FREE TAPATALK APP

Toke · 17th July 2010, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

And with these rules we find that their priorities have not changed- although they now say that raping children is a grave offense, the church is still giving itself more leeway in deciding how they wish to punish offenders than they will with people who commit perfectly legal acts that harm no-one except (in their views) the church.

I think you nailed the problem here, that the CC does not distinguish between religious and secular crimes. As if their priests were only subject to church law, and not those of society.

Next would be that the CC expects the police to ask them on their stance on priests caught for DUI.

Fiona · 17th July 2010, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

You folks are using mortal values to evaluate the situation in the eyes of the immortal.
Sins are against the god, not people. So, obviously, the sins of sex with a kid and ordaining females are, in the eyes of the god, equally repugnant.
You have to make it right with the god, not people.If you make amends with the god, whatever people do to you is irrelevant. You get to go to heaven, anyway, which is supposed to be your goal in life...

I cannot agree with this. I do not think any of us is second guessing how this might look to an immortal: we cannot know. The trouble is neither can you, nor the pope, nor anyone.

Sins may or may not be against god. They are carried out by and against people. That is the inescapable agency, whatever you believe about their metaphysical status.

As I understand it, the Catholic church acknowledges this. There is no absolution of sin without true repentance, and a firm purpose of amendment. The latter is described as "satisfaction" and it includes penance: but at its heart is the demand to do what you can to right a wrong. Zacchaeus is one example: he did not merely repent: he paid back those people he had cheated: and this is at the heart of the catholic doctrine of absolution, as I understand it. It is sometimes argued that the making of amends is the outward manifestation of true contrition: thus "making it right with god" necessarily entails making it right with the people you have hurt insofar as that is possible

Beerina · 17th July 2010, 01:57 PM

Only an anal-retentive, psychotic freak like Yahweh would think these two things equivalent in evil.

After all, even within Christian belief, the only reason women Fail is because Yahweh constructed men to not wanna follow women, thus making it more likely they'd go to Hell because they were not swayed by a female, being alpha-male wannabees.

So even accounting for the mythos of Hell, it's still Yahweh's fault and error.

zooterkin · 17th July 2010, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

I read it but unless I am mistaken it only offers two "reason" why only male priest can be ordained:
* JC only had male apostle and thus they want to respect that parity (but did JC *explicitely* says that only male could be his apostle ? I don't think so otherwise it would be cited)
* they feel priest are married with the church and thus the church being female (???) the priest can only be made male

As you say, the first reason is only tenuously based on the bible, and the second is not at all. If I remember correctly, priests were originally allowed to marry, but celibacy was brought in to avoid the conflict of interest between the church and the priests' families.

HansMustermann · 17th July 2010, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

I read it but unless I am mistaken it only offers two "reason" why only male priest can be ordained:
* JC only had male apostle and thus they want to respect that parity (but did JC *explicitely* says that only male could be his apostle ? I don't think so otherwise it would be cited)

I don't see them having only 13 priests either

(I'm including Paul there and Thomas, but not Judas who is probably not taken as a role-model by many churches.)

Originally Posted by Aepervius

* they feel priest are married with the church and thus the church being female (???) the priest can only be made male

I thought they already figured out who to marry nuns to, didn't they?

Plus, what gender does the word "church" have strikes me as a horribly disingenuous issue, as it

A) depends on the language (in English for example it would be neuter) and

B) it doesn't bear any deeper meaning in any language and for any inanimate term, than in what arbitrary bucket of grammatical rules does it fall. Even the RCC itself never gave itself female roles (which would have meant subordinate role through the vast majority of its history) just because that word happens to be feminine in the language of their choice.

Plus, wth, if the church now bases its judgments on word genders, I can hardly await the official papal bull saying that masturbation is ok in Germany since a fist or a hand are feminine in German. You know, it's between a he and a she, so it must be as God intended it

Plus, hey, if they can marry a guy to the church just because "church" is feminine, then, you know, by the same logic it would also be ok to marry Mrs Rosy Palm. Heck, I even promise to avoid the sin of Onan conscientiously by never doing it with a condom and never aiming at the ground. (Would make a mess anyway.) I'll try to the best of my abilities to get that hand pregnant, but if God be unwilling to grant us children, it's obviously not my fault and not for lack of my trying

So, do I write directly to the pope for dispensation, or...?

ddt · 17th July 2010, 07:32 PM

One aspect of this has not entered the discussion yet. From the Daily Fail article:

Quote:

Andrew Madden, a former Dublin altar boy who took the Church to court in Ireland during the 1990s, said: 'The first thing the Church should be doing is reporting crimes to civil authorities.

'That's far more important than deciding whether a criminal priest should be defrocked or not. The Church's internal rules are no more important than the rules of your local golf club.'

And I agree wholeheartedly with him. As long as the RCC hands over child abusing priests promptly to the secular authorities and they end up in the slammer for their abuse, I don't care a bit if Canon Law says they should be excommunicated, defrocked, or just get a slap on the wrist.

And that's what's primarily wrong with these rules.

Prometheus · 17th July 2010, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Sure, I agree. But do you care who becomes a member of the 9/11 truth movement, the KKK or the Raelians?

"Equal rights for those who want to believe in dangerous crap" just doesn't excite me. Sorry.

I care only insofaras I would prefer that fewer (ideally, no) people became members of those groups. The reason this dogma bugs me is not because it results in gender inequity, but because it highlights how morally twisted and dangerous the Catholic Church really is.

...

Originally Posted by Aepervius

I read it but unless I am mistaken it only offers two "reason" why only male priest can be ordained:
* JC only had male apostle and thus they want to respect that parity (but did JC *explicitely* says that only male could be his apostle ? I don't think so otherwise it would be cited)

Yes, but with the further qualification that JC had several potential female candidates from which to choose if he'd wanted women among his apostles. The official dogma is that this can't be merely an oversight, because JC is inerrant. To the Church's mind, JC's silent example holds every bit as much moral force as his direct verbal commandment would.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

* they feel priest are married with the church and thus the church being female (???) the priest can only be made male

This is one possible interpretation of the reasoning behind the prohibition, but it is not official dogma. Catholic dogma is that no reason is necessary, or should be expected to be made clear. It is a mystery which Catholics are merely to accept--it's JC's way, or the highway (to hell).

Originally Posted by Aepervius

I was born in a catholic family and none of my family member seem to realize that as they THEMSELVES expect women priest to come sooner or later. I would not be surprised a majority of the cathos think the same, and only the HIERARCHY really think those wo "deep" reason matters....

Same here. Lay Catholics aren't expected or encouraged to know this stuff. It's the priests' job to know it and interpret it for us, as needed.

Slimething · 17th July 2010, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

You folks are using mortal values to evaluate the situation in the eyes of the immortal.
Sins are against the god, not people. So, obviously, the sins of sex with a kid and ordaining females are, in the eyes of the god, equally repugnant.

Pretty ridiculous viewpoint as said god hasn't made such a statement. You're arguing that the roman catholic church knows the will of god from sources outside the bible. I would like to see your evidence that the rcc speaks for god. Actually, let's start with the existence of said god.

Face it, the rcc knows nothing of the will of a god, even if such existed. Primary evidence for that is that they have been so backward in science. Secondly, they will always tell you what god's thinking during the good times but will tell you that god's will is unknowable after a tragedy.

Originally Posted by Rasmus

That's not how I think Catholicism works. You cannot be a Catholic without the clergy. Where would oyu go to confession, e.g.?

I said you could leave the religion and keep the faith. Confession is a contrivance of the church, not the faith. The faith is, basically, one god / three persons/ created everything/ loves us/ chose the jooz/ had a son with a woman/ the son died for our sins/ salvation only through son/ otherwise, hell. The trappings of catholicism are purely an invention of the church to keep the faithful within arm's length.

Quote:

That is true, if you look at the thing from the outside.

So truth depends on perspective? Fascinating!

Prometheus · 17th July 2010, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by Slimething

....
I said you could leave the religion and keep the faith. Confession is a contrivance of the church, not the faith. The faith is, basically, one god / three persons/ created everything/ loves us/ chose the jooz/ had a son with a woman/ the son died for our sins/ salvation only through son/ otherwise, hell. The trappings of catholicism are purely an invention of the church to keep the faithful within arm's length....

This is a protestant point of view, but as far as the RCC is concerned, it is heresy. Catholic dogma is that the trappings are a necessary part of the faith. A Catholic cannot leave the church and keep the faith because the faith includes the necessity of not leaving the Church.

Slimething · 17th July 2010, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Prometheus

This is a protestant point of view, but as far as the RCC is concerned, it is heresy. Catholic dogma is that the trappings are a necessary part of the faith. A Catholic cannot leave the church and keep the faith because the faith includes the necessity of not leaving the Church.

Funny you caught that. Need I spell out what level of esteem the catholic church rates for me? I'm thinking of a word. It starts with F. Pretty much the same word I think of whenever any religion is the point of discussion.

Aepervius · 17th July 2010, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Yes, but with the further qualification that JC had several potential female candidates from which to choose if he'd wanted women among his apostles. The official dogma is that this can't be merely an oversight, because JC is inerrant. To the Church's mind, JC's silent example holds every bit as much moral force as his direct verbal commandment would.

So in other word they are second guessing JC action in the bible. ETA and IMHO that is something he would have EXPLICITELY told as it sounds important ("and all my follower shall only hear my word from male"). I wonder what other funny second guessing one could do, on the action he did not do in the NT.

IMHO that simply reeks of "we don't wanna those dirty women in our club" more than anything else. The rest is jsut post hoc justifications.

SezMe · 17th July 2010, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

ETA and IMHO that is something he would have EXPLICITELY told as it sounds important ("and all my follower shall only hear my word from male").

Paul said that very thing and it's in the bible. Thus, an explicit part of christianity.

HansMustermann · 18th July 2010, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Yes, but with the further qualification that JC had several potential female candidates from which to choose if he'd wanted women among his apostles. The official dogma is that this can't be merely an oversight, because JC is inerrant. To the Church's mind, JC's silent example holds every bit as much moral force as his direct verbal commandment would.

