
She isn't required to do ****. She chooses to do it.

Ah, the key word chooses. No one is forcing her. She voluntarily has chosen a path for herself just like, I don't need science to prove my faith. I have sufficient evidence to take what is unproven and unprovable on faith.
 
Bah, they should allow women to be priests and they should go back to allowing priests to be married. That one changed in the Middle Ages and was more about transfer of property than anything else.
 
That is the grey area. "Fact" (or scripture) can be construed in many different ways. The same verse can mean different things to different people/religions. So who is right?

Science has not disproven anything in the Bible. In fact, there have been numerous examples where archeologists said the Bible was wrong historically....No Pontius Pilate, No Sodom or Gomorrah, but wallah! These same people found the cornerstones bearing the name of Pilate and confirmed that he was Procurator of Judea during the time of Christ. They also found the dead cities submerged in the Dead Sea with scorch marks on the stones.
 
Bah, they should allow women to be priests and they should go back to allowing priests to be married. That one changed in the Middle Ages and was more about transfer of property than anything else.

Good point, also they should give everyone free ice cream!
 
You are equivocating your position now.

False. I didn't equivocate. You created a strawman, and when I made it clear I wasn't arguing the same thing as your strawman, you claim that I equivocated.

When in truth, it was your strawman that did. I'd go beat him up again if I were you. :lol:

What you said previously is that the Church considers women "unequal in the eyes of God."

Let's be specific, because that's not what I said. What I said was:

"I will not raise my daughters to think that they are not fully and completely equal in the eyes of their God."

Notice, I'm not talking about seeing herself as equally deserving of God's love or anything related to spiritual inferiority.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council

The idea that women are excluded from acting in persona Christi Capitis is considered the infallible word of God because of John Paul II:

"...in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

The Church has no authority to make women priests. The only reasonable assumption to make regarding this lack of authority is that GOD does not want women to be priests. The parts of those two quotes that I bolded tell the tale. This claim is considered Infallible and, thus, it was God who made the claim.

So, even though I didn't actually say the "Church considers women "unequal in the eyes of God." (although for some reason you've said that I did), I've just proven that the Catholic Church has taught that it must be God that doesn't want women to become priests, because of a statement that boils down to: 'don't blame us... our hands are tied on the issue'.

This means that when my daughter is taught that she is equally capable to acting in persona Christi Capitis, it is because God has decided she is not equally capable[/I by preventing the church from having the authority to grant her that capability.

So yeah. Even though I didn't say that before, the the Catholic church does teach that women are unequal in the eyes of the Lord. It's not my fault they did that.

If I don't want my daughter to think that, then I have to raise her not to believe the Catholic Church and papal decrees and such.
 
Ah, the key word chooses. No one is forcing her. She voluntarily has chosen a path for herself

And she also chose to marry me and have children with me. She can have her faith. I do not seek to take that choice from her.

So as I said, she isn't required to do ****.

just like, I don't need science to prove my faith. I have sufficient evidence to take what is unproven and unprovable on faith.

Bully for you.
 
False. I didn't equivocate.

Incorrect, you have equivocated a number of times, and you seem to have trouble keeping your own position straight. I am happy to correct you on any of your numerous misunderstandings about the Church, but I will not tell you how to feel about the teachings of the Church, that is your business. But you should examine your own logic and see where it is faulty, and where you have repeatedly equivocated as to what you mean by "equal" and what you mean by "in the eyes of God," the meaning of which seems to depend on what you feel like attacking at the moment.

The Church has no authority to make women priests. The only reasonable assumption to make regarding this lack of authority is that GOD does not want women to be priests.

This is incorrect, as I said earlier the prohibition of female ordination is rooted in liturgical tradition and is a doctrinal matter, and is therefore subject to change. Thus, it does not warrant the assumption that "God does not want women to be priests." Though it entails that women are not equal from a sacramental standpoint, this is a very different matter. I see that you have pivoted your point once again, apparently to avoid admitting to your earlier mistake, which is fine. I take this as tacit acknowledgment that you were wrong.

Perhaps your vitriol is warranted, like I said, that is your business, but you are nevertheless mistaken. The Catholic teaching is that God regards both men and women equally.
 
Last edited:
.



Bully for you.

lol...You remind me of the flick "Coming to America", the part were Eddie Murphy is told to go to church to pick up a good woman..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom