Discrimination in the Catholic Church

[Awoon]

Serving "Christ" would be healing the sick, raising the dead, relieving people of out of balance energies (mentally ill).

Any "Christ" servers doing those?

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not sure how the traditions of the Church are support for any particular view when the question is why things were set up in a particular way from the outset. At some point, the decision was made to restrict the priesthood to men (even if it was at the establishment of the priesthood). At that point, you can't resort to "well, we've always done it this way" as support, because it wouldn't have happened yet.

But as for what's required by Christ... I think that's the real question of this thread and something that hasn't properly established yet.


Didn't Jesus want the Good News to reach women?

Built into the argument for an all-male priesthood is the idea that the makeup of the laity (i.e. the main body of the people Christ wants to reach) doesn't have to be reflected in the clergy. If you're now saying that the clergy does need to reflect all the people Jesus wanted to reach, then I think this is an argument in favour of women priests.

And being a police officer is not "higher" or "lower" than being a nurse, but we've come to recognize it as discrimination when we say that police officers must be men and nurses must be women.

QFT. all of it.

 

[Renji]

You are saying that it is nothing special to trasnmute a bread into the flesh of christ? there is no special in that?

That's transubstantiation. Duh! and it is not the priest that makes it possible but God (priests aren't magicians!)

The thing that makes a priest so special doesn´t come from me, but from the millions of women priests that knew in their hearts they were meant to do this things to praise God, but were unable because the church is still mediaval on this point.The thing is that you have a woman that maybe would be much much better giving a mass than a man, and she´ll never have the chance even when she could cannal the holy spirit better than any man, just because she doesn´t have a penis.

We can't change the traditions of the Church. If we break this traditions, it wouldn't be the same Church that was founded many years ago. Also even if not a priest, one can still serve God and the Church. How can it be non equal?? As I said, both non priests and priests are just equal in a sense that they are both servants of God and will be judged equally according to the fulfillment of their duties. Being a priest does not bring privilege.

More of, you get he same thing with a man, but this poor guy lost his hand in a freak accident, or even , saving someone else.

Do you know that if you lose your hand saving someone else you lose the ability to be a priest?

Same goes with penis.

I **** you not

The priest uses his mouth to preach and not the hands. And the penis thing, the Church does not tell anything like "if your penis got mutilated then you're not going to be a priest" or stuff like that. Stop imposing your ideas with the "idea" that I know about "my" church. Your Catholicism is entirely different than yours!

 

[Mister Emu]

At some point, the decision was made to restrict the priesthood to men

Might not mean much to you, but the Church does not restrict the priesthood to men. It acknowledges that women cannot be ordained as priests. The Church doesn't say "we won't ordain females", she says "we can't ordain females".

The Church could go through the whole process and ritual of ordination for a woman, but it wouldn't do anything.

 

[sojourner]

I think what this comes down to is two things: Momentum and stubbornness.

The church was born in a patriarchal culture, so it adopted those traits. Later, when the church spread to non-patriarchal cultures, the momentum was there, and the church's stubbornness precludes change in that regard.

Any Biblical "reason" wouldn't be valid from an exegetical standpoint I think the church simply hopes that the momentum will engender a sort-of "well, we've always done it that way" among it's members. I don't think a lot of them really think about it that much.

Since it is their practice and the constituency doesn't seem to care that much, I really don't see why the rest of us have such a problem with it. It's sorta like Victor (I think it was him) said: If you don't like it, don't be Catholic! I wish they had a better reason, but I'm not gonna let it keep me up nights. what does tend to keep me up nights is when the RCs tell me that my ordination isn't valid...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's transubstantiation. Duh! and it is not the priest that makes it possible but God (priests aren't magicians!)

But God can't make it possible without the priest, and without a priest who meets certain requirements (e.g. being a man). It seems to me that both are needed; both make it possible.

And I think the question of whether priests are magicians depends on your point of view.

Fun fact: the phrase "hocus pocus" was a mangled version of "hoc es corpus" ("this is my body..."), part of the Latin formulation of the blessing the priest performs during the Eucharist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Might not mean much to you, but the Church does not restrict the priesthood to men. It acknowledges that women cannot be ordained as priests. The Church doesn't say "we won't ordain females", she says "we can't ordain females".