Yes, but we're also not told that JC or his apostles ever drank Coca Cola, or wore pants, or had a formal education, or had a TV or computer, etc. It can't be oversight since, well, he's God allmighty, right? If he thought it's ok for a preacher to drink Coca Cola, he could have summoned some.

Does that mean we need to tell priests to live exactly like Jesus in those aspects too? If not, why not?

And he certainly didn't get a pension plan, he just got himself nailed. It couldn't have been oversight, given the lengths he went to to get himself nailed. And while we're at that, most of his apostles went and got themselves martyred too instead of planning for old age. E.g., Peter got nailed upside down, since the Pope claims to be Peter's successor. (And it's also why the Pope has an upside down cross carved in the back of his seat and generally uses the upside down cross as a personal symbol, like a die-hard death-metal fan

)

It can't be oversight either, you know? If Jesus wanted some apostles who have more self-preservation instinct than a small horde of lemmings, he could have found some. I mean, he's God allmighty, or at least has a direct phone line to the Father, and God sees what's in the hearts of men and all that. Surely he could have had a few more peeks and selected people who don't run and get themselves executed, if he thought that's important, right?

Does that mean that the retirement plan for priests should be four pieces of wood and three nails?

HansMustermann · 18th July 2010, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Paul said that very thing and it's in the bible. Thus, an explicit part of christianity.

Paul also says such things as 1 Timothy 3:2-5

2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

I'm thinking that especially 5 makes it pretty unambiguous: if you're not an actuall father and experienced in running your own family, you're not qualified to be a Father in the church sense.

I don't see Catholics obeying _that_ one just because Paul said it

Aitch · 18th July 2010, 02:08 AM

One of the priests who taught at the school I went to hand-waved that away by saying that the 'one wife' was a reference to the church and the 'children' were his parishioners or whatever.

I don't think he convinced anyone.

Fiona · 18th July 2010, 02:09 AM

It isn't just that he did not choose any women. I don't think he chose anyone over 50. And given Hans's point that so many of the ones he did choose died young I think there is ample evidence that ministry ought to be a career like professional football or other sports. A short one. I think the pople is too old and his papacy is an offence against god quite as severe as paedophilia

HansMustermann · 18th July 2010, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Aitch

One of the priests who taught at the school I went to hand-waved that away by saying that the 'one wife' was a reference to the church and the 'children' were his parishioners or whatever.

I don't think he convinced anyone.

Which is exactly why I quoted verse 5 too, actually. If you just quote 2 or even 2-4, sure, maybe he was using "wife" metaphorically. But 5 is hard to handwave. He's explicitly saying that if you don't have experience running your own family, you're not qualified to run the church of God. Which would make no freaking sense if he meant the church _is_ the family.

ETA: I mean, talk about a Catch-22. "If you don't already have experience running the church, you're not qualified to run the church." It would be the grandfather of all the stupid job ads. Nobody get a job with his organization ever unless they have already experience working for that organization

Aepervius · 18th July 2010, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Paul said that very thing and it's in the bible. Thus, an explicit part of christianity.

Verse ? Furthermore your religion might be paulism , but if I was pedantic we are speaking of christianism here

. Just kidding. I would still like to see the verse.

ETA: actually while being facetious, that would STILL be second guessing JC, while accepting Paul's word on their own, an apostle, but still a human prone to error.

Rasmus · 18th July 2010, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by Slimething

I said you could leave the religion and keep the faith. Confession is a contrivance of the church, not the faith. The faith is, basically, one god / three persons/ created everything/ loves us/ chose the jooz/ had a son with a woman/ the son died for our sins/ salvation only through son/ otherwise, hell. The trappings of catholicism are purely an invention of the church to keep the faithful within arm's length.

Of course, nobody invented all the other stuff for pretty much the same purpose ...

Quote:

So truth depends on perspective? Fascinating!

not truth, but what people will accept as truth. That you and I recognize that the Catholic church is talking out of its rear end doesn't mean the believers have the same point of view.

So your claim that their church and their faith are two distinct things and one can leave one but not the other is fairly pointless. If the majority of Catholics do not share that view, then they cannot.

Meadmaker · 18th July 2010, 05:46 AM

If anyone knows, I have a question about the original article. It says:

"New religious rules published by the Vatican set both sins at the same level of gravity and recommended the same punishment for guilty priests."

They seem to be concluding that the equal punishment implies equal moral offense. I don't think it's a reasonable conclusion.

Back in the old days, you could be hanged for cattle rustling, or even for petty theft. That doesn't mean that the Victorians considered picking pockets to be just as bad as murder. It just means there isn't much else you could do to them.

Were there any offenses which received a greater punishment than ordination of women and sexual abuse?

Slimething · 18th July 2010, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Rasmus

So your claim that their church and their faith are two distinct things and one can leave one but not the other is fairly pointless. If the majority of Catholics do not share that view, then they cannot.

I know plenty of ex-catholics who continue to subscribe to the underlying fantasy. Most of them left due to the obvious corruption in the institution. If they saw certain changes, they'd go right back (which might be your point). However, there are plenty of ex-catholics who still believe the fantasy but don't do the dance anymore.

SezMe · 18th July 2010, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Verse ?

As an example

Quote:

Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I Timothy 2:11-14

Prometheus · 18th July 2010, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

So in other word they are second guessing JC action in the bible. ETA and IMHO that is something he would have EXPLICITELY told as it sounds important ("and all my follower shall only hear my word from male"). I wonder what other funny second guessing one could do, on the action he did not do in the NT.

IMHO that simply reeks of "we don't wanna those dirty women in our club" more than anything else. The rest is jsut post hoc justifications.

What about the JC character in scripture makes you think he would be explicit about anything important? The guy spoke in parables and idioms all the time.

Also, I don't see how emulating an example can be considered second guessing. It seems to me that the opposite is true. If they assumed that ordination of women were allowed despite the fact of it not being mentioned at all in the instructions and that JC never did it despite obvious opportunities to do so, then then that would be second guessing.

Your interpretation of the Church's motive is certainly possible, but IMO it is considerably less twisted and evil than their stated motive. I prefer not to give them the benefit of the doubt, though perhaps that's unskeptical of me....

Prometheus · 18th July 2010, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Yes, but we're also not told that JC or his apostles ever drank Coca Cola, or wore pants, or had a formal education, or had a TV or computer, etc. It can't be oversight since, well, he's God allmighty, right? If he thought it's ok for a preacher to drink Coca Cola, he could have summoned some.

Does that mean we need to tell priests to live exactly like Jesus in those aspects too? If not, why not?

None of those activities are relevant to the central business of the Church. AFAIK, the Church's position on them would then be that it is laudable but not required for Catholics to emulate JC in those respects.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

And he certainly didn't get a pension plan, he just got himself nailed. It couldn't have been oversight, given the lengths he went to to get himself nailed. And while we're at that, most of his apostles went and got themselves martyred too instead of planning for old age. E.g., Peter got nailed upside down, since the Pope claims to be Peter's successor. (And it's also why the Pope has an upside down cross carved in the back of his seat and generally uses the upside down cross as a personal symbol, like a die-hard death-metal fan

)

It can't be oversight either, you know? If Jesus wanted some apostles who have more self-preservation instinct than a small horde of lemmings, he could have found some. I mean, he's God allmighty, or at least has a direct phone line to the Father, and God sees what's in the hearts of men and all that. Surely he could have had a few more peeks and selected people who don't run and get themselves executed, if he thought that's important, right?

Does that mean that the retirement plan for priests should be four pieces of wood and three nails?

Catholic dogma is that JC suffered so that his followers wouldn't have to. That his apostles went and martyred themselves anyway can just be chalked up to their own imperfection.

Slimething · 18th July 2010, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Were there any offenses which received a greater punishment than ordination of women and sexual abuse?

Being a witch.
Being Jewish.
Being a scientist.

Just three. Capital crimes against the church. Punished by execution or banishment / imprisonment.

Darth Rotor · 18th July 2010, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Treating a woman as equal to a man in administrative and spiritual matters results in immediate expulsion from the Roman Catholic community.

No, it results in being out of communion. That isn't what you just said.

When one is out of communion, as in having committed mortal sin, then one must go through confession and reconciliation in order to get back into communion.

Check the thread where we discussed the nun who got "excommunicated" (placed out of communion) for agreeing to the abortion that saved the life of the pregnant mother.

Having said that, with about 60% of the RCC practicing being female, at some point, on this matter, something is gonna give.

Just not sure when.

DR

Meadmaker · 18th July 2010, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Slimething

Being a witch.
Being Jewish.
Being a scientist.

Just three. Capital crimes against the church. Punished by execution or banishment / imprisonment.

I don't mean in the middle ages. I mean in the recenly published document which is the subject of this thread. I haven't read it, but I'm fairly confident it didn't call for execution of Jews, scientists, or witches.

Xephyr · 18th July 2010, 09:35 PM

Bah whatever.

These dummies in the Vatican are slowing hanging themselves.

And we get the satisfaction of sitting in the front row watching it all unfold whilst munching on hot buttered popcorn and smiling like cheshire cats.

It just doesn't get any better than that folks.

Slimething · 18th July 2010, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't mean in the middle ages. I mean in the recenly published document which is the subject of this thread. I haven't read it, but I'm fairly confident it didn't call for execution of Jews, scientists, or witches.

I answered your question. Sorry if it didn't fit your agenda.

Maybe it would be wise to read a document before you post questions about it? Hmmmm?

17th July 2010, 01:12 PM	#41
Toke Godless Socialist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,620	Originally Posted by brodski And with these rules we find that their priorities have not changed- although they now say that raping children is a grave offense, the church is still giving itself more leeway in deciding how they wish to punish offenders than they will with people who commit perfectly legal acts that harm no-one except (in their views) the church. I think you nailed the problem here, that the CC does not distinguish between religious and secular crimes. As if their priests were only subject to church law, and not those of society. Next would be that the CC expects the police to ask them on their stance on priests caught for DUI.
	__________________ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

17th July 2010, 01:53 PM	#42
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by rwguinn You folks are using mortal values to evaluate the situation in the eyes of the immortal. Sins are against the god, not people. So, obviously, the sins of sex with a kid and ordaining females are, in the eyes of the god, equally repugnant. You have to make it right with the god, not people.If you make amends with the god, whatever people do to you is irrelevant. You get to go to heaven, anyway, which is supposed to be your goal in life... I cannot agree with this. I do not think any of us is second guessing how this might look to an immortal: we cannot know. The trouble is neither can you, nor the pope, nor anyone. Sins may or may not be against god. They are carried out by and against people. That is the inescapable agency, whatever you believe about their metaphysical status. As I understand it, the Catholic church acknowledges this. There is no absolution of sin without true repentance, and a firm purpose of amendment. The latter is described as "satisfaction" and it includes penance: but at its heart is the demand to do what you can to right a wrong. Zacchaeus is one example: he did not merely repent: he paid back those people he had cheated: and this is at the heart of the catholic doctrine of absolution, as I understand it. It is sometimes argued that the making of amends is the outward manifestation of true contrition: thus "making it right with god" necessarily entails making it right with the people you have hurt insofar as that is possible
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

17th July 2010, 01:57 PM	#43
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Only an anal-retentive, psychotic freak like Yahweh would think these two things equivalent in evil. After all, even within Christian belief, the only reason women Fail is because Yahweh constructed men to not wanna follow women, thus making it more likely they'd go to Hell because they were not swayed by a female, being alpha-male wannabees. So even accounting for the mythos of Hell, it's still Yahweh's fault and error.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

17th July 2010, 02:22 PM	#44
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,051	Originally Posted by Aepervius I read it but unless I am mistaken it only offers two "reason" why only male priest can be ordained: * JC only had male apostle and thus they want to respect that parity (but did JC explicitely says that only male could be his apostle ? I don't think so otherwise it would be cited) * they feel priest are married with the church and thus the church being female (???) the priest can only be made male As you say, the first reason is only tenuously based on the bible, and the second is not at all. If I remember correctly, priests were originally allowed to marry, but celibacy was brought in to avoid the conflict of interest between the church and the priests' families.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

17th July 2010, 07:32 PM	#46
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,406	One aspect of this has not entered the discussion yet. From the Daily Fail article: Quote: Andrew Madden, a former Dublin altar boy who took the Church to court in Ireland during the 1990s, said: 'The first thing the Church should be doing is reporting crimes to civil authorities. 'That's far more important than deciding whether a criminal priest should be defrocked or not. The Church's internal rules are no more important than the rules of your local golf club.' And I agree wholeheartedly with him. As long as the RCC hands over child abusing priests promptly to the secular authorities and they end up in the slammer for their abuse, I don't care a bit if Canon Law says they should be excommunicated, defrocked, or just get a slap on the wrist. And that's what's primarily wrong with these rules.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

17th July 2010, 03:05 PM	#45
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,904	Originally Posted by Aepervius I read it but unless I am mistaken it only offers two "reason" why only male priest can be ordained: * JC only had male apostle and thus they want to respect that parity (but did JC explicitely says that only male could be his apostle ? I don't think so otherwise it would be cited) I don't see them having only 13 priests either (I'm including Paul there and Thomas, but not Judas who is probably not taken as a role-model by many churches.) Originally Posted by Aepervius * they feel priest are married with the church and thus the church being female (???) the priest can only be made male I thought they already figured out who to marry nuns to, didn't they? Plus, what gender does the word "church" have strikes me as a horribly disingenuous issue, as it A) depends on the language (in English for example it would be neuter) and B) it doesn't bear any deeper meaning in any language and for any inanimate term, than in what arbitrary bucket of grammatical rules does it fall. Even the RCC itself never gave itself female roles (which would have meant subordinate role through the vast majority of its history) just because that word happens to be feminine in the language of their choice. Plus, wth, if the church now bases its judgments on word genders, I can hardly await the official papal bull saying that masturbation is ok in Germany since a fist or a hand are feminine in German. You know, it's between a he and a she, so it must be as God intended it Plus, hey, if they can marry a guy to the church just because "church" is feminine, then, you know, by the same logic it would also be ok to marry Mrs Rosy Palm. Heck, I even promise to avoid the sin of Onan conscientiously by never doing it with a condom and never aiming at the ground. (Would make a mess anyway.) I'll try to the best of my abilities to get that hand pregnant, but if God be unwilling to grant us children, it's obviously not my fault and not for lack of my trying So, do I write directly to the pope for dispensation, or...?

