• 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.
Guy Incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I meant the same thing in every post where I used those terms.

The issue is nto my use of th ewords, it's your decision to create a different meaning to what I said. Your choice to create a different meaning doesn't mean that I equivocated, it means you created a strawman.

Now, instead of pretending that your feelings on the issue have merit, you could actually present an argument in rebuttal where you source something other than yourself. BEcause, quite frankly, you are not a very good source.



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.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you said because what you say has no merit. What Pope John Paul said has merit. When you are Pope, you can say things with Authoerity. Until then, stop pretending to have authority you do not. Pope John Paul said that the Church does not have the AUTHOURITY to ordain women as priests. That ios entirely different than your opinion that it is rooted in "liturgical tradition and is a doctrinal matter". If it was subject to change, teh church would have the authority to ordain women as priests.


Thus, it does not warrant the assumption that "God does not want women to be priests."
Click to expand...

It absolutely does warrant that assumption. when the pope talks in his "infallibility mode" it is the word of God.

What it doesn't warrant is the assumption that women will never become priests. The wording Pope John Paul II used was specifically worded to allow for a future papal decree where the church is granted the authority.

But it most definitely implies that, at this time, God does not want women to be priests.

Now, instead of citing yourself as a source n rebuttal, try someone with greater authority.


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.
Click to expand...

How is "not equal from a sacremental standpoint" in any way shape or form a pivot from "not fully and completley equal"?

Stop making **** up. It's dishonest.

Perhaps your vitriol is warranted, like I said, that is your business
Click to expand...

Are you trying to paint my argumetn as based on "vitriol" simply becasue you are incapable of presenting a decent rebuttal, or because you simply enjoy dishonest tactics in debate?

but you are nevertheless mistaken. The Catholic teaching is that God regards both men and women equally.
Click to expand...

Prove that claim instead of simply restating it. You are not a competant source, and thus, you need something other than yourself to provide evidence of that claim. I've provided actual evidence to the contrary. If you cannto provide evidence in rebuttal, I'll accept it as your concession of the point and admission of ignorance on the subject.
 
Though it entails that women are not equal from a sacramental standpoint
Click to expand...

A church does not have to be an equal-opportunity ordainer. There is no such law, and there damn well should not be. It's the church's business whether genders are treated differently. You don't like it, go to a different church.

This is an internal matter of the Catholic church and no business of non-Catholics.

I mean damn, should I sue the Wiccan church because a man can't be a Priestess? :mrgreen:
 
Goshin said:
A church does not have to be an equal-opportunity ordainer. There is no such law, and there damn well should not be.
Click to expand...

I never said they had to be.

It's the church's business whether genders are treated differently.
Click to expand...

Well, the people who are in the church should have some sort of say.

You don't like it, go to a different church.
Click to expand...

I would say that they should make an effort to change the church first before simply leaving it. But if the church refuses, then they should leave.



This is an internal matter of the Catholic church and no business of non-Catholics.
Click to expand...

This isn't totally true. Non-Cathlics with loved ones who are members of the church who are harmed in some way by the teachings and actions of of the church have a vested interest in trying to change the church's mind on these issues.

I mean damn, should I sue the Wiccan church because a man can't be a Priestess? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Having an opinion about a groups actions and then sharing that opinion in the hopes trying to convince that group to change theirs actions and opinions about something ain't the same as suing them, Goshin.

I'm surprised that your post is so laden with strawman arguments such as these, Goshin.
 
liblady said:
i think women should be allowed to be ordained. however, it's up to the catholic church, not me. that's part of the reason why i changed churches. god will sort it all out, i think.
Click to expand...

I guewss Im with you...I REALLY dont see the issue here...except its a chance for people to hate on religion and specifically Catholics.

Im ASSUMING that if you are catholic you believe the RULES actually come from somehwere. As such, you dont just make **** up as you along do you? If you dont believe in the church or dont like the rules, you go play on another team...but by what right do you bitch moan and protest that they wont change said rules? Wouldnt CHANGING those rules sort of invalidate their origin in the first place?
 
VanceMack said:
Wouldnt CHANGING those rules sort of invalidate their origin in the first place?
Click to expand...

Well, that's not exactly accurate, at least with respect to the rule in question. The Church has the ability to proscribe the nature of the sacraments. The rules of the Catholic Church can and do change. But they do so very slowly.
 
Guy Incognito said:
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."
Click to expand...

So the Church is defying God by not viewing them as equal?
 
ric27 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The sun didn't stop in the sky, nor did the earth stop rotating. ;)
 
Hatuey said:
It's a bs excuse. But religion is one of the easiest ways to discriminate.
Click to expand...

Sunday mornings are still the most segregated time of the week in America.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
So the Church is defying God by not viewing them as equal?
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, access to the sacraments isn't about spiritual equality, it is about rules set by the Ecclesia. The rules may be discriminatory and treat people differently, but inequality in receipt of sacraments is not identical to inequality before God. A priest cannot receive the sacrament of marriage after ordination, and a married person cannot receive the sacrament of ordination while married, but this unequal application of the sacraments does not "defy" God. There are theologically persuasive arguments for ordination of women in the Catholic Church, but you are not making one, IT.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
access to the sacraments isn't about spiritual equality
Click to expand...

That's why you keep making strawmen. You want to limit the "fully and completely" equal part of my comment to just "spiritual equality".

