Evil teachings of the Catholic Church

If I ask someone to name teachings of the Catholic Church that are evil or fall short of perfection, they usually start with:

  1. Refusal to ordain women
  2. Refusal to accept active homosexuals

How would I rebut these positions?

  1. Christ never did, therefore, how can we?

  2. Homosexual behavior is strongly condemned in the Bible. Who are we to correct God?

I know these aren’t very long or well explained answers. But they give you something to start with, and if the person your are speaking with is really open to listen, they will ask you to elaborate on these statements.

Simply, if the Church did not have the rules about

“1. Refusal to ordain women
2. Refusal to accept active homosexuals”

Then that would be utter heresy, plain and simple.

This is not evil, it is taken from the Word of God.

Neither the ordination of women as priests or the acceptance of active homosexuals are supported by Holy Scripture - and the Roman Catholic Church does not teach anything that is not supported Biblically - either directly or indirectly.

I recently told someone that dogma and doctrine are not subject to the political whims of the times. Those who wish to be a part of a religious community that determines its doctrine by the wishes and whims of the secular world should join a group that does that - and that is not the Catholic Church.

I know, for me, this comes down to the spiritual axiom of obedience for while I may wish my Church was more "popular’ in certain areas (so that my life would be easier - let’s face it) I must, in accordance with the wonderful example of Our Lady, “Do Whatever (He) tells (me)”.

Does that help?:wink:

Number 2 is the easiest. Just tell them, we accept active homosexuals, we just do not accept their behavior.

Number 1 is a bit more complicated, but I would mention what the Catholic understanding of what a priest is and does. A priest stands in persona Christi when it comes to the Eucharist and Confession, and it would just not be fitting for a female to act in persona Christi for a male. If the person complains of a lack of female leadership, I would also point out that millions of Catholics ask a woman, namely Mary, for her intercession, and that the church is full of female saints who have often kept the male leadership on the straight and narrow.

We humans do not have authority to change Christ’s teachings. We are to follow them.

[quote=buffalo]We humans do not have authority to change Christ’s teachings. We are to follow them.
[/quote]

Thanks but I’m not sure this argument is good enough for the person I’m talking with. They will then come back and say that Christianity is no better then other religions if it is not the home of perfection. Why isn’t Christ’s teaching perfect? Why does he exclude half of all his children?

[quote=pprimeau1976]Number 2 is the easiest. Just tell them, we accept active homosexuals, we just do not accept their behavior.

Number 1 is a bit more complicated, but I would mention what the Catholic understanding of what a priest is and does. A priest stands in persona Christi when it comes to the Eucharist and Confession, and it would just not be fitting for a female to act in persona Christi for a male. If the person complains of a lack of female leadership, I would also point out that millions of Catholics ask a woman, namely Mary, for her intercession, and that the church is full of female saints who have often kept the male leadership on the straight and narrow.
[/quote]

I agree that number two is easier. They might as well ask, why are some born blind or crippled. We look at homosexual tendencies as a sort of disability to overcome.

Why is God male? Why did God make men in his image and not women?

Why does he exclude half of all his children?

Well, He doesn’t. Men don’t have a RIGHT to be priests, you know. It is an awesome responsibility to be “persona Christi”. Not every man has a calling; not all those who are called are chosen.

Just because a woman “can’t” be a priest in the Catholic Church doesn’t mean she is “excluded” by God. Those who are now in the 21st century Western world tend to think that ONLY THEIR VIEW is the correct one, be it on politics, life-style, etc. Because roles change, because societies change, they can’t seem to grasp that GOD DOES NOT CHANGE. His word DOES NOT CHANGE.

Just because right now many people think that men and women can interchangeably play ANY ROLE does not mean that GOD thinks they can. I tend to trust Him; a Creator necessarily knows and understands His creations, the creations certainly don’t fully understand their Creator, let alone their fellow creations.

It is the home of perfection. The perfect truth is in Jesus. All other religions have a human as founder.

Why is God male? Why did God make men in his image and not women?

Maranatha, God is a spirit and thus is neither male nor female. The “image” we are created in is not gender-based carbon life-forms, but that of a being created with the power to REASON. Adam, the first being created in that “image of God”, needed a helpmeet. . .who was also created in that “image of God” but in order to fulfill God’s desire for people to grow and multiply was created as a complement. We are the ones who label beings as “masculine” and “feminine”; a better way I think would be “procreative” and “generative”. And both are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to produce a new human child, be the child male or female.

Jesus Christ is both God (a divine Spirit) and a human who happened to be masculine.

[quote=Tantum ergo]Maranatha, God is a spirit and thus is neither male nor female. The “image” we are created in is not gender-based carbon life-forms, but that of a being created with the power to REASON. Adam, the first being created in that “image of God”, needed a helpmeet. . .who was also created in that “image of God” but in order to fulfill God’s desire for people to grow and multiply was created as a complement. We are the ones who label beings as “masculine” and “feminine”; a better way I think would be “procreative” and “generative”. And both are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to produce a new human child, be the child male or female.