17th July 2010, 07:56 PM	#47
Prometheus Acolyte of Víðarr Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 43,282	Originally Posted by lionking Sure, I agree. But do you care who becomes a member of the 9/11 truth movement, the KKK or the Raelians? "Equal rights for those who want to believe in dangerous crap" just doesn't excite me. Sorry. I care only insofaras I would prefer that fewer (ideally, no) people became members of those groups. The reason this dogma bugs me is not because it results in gender inequity, but because it highlights how morally twisted and dangerous the Catholic Church really is. ... Originally Posted by Aepervius I read it but unless I am mistaken it only offers two "reason" why only male priest can be ordained: * JC only had male apostle and thus they want to respect that parity (but did JC explicitely says that only male could be his apostle ? I don't think so otherwise it would be cited) Yes, but with the further qualification that JC had several potential female candidates from which to choose if he'd wanted women among his apostles. The official dogma is that this can't be merely an oversight, because JC is inerrant. To the Church's mind, JC's silent example holds every bit as much moral force as his direct verbal commandment would. Originally Posted by Aepervius * they feel priest are married with the church and thus the church being female (???) the priest can only be made male This is one possible interpretation of the reasoning behind the prohibition, but it is not official dogma. Catholic dogma is that no reason is necessary, or should be expected to be made clear. It is a mystery which Catholics are merely to accept--it's JC's way, or the highway (to hell). Originally Posted by Aepervius I was born in a catholic family and none of my family member seem to realize that as they THEMSELVES expect women priest to come sooner or later. I would not be surprised a majority of the cathos think the same, and only the HIERARCHY really think those wo "deep" reason matters.... Same here. Lay Catholics aren't expected or encouraged to know this stuff. It's the priests' job to know it and interpret it for us, as needed.
	__________________ As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.

17th July 2010, 08:07 PM	#48
Slimething Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona USA Posts: 3,727	Originally Posted by rwguinn You folks are using mortal values to evaluate the situation in the eyes of the immortal. Sins are against the god, not people. So, obviously, the sins of sex with a kid and ordaining females are, in the eyes of the god, equally repugnant. Pretty ridiculous viewpoint as said god hasn't made such a statement. You're arguing that the roman catholic church knows the will of god from sources outside the bible. I would like to see your evidence that the rcc speaks for god. Actually, let's start with the existence of said god. Face it, the rcc knows nothing of the will of a god, even if such existed. Primary evidence for that is that they have been so backward in science. Secondly, they will always tell you what god's thinking during the good times but will tell you that god's will is unknowable after a tragedy. Originally Posted by Rasmus That's not how I think Catholicism works. You cannot be a Catholic without the clergy. Where would oyu go to confession, e.g.? I said you could leave the religion and keep the faith. Confession is a contrivance of the church, not the faith. The faith is, basically, one god / three persons/ created everything/ loves us/ chose the jooz/ had a son with a woman/ the son died for our sins/ salvation only through son/ otherwise, hell. The trappings of catholicism are purely an invention of the church to keep the faithful within arm's length. Quote: That is true, if you look at the thing from the outside. So truth depends on perspective? Fascinating!

17th July 2010, 08:25 PM	#49
Prometheus Acolyte of Víðarr Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 43,282	Originally Posted by Slimething .... I said you could leave the religion and keep the faith. Confession is a contrivance of the church, not the faith. The faith is, basically, one god / three persons/ created everything/ loves us/ chose the jooz/ had a son with a woman/ the son died for our sins/ salvation only through son/ otherwise, hell. The trappings of catholicism are purely an invention of the church to keep the faithful within arm's length.... This is a protestant point of view, but as far as the RCC is concerned, it is heresy. Catholic dogma is that the trappings are a necessary part of the faith. A Catholic cannot leave the church and keep the faith because the faith includes the necessity of not leaving the Church.
	__________________ As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.

17th July 2010, 10:22 PM	#50
Slimething Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona USA Posts: 3,727	Originally Posted by Prometheus This is a protestant point of view, but as far as the RCC is concerned, it is heresy. Catholic dogma is that the trappings are a necessary part of the faith. A Catholic cannot leave the church and keep the faith because the faith includes the necessity of not leaving the Church. Funny you caught that. Need I spell out what level of esteem the catholic church rates for me? I'm thinking of a word. It starts with F. Pretty much the same word I think of whenever any religion is the point of discussion.

17th July 2010, 11:00 PM	#51
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,892	Originally Posted by Prometheus Yes, but with the further qualification that JC had several potential female candidates from which to choose if he'd wanted women among his apostles. The official dogma is that this can't be merely an oversight, because JC is inerrant. To the Church's mind, JC's silent example holds every bit as much moral force as his direct verbal commandment would. So in other word they are second guessing JC action in the bible. ETA and IMHO that is something he would have EXPLICITELY told as it sounds important ("and all my follower shall only hear my word from male"). I wonder what other funny second guessing one could do, on the action he did not do in the NT. IMHO that simply reeks of "we don't wanna those dirty women in our club" more than anything else. The rest is jsut post hoc justifications.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life. Last edited by Aepervius; 17th July 2010 at 11:03 PM.

17th July 2010, 11:19 PM	#52
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,654	Originally Posted by Aepervius ETA and IMHO that is something he would have EXPLICITELY told as it sounds important ("and all my follower shall only hear my word from male"). Paul said that very thing and it's in the bible. Thus, an explicit part of christianity.

18th July 2010, 01:37 AM	#53
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,904	Originally Posted by Prometheus Yes, but with the further qualification that JC had several potential female candidates from which to choose if he'd wanted women among his apostles. The official dogma is that this can't be merely an oversight, because JC is inerrant. To the Church's mind, JC's silent example holds every bit as much moral force as his direct verbal commandment would. Yes, but we're also not told that JC or his apostles ever drank Coca Cola, or wore pants, or had a formal education, or had a TV or computer, etc. It can't be oversight since, well, he's God allmighty, right? If he thought it's ok for a preacher to drink Coca Cola, he could have summoned some. Does that mean we need to tell priests to live exactly like Jesus in those aspects too? If not, why not? And he certainly didn't get a pension plan, he just got himself nailed. It couldn't have been oversight, given the lengths he went to to get himself nailed. And while we're at that, most of his apostles went and got themselves martyred too instead of planning for old age. E.g., Peter got nailed upside down, since the Pope claims to be Peter's successor. (And it's also why the Pope has an upside down cross carved in the back of his seat and generally uses the upside down cross as a personal symbol, like a die-hard death-metal fan) It can't be oversight either, you know? If Jesus wanted some apostles who have more self-preservation instinct than a small horde of lemmings, he could have found some. I mean, he's God allmighty, or at least has a direct phone line to the Father, and God sees what's in the hearts of men and all that. Surely he could have had a few more peeks and selected people who don't run and get themselves executed, if he thought that's important, right? Does that mean that the retirement plan for priests should be four pieces of wood and three nails?

18th July 2010, 01:47 AM	#54
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,904	Originally Posted by SezMe Paul said that very thing and it's in the bible. Thus, an explicit part of christianity. Paul also says such things as 1 Timothy 3:2-5 2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) I'm thinking that especially 5 makes it pretty unambiguous: if you're not an actuall father and experienced in running your own family, you're not qualified to be a Father in the church sense. I don't see Catholics obeying _that_ one just because Paul said it

18th July 2010, 02:08 AM	#55
Aitch Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: StAines Posts: 2,731	One of the priests who taught at the school I went to hand-waved that away by saying that the 'one wife' was a reference to the church and the 'children' were his parishioners or whatever. I don't think he convinced anyone.

18th July 2010, 02:09 AM	#56
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	It isn't just that he did not choose any women. I don't think he chose anyone over 50. And given Hans's point that so many of the ones he did choose died young I think there is ample evidence that ministry ought to be a career like professional football or other sports. A short one. I think the pople is too old and his papacy is an offence against god quite as severe as paedophilia
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

18th July 2010, 02:32 AM	#57
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,904	Originally Posted by Aitch One of the priests who taught at the school I went to hand-waved that away by saying that the 'one wife' was a reference to the church and the 'children' were his parishioners or whatever. I don't think he convinced anyone. Which is exactly why I quoted verse 5 too, actually. If you just quote 2 or even 2-4, sure, maybe he was using "wife" metaphorically. But 5 is hard to handwave. He's explicitly saying that if you don't have experience running your own family, you're not qualified to run the church of God. Which would make no freaking sense if he meant the church _is_ the family. ETA: I mean, talk about a Catch-22. "If you don't already have experience running the church, you're not qualified to run the church." It would be the grandfather of all the stupid job ads. Nobody get a job with his organization ever unless they have already experience working for that organization
	Last edited by HansMustermann; 18th July 2010 at 02:44 AM.

18th July 2010, 04:10 AM	#58
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,892	Originally Posted by SezMe Paul said that very thing and it's in the bible. Thus, an explicit part of christianity. Verse ? Furthermore your religion might be paulism , but if I was pedantic we are speaking of christianism here . Just kidding. I would still like to see the verse. ETA: actually while being facetious, that would STILL be second guessing JC, while accepting Paul's word on their own, an apostle, but still a human prone to error.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life. Last edited by Aepervius; 18th July 2010 at 04:15 AM.

18th July 2010, 04:32 AM	#59
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,139	Originally Posted by Slimething I said you could leave the religion and keep the faith. Confession is a contrivance of the church, not the faith. The faith is, basically, one god / three persons/ created everything/ loves us/ chose the jooz/ had a son with a woman/ the son died for our sins/ salvation only through son/ otherwise, hell. The trappings of catholicism are purely an invention of the church to keep the faithful within arm's length. Of course, nobody invented all the other stuff for pretty much the same purpose ... Quote: So truth depends on perspective? Fascinating! not truth, but what people will accept as truth. That you and I recognize that the Catholic church is talking out of its rear end doesn't mean the believers have the same point of view. So your claim that their church and their faith are two distinct things and one can leave one but not the other is fairly pointless. If the majority of Catholics do not share that view, then they cannot.
Rasmus Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 6,139	__________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

18th July 2010, 05:46 AM	#60
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,467	If anyone knows, I have a question about the original article. It says: "New religious rules published by the Vatican set both sins at the same level of gravity and recommended the same punishment for guilty priests." They seem to be concluding that the equal punishment implies equal moral offense. I don't think it's a reasonable conclusion. Back in the old days, you could be hanged for cattle rustling, or even for petty theft. That doesn't mean that the Victorians considered picking pockets to be just as bad as murder. It just means there isn't much else you could do to them. Were there any offenses which received a greater punishment than ordination of women and sexual abuse?
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

18th July 2010, 12:19 PM	#61
Slimething Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona USA Posts: 3,727	Originally Posted by Rasmus So your claim that their church and their faith are two distinct things and one can leave one but not the other is fairly pointless. If the majority of Catholics do not share that view, then they cannot. I know plenty of ex-catholics who continue to subscribe to the underlying fantasy. Most of them left due to the obvious corruption in the institution. If they saw certain changes, they'd go right back (which might be your point). However, there are plenty of ex-catholics who still believe the fantasy but don't do the dance anymore.