The Church could go through the whole process and ritual of ordination for a woman, but it wouldn't do anything.

I was thinking of the argument that's been made here that this arrangement was instituted by Christ himself. Presumably, Christ wouldn't have said "we can't ordain females", right?

But the point I was trying to get at is that Tradition only becomes Tradition once it's established. When a practice is first instituted, it can't rely on Tradition for its justification.

 

[Me Myself]

That's transubstantiation. Duh! and it is not the priest that makes it possible but God (priests aren't magicians!)

Okay that made me look yellow . My bad with the spelling mistake. But the priest does indeed serve as a channel.

We can't change the traditions of the Church. If we break this traditions, it wouldn't be the same Church that was founded many years ago.

Not only can it, but it has done it already and a lot. If you need examples, you may ask them so I can look them up for you

Also even if not a priest, one can still serve God and the Church. How can it be non equal?? As I said, both non priests and priests are just equal in a sense that they are both servants of God and will be judged equally according to the fulfillment of their duties. Being a priest does not bring privilege.

Even if a woman cannot be a cop, that doesn´t mean it is not equal! they still can have jobs! None of them is above the law!

wait... it WOULD be discrimination to not let be a woman be a cop just because she is a woman. (I honor the pinguin for the argument, honestly don´t know how I passed it up. Attribute it to my yellowness up there )

The priest uses his mouth to preach and not the hands. And the penis thing, the Church does not tell anything like "if your penis got mutilated then you're not going to be a priest" or stuff like that. Stop imposing your ideas with the "idea" that I know about "my" church. Your Catholicism is entirely different than yours!

I can look it further, but my cathesism teacher said that one needs to have hands to make the transubstantiation, and if you don´t have a penis you can´t be a priest either because "you are not giving as much as those who do, because you weren´t able to have sex in the first place. Celibacy is not a sacrifice anymore, but something biological"

Oh! and now I remember, going back to things that the Church changed along the years is celibacy, originaly and for long time, celibacy was no requirement tobe priest, they changed it on the long run. Catholicism does change it´s policies to acomodate to time, this is why I and a lot of people say, it´s time for them to become more inclusive to women.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since it is their practice and the constituency doesn't seem to care that much, I really don't see why the rest of us have such a problem with it. It's sorta like Victor (I think it was him) said: If you don't like it, don't be Catholic! I wish they had a better reason, but I'm not gonna let it keep me up nights. what does tend to keep me up nights is when the RCs tell me that my ordination isn't valid...

One of my nieces is Catholic and quite devout. I don't know if it's still her current plan, but at one point, she was thinking about becoming a nun. In a different Catholic Church, I think she might've considered becoming a priest.

While my preference would be for her to choose a different path altogether (though I'm not going to try to lead her away from it), I instinctively bristle at the idea of anyone putting any sort of arbitrary barrier in front of her that might stop her from becoming whatever she wants to be.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Serving "Christ" would be healing the sick, raising the dead, relieving people of out of balance energies (mentally ill).

Any "Christ" servers doing those?

Yes. Through Christ, of course

 

[Blackheart]

But God can't make it possible without the priest, and without a priest who meets certain requirements (e.g. being a man). It seems to me that both are needed; both make it possible.

And I think the question of whether priests are magicians depends on your point of view.

Fun fact: the phrase "hocus pocus" was a mangled version of "hoc es corpus" ("this is my body..."), part of the Latin formulation of the blessing the priest performs during the Eucharist.

God cant do what?!? You have just provided me with a brilliant example of why we are better off without priests. No priest is involved in my relationship with God and were doing just fine. I have no scandals. No one trying to tell me that I have to subscribe to the political ambitions of the wealthy egotistical and God hears my preyers very well thank you.

When Gods asks you why you were following the teachings of man rather than the messenger he sent for you what will be your answer?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God cant do what?!?

Perform a sacrament.

Presumably, an all-powerful god could perform an action with the same effect, but the sacraments themselves, by definition, require human agents. If God did them by himself, this would be a logical contradiction like God creating a square circle.

When Gods asks you why you were following the teachings of man rather than the messenger he sent for you what will be your answer?

"What messenger?", frankly.

I've never had any reason to believe that any messenger has ever come to Earth on behalf of any god.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

What makes being a priest so special than being a nun or just a lay person??

Unless a person is ordained, he or she can have no influence in the Church hierarchy or on the policies of the Catholic Church.

Being a priest (even the Pope) does not make someone "higher" than the other.

Let's not be unreasonable here. The Pope certainly is more important than a lay person when it comes to the Church's policies.

You might as well say that someone prevented from voting in America has just as much influence as the President on the US government's policies. It's not true.

-Nato

 

[Awoon]

Yes. Through Christ, of course

Who are they?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Perform a sacrament.

.

Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sacraments

Actually, id say God can perform a sacrament. And without him there would be no sacrament

 

[JacobEzra.]

God cant do what?!?

He can do everything. Who said he couldn't do something?

You have just provided me with a brilliant example of why we are better off without priests.

And what example is that?

No priest is involved in my relationship with God and were doing just fine.

No priest has to be involved for you to have a relationship with God. A priest only ministers sacraments instituted by Christ. He can also give spiritual direction and help in times of trouble.

No one trying to tell me that I have to subscribe to the political ambitions of the wealthy egotistical and God hears my preyers very well thank you.

What political ambitions of the wealthy egotistical, are you talking about?

And that is good God hears your Prayers. He hears mine to.

Though I take it you are under the silly misconception that we Catholics believe we must need a priest to pray or contact god for us lol. Such is a misconception that runs deep in the non-Catholic religions who are gullible and only believe what they are told by their pastors and biased protestant websites, ran by idiots.

When Gods asks you why you were following the teachings of man rather than the messenger he sent for you what will be your answer?

This is funny to.

And what teachings of man are we following? Don't start on the Sola Scriptura, for its such illogical belief.

 

[Awoon]

Barry from HC

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

Actually, id say God can perform a sacrament. And without him there would be no sacrament

So if God is the one performing the sacrament why must it be through a male Priest specifically? Why can't a female bless a sacrament if God is the one who is faithful? I grew up in a church with female Priests and Deacons. Are you telling me that a female Priest invalidates the Eucharist?

 

[Renji]

Unless a person is ordained, he or she can have no influence in the Church hierarchy or on the policies of the Catholic Church.

First of all, thd hierarchy is not for influencing someone, but so that there would be people who would lead the church.

Let's not be unreasonable here. The Pope certainly is more important than a lay person when it comes to the Church's policies.

You might as well say that someone prevented from voting in America has just as much influence as the President on the US government's policies. It's not true.

-Nato

That is in perspective of politics, not in the eyes of God. What i said is that both lay and the clergy are equal in a sense that they are both servants. Servants of God.

 

[Renji]

I'm not sure how the traditions of the Church are support for any particular view when the question is why things were set up in a particular way from the outset. At some point, the decision was made to restrict the priesthood to men (even if it was at the establishment of the priesthood). At that point, you can't resort to "well, we've always done it this way" as support, because it wouldn't have happened yet.

Human traditions vs sacred traditions are different. See, from Jesus time he elected apostles that are male, which seems to be the natural order that God himself willed. We just follow. But, even if the church have clearly stated that it can't ordain women as priest, the pope has pronounced that they too have obligations but not in priesthood. I just don't see it discriminating knowing that a person also has other obligations to fulfill even if not in priesthood.

Didn't Jesus want the Good News to reach women?

Why, haven't the good news reached them? In my country for instance, there are plenty of religious orders and charismatic communities lead by nuns. If they don't have the goodnews yet, it would have impossible to them to organize such groups and teach people to 'turn from their wicked ways' and pray, etc. This is also pastoral work that they can do even their not a priest.

Built into the argument for an all-male priesthood is the idea that the makeup of the laity (i.e. the main body of the people Christ wants to reach) doesn't have to be reflected in the clergy. If you're now saying that the clergy does need to reflect all the people Jesus wanted to reach, then I think this is an argument in favour of women priests.

That is if it isn't contrary on the tradition. The church follows tradition in order not to deviate from its original roots which, as they say are apostolic in origin. Deviating from it means to deviate from the true church.