So you areaking the case the Church’s treatment of women is worse than in the past?
The Eucharist, yes. Holy Orders and ordination, maybe, although that’s much debated by biblical scholars. The understanding of marriage, even in its nature as a sacrament, has developed and been modified greatly over the centuries.
They could marry before ordination, not after. And as others have pointed out (along with me) there are still ‘married priests’ in certain rites. Again, apples and oranges.
The ordination of priests itself is core doctrine, and unchangeable. “The Church has no authority to ordain women.”
Therefore, if this is a teaching from God, then it is more ‘just’ than what the world in AD 2019 knows as justice.
200 years ago, the majority of people in these USA, educated, intelligent, Christian, loving people, believed that slavery --a LEGAL RIGHT–was just.
Those same people believed that abortion, the killing of an unborn child, was not just.
Fast forward to today. The majority of people in these USA believe slavery is not only wrong and unjust now, but was 200 years ago as well.
But a loud and ‘claimed majority’ likewise believe abortion is just, legal, right, . . now and 200 years ago as well.
These examples are human rights examples of how ‘justice’ as given in the secular world can change.
Compare to the Church. The Catholic Church then, as now, believed that chattel slavery was wrong (in stark contrast to many nonCatholic churches). It also believed then, and now, that abortion is the murder of the unborn.
“Justice” according to the law of the law in the USA changes according to what ‘society’ deems right and wrong.
"justice’, according to the Church, does not change. It may be better understood but the core does not change.
An example: Suicide.
Suicide, self murder, is always gravely wrong.
A person who commits suicide however, even though the action remains gravely wrong, may be less culpable in that he or she might be ‘temporarily’ insane or incapable of understanding this at the point of commission of suicide, and God may be merciful.
That doesn’t mean that the Church has ‘changed its stance’ and now says, “Suicide is not a sin”.
No. Nuns needed lands to support themselves, just as monks did. Of necessity the abbess took care of this, just an abbot would. Both held authority similar in some ways to that of a feudal lord. But all of them had less authority in the church than a bishop.
I’m not talking of Biblical scholars, I’m talking of the teachings of the Church. Just because you can find ‘scholars or experts’ at any given point in the Church’s history who ‘disagree’ with the understanding of sacraments, etc., doesn’t mean that the understanding itself is ‘up for grabs’.
As far as marriage goes, the point is that it is between one man and one woman, and always will be.
And again, the Church has spoken. What about Pope St. John Paul 2’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Pope Benedict’s later ratification of same manage to 'leave the question open?"
This discussion is starting to chase its own tail. I suppose that what it finally must come down to is, if a Pope, who has free will just like anyone, makes an unjust decision but declares it infallible, does that make it just?
I don’t think that’s the question at all. Are you claiming that Pope St. John Paul and Pope Benedict made unjust decisions?
Sure. Same can be said for Islam or other faiths.
It’s better, but i wouldn’t say that there are no problems with it.
It’s also difficult to talk about it without being brushed off as a left wing feminist, too.
They were human, and it’s possible to find some serious problems in their reasoning as measured against the Bible and other Christian beliefs. And it’s not my place to say but yes, I do think that at times popes have, at times, unwisely overreached on the use of infallibility.
Cannot happen. You have a misunderstanding about infallibility.
Infallibility is limited to teaching of the church. When you say “makes an unjust decision” that explicitly has to do with governance of the Church
Infallibility never pertains to governance. So a pope cannot declare such a thing as infallible. Only when he is teaching from the chair of Peter, is he infallible.
Well I am not Catholic. I understand the Catholic point of view, but I don’t buy it.
The point of their existence may have been to arrive on the scene in the form of human beings so humans could related more readily to them. I believe that is the most plausible explanation, to me.
Is Jesus a man or a woman?
Fauken, I’ve been saying what you’ve just written here for years. But the way you wrote it is the most succinct I’ve seen. I’m a 5’9", 150 pound male, and as much as it would be awesome to be an NBA player or football player making millions of dollars a year, that’s just never gonna happen. And I accept that! A priest acts in persona christi, therefore women cannot become priests and have the title of “Father.”
Yes, but he makes the decision to teach from the chair of Peter.
I"m sorry, I had forgotten you weren’t Catholic. I know from my ‘fallen away’ youngsters (all 30 somethings) how hard it is to take on a faith that seems so ‘strange’, especially when it was ‘once believed’ but later rejected. Heaven knows my kids (they’re brilliant, too) didn’t just leave without thinking. I just keep on believing and saying what I believe; that’s basically all I can do. It if helps somebody–anybody–great, if not, hopefully somebody else will be able to help better than I.
I think ultimately the point is that venerating Mary isn’t proof that there’s no sexism in the Church.
For starters, none of us could ever be like her (fully). The reason why she’s venerated is mostly because she is free from sin. Completely. But the moment we’re born, we have been marked by original sin. In that sense, we can never be like her.
Also, the more basic and obvious point is that someone can still think men are superior/whatever and still love their mothers with all their hearts. And daughters. And wives.
Hence, treatment of one lady doesn’t prove anything.
It always gives me a good feeling when I know of someone who is devout in their religion and it is a good thing for them in their life. That sounds like you! Thank you for sharing.
It seems like you’re saying that he’s fallibly infallible. I don’t follow.
Jesus was a man. He was also Jewish , likely young, and human as well as divine. Yet we pick His human maleness as the one necessary characteristic for embodying Him, for lack of a better word, on earth. Aren’t these other characteristics just as important to one’s personhood?
He was also celibate.