18th July 2010, 01:54 PM	#62
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,654	Originally Posted by Aepervius Verse ? As an example Quote: Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. I Timothy 2:11-14

18th July 2010, 03:12 PM	#63
Prometheus Acolyte of Víðarr Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 43,282	Originally Posted by Aepervius So in other word they are second guessing JC action in the bible. ETA and IMHO that is something he would have EXPLICITELY told as it sounds important ("and all my follower shall only hear my word from male"). I wonder what other funny second guessing one could do, on the action he did not do in the NT. IMHO that simply reeks of "we don't wanna those dirty women in our club" more than anything else. The rest is jsut post hoc justifications. What about the JC character in scripture makes you think he would be explicit about anything important? The guy spoke in parables and idioms all the time. Also, I don't see how emulating an example can be considered second guessing. It seems to me that the opposite is true. If they assumed that ordination of women were allowed despite the fact of it not being mentioned at all in the instructions and that JC never did it despite obvious opportunities to do so, then then that would be second guessing. Your interpretation of the Church's motive is certainly possible, but IMO it is considerably less twisted and evil than their stated motive. I prefer not to give them the benefit of the doubt, though perhaps that's unskeptical of me....
	__________________ As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.

18th July 2010, 03:22 PM	#64
Prometheus Acolyte of Víðarr Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 43,282	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Yes, but we're also not told that JC or his apostles ever drank Coca Cola, or wore pants, or had a formal education, or had a TV or computer, etc. It can't be oversight since, well, he's God allmighty, right? If he thought it's ok for a preacher to drink Coca Cola, he could have summoned some. Does that mean we need to tell priests to live exactly like Jesus in those aspects too? If not, why not? None of those activities are relevant to the central business of the Church. AFAIK, the Church's position on them would then be that it is laudable but not required for Catholics to emulate JC in those respects. Originally Posted by HansMustermann And he certainly didn't get a pension plan, he just got himself nailed. It couldn't have been oversight, given the lengths he went to to get himself nailed. And while we're at that, most of his apostles went and got themselves martyred too instead of planning for old age. E.g., Peter got nailed upside down, since the Pope claims to be Peter's successor. (And it's also why the Pope has an upside down cross carved in the back of his seat and generally uses the upside down cross as a personal symbol, like a die-hard death-metal fan) It can't be oversight either, you know? If Jesus wanted some apostles who have more self-preservation instinct than a small horde of lemmings, he could have found some. I mean, he's God allmighty, or at least has a direct phone line to the Father, and God sees what's in the hearts of men and all that. Surely he could have had a few more peeks and selected people who don't run and get themselves executed, if he thought that's important, right? Does that mean that the retirement plan for priests should be four pieces of wood and three nails? Catholic dogma is that JC suffered so that his followers wouldn't have to. That his apostles went and martyred themselves anyway can just be chalked up to their own imperfection.
	__________________ As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.

18th July 2010, 04:33 PM	#65
Slimething Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona USA Posts: 3,727	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Were there any offenses which received a greater punishment than ordination of women and sexual abuse? Being a witch. Being Jewish. Being a scientist. Just three. Capital crimes against the church. Punished by execution or banishment / imprisonment.

18th July 2010, 05:29 PM	#66
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,379	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote Treating a woman as equal to a man in administrative and spiritual matters results in immediate expulsion from the Roman Catholic community. No, it results in being out of communion. That isn't what you just said. When one is out of communion, as in having committed mortal sin, then one must go through confession and reconciliation in order to get back into communion. Check the thread where we discussed the nun who got "excommunicated" (placed out of communion) for agreeing to the abortion that saved the life of the pregnant mother. Having said that, with about 60% of the RCC practicing being female, at some point, on this matter, something is gonna give. Just not sure when. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

18th July 2010, 07:04 PM	#67
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,467	Originally Posted by Slimething Being a witch. Being Jewish. Being a scientist. Just three. Capital crimes against the church. Punished by execution or banishment / imprisonment. I don't mean in the middle ages. I mean in the recenly published document which is the subject of this thread. I haven't read it, but I'm fairly confident it didn't call for execution of Jews, scientists, or witches.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

18th July 2010, 09:35 PM	#68
Xephyr Muse Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 856	Bah whatever. These dummies in the Vatican are slowing hanging themselves. And we get the satisfaction of sitting in the front row watching it all unfold whilst munching on hot buttered popcorn and smiling like cheshire cats. It just doesn't get any better than that folks.
Xephyr Muse Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 856	__________________ "Some mornings it’s just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips

18th July 2010, 09:59 PM	#69
Slimething Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona USA Posts: 3,727	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I don't mean in the middle ages. I mean in the recenly published document which is the subject of this thread. I haven't read it, but I'm fairly confident it didn't call for execution of Jews, scientists, or witches. I answered your question. Sorry if it didn't fit your agenda. Maybe it would be wise to read a document before you post questions about it? Hmmmm?
	Last edited by Slimething; 18th July 2010 at 10:01 PM.