I can see why you would want to do this, but it doesn't help your argument to do it. It makes it an argument against a strawman.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Strictly speaking, access to the sacraments isn't about spiritual equality, it is about rules set by the Ecclesia. The rules may be discriminatory and treat people differently, but inequality in receipt of sacraments is not identical to inequality before God. A priest cannot receive the sacrament of marriage after ordination, and a married person cannot receive the sacrament of ordination while married, but this unequal application of the sacraments does not "defy" God. There are theologically persuasive arguments for ordination of women in the Catholic Church, but you are not making one, IT.
Click to expand...

Spirits are genderless.

Man, not God, has arbitrarily decided that it would not be in "divine grace" to have women interpret the Bible for a congregation nor to give the Eucharist.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Spirits are genderless.

Man, not God, has arbitrarily decided that it would not be in "divine grace" to have women interpret the Bible for a congregation nor to give the Eucharist.
Click to expand...

That is a much better argument.:thumbs:
 
Why does God change his mind when talking to the pope and Catholic church? I respect Catholics and their faith, but as a fellow Christian I can't accept their theology or the papacy. To be honest (and no offense to Catholics) I think Catholicism is a stain on Christianity. I support some of what the Catholic church does, but their flip flopping on ideology and their mentality of "you go through us to have a relationship with God" just doesn't sit well with me.
 
Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Although it was rested on the infallibility of the Church (not papal infallibility), the commentary to the decree specifically states that "this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."
 
digsbe said:
To be honest (and no offense to Catholics) I think Catholicism is a stain on Christianity.
Click to expand...

I think that goes a little far, digs. Listen, I'm no fan of the Catholic Church by any stretch of the imaginiation, but Catholicism the religion, as a whole, is not at all a stain on Christianity.

Catholic Charities, for example, is a phenomenal orginization that has done some great things for people.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Spirits are genderless.

Man, not God, has arbitrarily decided that it would not be in "divine grace" to have women interpret the Bible for a congregation nor to give the Eucharist.
Click to expand...

Biblically the issue is actually up for debate and interpretation. Many denominations, not just Catholic, do not ordain women because they believe the Bible opposes it.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Incorrect. Although it was rested on the infallibility of the Church (not papal infallibility), the commentary to the decree specifically states that "this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."
Click to expand...

Let's look at the full quote,shall we?

"A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."

It's exactly as I said earlier. They left the wording open so that they could pretend that God allowed them to have that authority later if they absolutely had to. Doesn't change the fact that it is attributed to God.

Next time, use the full quote even though it destroys your argument. It's a more honest debate tactic.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Biblically the issue is actually up for debate and interpretation. Many denominations, not just Catholic, do not ordain women because they believe the Bible opposes it.
Click to expand...

The Bible is the word of God, right? Does God view them as equal or not?
 
Tucker Case said:
Next time, use the full quote even though it destroys your argument. It's a more honest debate tactic.
Click to expand...


Unnecessary. The only one employing dishonest debating tactics is you. You bolded the phrase "founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" as if it was something I intentionally left out. Far from it! That is exactly as I paraphrased "Although it was rested on the infallibility of the Church (not papal infallibility)," and is entirely in line with everything I have heretofore been saying, namely that the prohibition against the ordination of women is derived from liturgical tradition.

Whether "they left the wording open so that they could pretend that God allowed them to have that authority later if they absolutely had to" is really irrelevant. You can characterize it that way if you wish, but it does not detract from the fact that the wording is there. The entirety of the commentary only goes to bolster my point that you are incorrect when you allege "that it is attributed to God." The prohibition is "founded on the written Word of God," (scripture), "constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church," (liturgical tradition) "it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" (the infallibility of the Church).

Next time, try to read the quote in order to understand that it destroys your own argument before you indulge in dishonest debate tactics yourself.
 
Wait. If either decision is "infallible" then it obviously doesn't matter does it?

Arbitrary decisions are infallible. :lol:
 
Guy Incognito said:
Unnecessary. The only one employing dishonest debating tactics is you. You bolded the phrase "founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" as if it was something I intentionally left out. Far from it! That is exactly as I paraphrased "Although it was rested on the infallibility of the Church (not papal infallibility)," and is entirely in line with everything I have heretofore been saying, namely that the prohibition against the ordination of women is derived from liturgical tradition.

Whether "they left the wording open so that they could pretend that God allowed them to have that authority later if they absolutely had to" is really irrelevant. You can characterize it that way if you wish, but it does not detract from the fact that the wording is there. The entirety of the commentary only goes to bolster my point that you are incorrect when you allege "that it is attributed to God." The prohibition is "founded on the written Word of God," (scripture), "constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church," (liturgical tradition) "it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" (the infallibility of the Church).

Next time, try to read the quote in order to understand that it destroys your own argument before you indulge in dishonest debate tactics yourself.
Click to expand...

PJII was speaking from his position of Papal infalibility when he made his decree that they did not have the authority to ordain Women as priests. I proved this earlier when I first quoted the Catechism and his word choice.

The reason your choice to exclude the portion is dishonest is because your paraphrasing left out the very point I was making:

"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."

Do I have to explain what AND means? Both the Church AND JPII made it an infallible decree. And they did attribute it to God.

Your dishonest tactics are easy to expose.

I suggest creating yet another strawman so that you can pretend they haven't been exposed.
 
Last edited:
independent_thinker2002 said:
The Bible is the word of God, right? Does God view them as equal or not?
Click to expand...


Biblically, God is no respecter of persons (that is, their status, etc... presumably gender also.)

It is, I think, safe to say that God recognizes that men and woman are different. There are things men generally do better; there are things that women generally do better.

There are some passages that some take as an exclusion of women from ordination. Some disagree with this interpretation of those passages. I am not entirely decided in my own mind which camp I side with in this dispute, yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom