Pope reaffirms ban on women priests - Page 6

heaintheavy · #76 Apr 8, '12, 7:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessup

I can't imagine this is even debated by people. I feel that is the end result of poor spiritual education on the part of the community of the church, in regards to the different roles of men and woman. A woman cant' be a priest anymore then what a man can have a baby.

Why do some people keep using the "men can't have a baby" argument in this debate?
It just makes no sense to me.
Being a priest has nothing to do with one's sex organs and what one's sex organs can or cannot do, does it?
When one is a priest, one's sex organs are not involved in the duties.
A priest's sex organs don't play a role in confession, or delivering sacraments, or giving last rites, or baptizing a baby. A priest isn't supposed to have sex, or try to make babies.

Yes, you need a vagina to give birth to a baby.
But why would having a vagina instead of a penis preclude a person from doing the priest duties?
There is no logical link here.

The bible calls us all "man". We are part of "mankind".
Women are one of the two types of "man".
So if that's the argument--that we must be "men" to be priests--well, we are men!
Female men!

I still don't even see where in the bible it says women cannot be priests.
I assume this rule had to originate somewhere?

--The argument that no apostle was a woman doesn't logically mean Jesus meant no female priests. That's a major jump to a conclusion.

--The bit about women not talking in church...well, we know not to pay heed to that one.

--Someone here said that women were not at the last supper, and that that was another indication that Jesus meant women cannot be priests.
That's another jump in logic.
I just went through the gospels and read each line about the last supper. There is no line that says women were not there. There may have been many women there! Just because they are not quoted, does not mean they were not there.
And even if they weren't there...how does one take that piece of information to mean Jesus didn't want women to be priests? The leap in logic is....vast!

Jesus had female followers who preached. Which means they were "preachers".

If Jesus didn't specifically say women cannot be priests, which it looks like he didn't, I am so very, very curious to know at what point did someone decide this and who exactly it was and why?

Does anyone know?

AngryAtheist8 · #77 Apr 8, '12, 8:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Then please 'splain your comment, given that we all know and accept your atheistic paradigm, regarding why you are proposing (as an atheist) that "these women and their supporters" leave the Church.

It would seem more reasonable for you to say, "I am an atheist and I believe that these women and their supporters should not follow any church that proclaims a belief in a God who became man and established a church."

How would that conflict with the idea that the women would be happier if they left the Church?

AngryAtheist8 · #78 Apr 8, '12, 8:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Do you think these priests created a Christian God in their own image who proclaims that they should be celibate? Is that something they made up to stroke their own ego?

And do you think these priests created a Christian God in their own image who proclaims that divorce and re-marriage is a sin? Is that something they also made up to stroke their own ego?

Sure

AngryAtheist8 · #79 Apr 8, '12, 8:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lokabrenna

Unless I'm mistaken, AngryAtheist8 was most likely referring to Pagan cultures which certainly did have female priests. In fact, the earliest named author was Enheduanna, who was a priestess of the god Nanna in Sumer. She lived circa 2285-2250 BCE.

Yes.

**PRmerger** · #80 Apr 8, '12, 8:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Do you think these priests created a Christian God in their own image who proclaims that they should be celibate? Is that something they made up to stroke their own ego?

And do you think these priests created a Christian God in their own image who proclaims that divorce and re-marriage is a sin? Is that something they also made up to stroke their own ego?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Sure

This is an interesting comment. It seems, then, that you are affirming the Catholic's position that celibacy and monogamy are inherent goods? We "enforce" these ideals because they are part of the natural law? Yes?

**PRmerger** · #81 Apr 8, '12, 8:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by heaintheavy

Why do some people keep using the "men can't have a baby" argument in this debate?
It just makes no sense to me.
Being a priest has nothing to do with one's sex organs and what one's sex organs can or cannot do, does it?
When one is a priest, one's sex organs are not involved in the duties.
A priest's sex organs don't play a role in confession, or delivering sacraments, or giving last rites, or baptizing a baby. A priest isn't supposed to have sex, or try to make babies.

Yes, you need a vagina to give birth to a baby.
But why would having a vagina instead of a penis preclude a person from doing the priest duties?
There is no logical link here.

That's because you view the priesthood as simply a profession. Not with the ontological eyes of the Catholic Church.

The priesthood is NOT a job. At the moment of ordination, the universe is changed forever! What existed 30 seconds prior to this ordination exists no more. There is a change to his very essence--ontologically--at his soul.

**PRmerger** · #82 Apr 8, '12, 8:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by heaintheavy

I still don't even see where in the bible it says women cannot be priests.

It appears that you are operating under the misapprehension that all God's teachings must be found in the Bible.

Where does this belief of yours come from?

**PRmerger** · #83 Apr 8, '12, 8:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

How would that conflict with the idea that the women would be happier if they left the Church?

It doesn't conflict. It merely seems to be operating from a presupposition that, in this argument, you believe Christ established a Church.

If you don't believe Christ established a Church, then what church women belong to is irrelevant, don't you think?

**PRmerger** · #84 Apr 8, '12, 8:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by heaintheavy

I assume this rule had to originate somewhere?

Yes. It originated in the Church established by Jesus Christ. And whatever she binds on earth, heaven binds as well.

Quote:

--The argument that no apostle was a woman doesn't logically mean Jesus meant no female priests. That's a major jump to a conclusion.

Yes. I've never found this argument very compelling.

Quote:

--The bit about women not talking in church...well, we know not to pay heed to that one.

'zactly. And it is thanks to the Church that we know whether that this is a disciplinary matter and not a doctrinal one.

Quote:

--Someone here said that women were not at the last supper, and that that was another indication that Jesus meant women cannot be priests.
That's another jump in logic.
I just went through the gospels and read each line about the last supper. There is no line that says women were not there. There may have been many women there! Just because they are not quoted, does not mean they were not there.

Right. Who cooked the lamb?

Quote:

And even if they weren't there...how does one take that piece of information to mean Jesus didn't want women to be priests? The leap in logic is....vast!

Jesus had female followers who preached. Which means they were "preachers".

Sure, women can preach.

But a preacher is not a priest. Not even close. This shows a very diminished understanding about the nature of the priesthood.

Vladd · #85 Apr 8, '12, 9:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickybr38

If Jesus wanted female priests he would have appointed a woman to be one of His twelve.

He didn't.

End of story.

Why though ? Why can't a woman be a priest? To me that's a lot like Islam.

Vladd · #86 Apr 8, '12, 9:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vladd

Why though ? Why can't a woman be a priest? To me that's a lot like Islam.

If this is a must , then Catholicism is almost like Islam. Catholicism did have the Inquisition which murdered many , many human's. I hope the catholic people rally against this racial act against women, it's not right.

Vladd · #87 Apr 8, '12, 9:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vladd

If this is a must , then Catholicism is almost like Islam. Catholicism did have the Inquisition which murdered many , many human's. I hope the catholic people rally against this racial act against women, it's not right.

Before anyone gets the panties in a wod let me say I only brought up the inquisition, because that's a lot like Islam killing people and what not, and now to continue of something that basically says that a woman is not equal to a man in the eyes of god is in my book ( ****) hate to put it that way but hey I tell it like it is. Atleast in my eyes . If I'm wrong please correct my thoughts because this puts a bad taste in my mouth.

**PRmerger** · #88 Apr 8, '12, 9:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vladd

Why though ? Why can't a woman be a priest?

Short answer: because women can't be fathers.

Long answer: here.

Vladd · #89 Apr 8, '12, 9:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Sure

Divorce and re- marriage is a sin? I happen to know a woman who was in a horrible marriage . So she is sinning for finally leaving a ten year horror flick ?

Vladd · #90 Apr 8, '12, 9:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Short answer: because women can't be fathers.

Long answer: here.

Thanks but that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. By the way if we didn't have women we wouldn't have the priest in the first place that prob raised d the priest . Oh and just call them mother instead of father , right? I'm just saying I don't see the big deal here.