Jesus Christ is both God (a divine Spirit) and a human who happened to be masculine.
[/quote]

And in God’s plan they are complementary with different roles to fulfill.

[quote=Tantum ergo]Maranatha, God is a spirit and thus is neither male nor female. The “image” we are created in is not gender-based carbon life-forms, but that of a being created with the power to REASON. Adam, the first being created in that “image of God”, needed a helpmeet. . .who was also created in that “image of God” but in order to fulfill God’s desire for people to grow and multiply was created as a complement. We are the ones who label beings as “masculine” and “feminine”; a better way I think would be “procreative” and “generative”. And both are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to produce a new human child, be the child male or female.

Jesus Christ is both God (a divine Spirit) and a human who happened to be masculine.
[/quote]

So women can’t be priests because the Word happened to incarnate in the male form or was the Word masculine from the beginning of time?

[quote=Maranatha]So women can’t be priests because the Word happened to incarnate in the male form or was the Word masculine from the beginning of time?
[/quote]

Because the Word ordained that the male form be his first creation. The helpmate (complement) is female. They each have roles.

[quote=buffalo]Because the Word ordained that the male form be his first creation. The helpmate (complement) is female. They each have roles.
[/quote]

So being a women is automatically second class child of God. Sort of like a disability or homosexual tendencies? It’s an automatic extra cross to carry?

So I guess it is up to man what constitutes perfection. No, perfection is God’s domain. God created the male priesthood, (which is more inclusive than the priesthood of the Mosaic Covenant, by the way) and if people would only stop criticizing and instead surrender their will to that of God, then they would begin to see the wisdom of His design.

God, in His wisdom, created roles for people in His Creation, and in His Church. No role is greater in His eyes than any other role. Men cannot bear children or naturally feed them, yet women can. Does this make men inferior, or mean that God’s creation is somehow imperfect? No! I am a man, but my role is being a father to my family, not a parish. Does that mean I have any less dignity in living my role than a priest? No!

If only people would stop thinking about what they want, and worry more about what God wants, maybe this false impression of inequality would go away.

Maybe telling something like this to your friend would help:
The ultimate reason the Church does not allow women to become priests is because the Church does not believe it has the authority to make that decision. The Church views the priesthood as something created by Christ just as He wanted it: with only male priests, among many other things. Since Jesus Himself did it that way, the Church honestly believes it does not have the authority to change it. It would be like the Church suddenly deciding that baptism should be done with sand instead of water. “Why does it matter?” you ask? It matters because that it the way Jesus did it, and we strive to be like Him. The Church, not even the Pope, can change something that Jesus Himself started.

Even if your friend does not agree with the practice, maybe he/she can understand and respect that the Church, despite any public pressure to do otherwise, will not take action that it does not believe it has the authority to rightfully do. It has nothing to do with subjugating or marginalizing women; it has everything to do with practicing complete obedience to Christ.

Peace,
javelin

So women can’t be priests because the Word happened to incarnate in the male form or was the Word masculine from the beginning of time?

The first, although there was no “happening” about it. While Christ was born “in time”, as the Word (as God) He exists outside of time.
Historically speaking, from the time of Abraham, with the appearance of the priest Melchisadek and continuing through Jewish priesthood under Aaron, males only were priests. Christ is the perfect High Priest and He exists (both in and out of time, if you will) forever; Catholic priests serve IN time, in “persona Christi”, fulfilling the duties to God AND also acting as Christ’s representatives.

As a woman, I take Mary as my model. The perfect female human, she was virgin, wife and mother, perfectly conformed her will to that of God, and perfectly points the way to her Son. WIth the eleven apostles, she was present at the Descent of the Holy Spirit and confirmed; she was given the charism to preach and teach just as the apostles did, but she was NOT given the authority (which Jesus gave only to His apostles, and later they to others in apostolic succession) to “bind and loose”, nor was she present at the Last Supper and told to “do in remembrance of Me”.

I don’t NEED to be a priest. If I’m called to serve God, there are many, many ways I can do so. But I can’t “MAKE” myself into a man, and there is simply no possible Biblical or traditional way that a Catholic priest can be anything BUT a man. It’s like saying, “I want to be a man, so I’ll do everything a man does and that will MAKE me a man” (or vice versa, a man saying he wants to be a woman, etc.)

Why is the world so eager for the CC to ordain women as priests?? Let’s work in getting a woman as a president first! :wink:

BTW, Im completly against women being ordained as priests.

second class child

:banghead:

According to WHOM? YOU?? Society?

Just show me one place where God said, “Oh, and BTW, all women are second class children, not as good as those men”. . .

Second class my revered Aunt Fanny.

God doesn’t have a CASTE SYSTEM.

Thanks. I think this argument will help me make some headway.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.