Discrimination in the Catholic Church

[Falcon]

Penguin, Jesus tell [ commands ] only His Eleven , because the replacement/ successor of Judas hadn't been chosen at this time . So Jesus commands those men ,His Apostles , the following command and lecture , Then Jesus approached them and said : "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go , therefore , and make disciples of all nations , baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you aiways , until the end of the age. "

Also Jesus commanded again only "men ' ,when He tells them [ only His Apostles ] the following found in Luke 10 v 16 " He who hears you, hears me: and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me "

To His chief apostle , Jesus says : " Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven " -- Matt. 16v 19.

To His apostle ,Jesus says : " I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven "

Jesus commands His chief earthly shepherd : " .... to Simon Peter , feed my lambs ... feed my lambs ... feed by sheep [ John 21 : 15-17 .

No women there with any kind of authority . The only "teaches with authority". were His apostles / successors as indicated by the Bible

 

[Mister Emu]

So it's more chauvinism than discrimination?

No more or less than women having the honor of motherhood.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

No women there with any kind of authority .

So since Jesus lived in a patriarchal society before the age of women's rights, believers today shouldn't make their religious institutions any more inclusive?

I'm not a believer, so I couldn't care either way. But doesn't it seem like a Church based on male privilege will eventually alienate women?

-Nato

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Religions have the right to discriminate. If people do not like it, they do not have to join. Plain and simple.

 

[Falcon]

E. Nato..., women can also join the Church clergy ,just not as priests.
Read Mister Emu 's post , it is a good answer.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

E. Nato..., women can also join the Church clergy ,just not as priests.

If women can't be ordained, they can't be members of the actual clergy. They can't be priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, or any authority figure in the Church hierarchy.

-Nato

 

[Looncall]

Religions have the right to discriminate. If people do not like it, they do not have to join. Plain and simple.

However, religions often manage to acquire public resources, as when separate schools receive state funding. If the religions then discriminate in ways that would otherwise be illegal, I do not see why they should not be cut off from public support.

A publicly-funded Catholic school system near where I live has decided to disallow anti-gay-bullying activities by students. I think that the province should now defund that school system.

 

[Falcon]

E. Nato,you wrote: "If women can't be ordained, they can't be members of the actual clergy. They can't be priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, or any authority figure in the Church hierarchy.

And the above can't give birth to children. Accept the way God made things , and quit bellyaching.You could always become a nun and if you want authority , strive to become a Mother Superior . God set everything up the way He wants it , not the way we want it. Accept it and please stop complaining about God's earthly Church.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

E. Nato,you wrote: "If women can't be ordained, they can't be members of the actual clergy. They can't be priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, or any authority figure in the Church hierarchy.

And the above can't give birth to children. Accept the way God made things , and quit bellyaching.You could always become a nun and if you want authority , strive to become a Mother Superior . God set everything up the way He wants it , not the way we want it. Accept it and please stop complaining about God's earthly Church.

See what I mean? Blame the Big Guy.

It what the anti-abolitionists said whenever someone questioned the propriety of the institution of slavery. After all, there was plenty of Scriptural support for that too.

-Nato

 

[Falcon]

E. Nato, only because the Protestants had and have the wrong interpretation of Scripture.There is only "one " interpretation of Scripture.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

E. Nato, only because the Protestants had and have the wrong interpretation of Scripture.There is only "one " interpretation of Scripture.

This is the most laughable thing Christians and such say. Go ask a Jew if the Church's interpretation of the Old Testament is correct.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

E. Nato, only because the Protestants had and have the wrong interpretation of Scripture.There is only "one " interpretation of Scripture.

Tell the Pope, then. Years after even the USA had abolished slavery (and decades after, ahem, Protestant Britain became the first nation to repudiate the institution), Pius IX sent a letter to a Vicar Apostolic in Ethiopia that made the Church's official stance on the issue perfectly clear:

Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.

[SIZE=-1]Pope Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD). J.F.MAXWELL, ‘The Development of Catholic Doctrine Concerning Slavery’, World Jurist 11 (1969-70) pp.306-307[/SIZE]

-Nato

 

[Songbird]

What "other callings" are you referring to? The church deals exclusively with calls to ministry of various kinds.

Ah, I mean any other calling. When you said a call works according to a three-fold formula, being first issued by God, the first thing I thought of was that people feel called by God to do various things. I didn't realize you meant specifically a ministry call. The church confirming a man's call but not a woman's to priesthood is still discriminatory.

 

[Falcon]

Again, I say to you that if you are calling His Church [ Jesus said " my church " in Matt. 16 18-19 ] discriminatory, then you are calling Jesus discriminatory. Jesus is the Founder of His Church. That is the way He set it up . So, either you accept His One True Church or you do as some of the earlier followers of Jesus did , which was , to walk no more with Him [ John 6 : 41- 71 ]. Many men ,not liking the way Jesus formed His Church , went away from His Church and formed their own cafeteria -style [ take what you want and leave the rest ] churches tha continue to split to this day with everyone of them having their own interpretation of Scripture so as to fit into their own personal religious agenda. There is only "One Interpretation " and only 'One " Church has had it down through the ages from the time Jesus formed His Apostolic ,Universal Church at Pentecost with the infusion of His Holy Spirit. No other Church can claim this but "one " [ meaning all Apostolic Churches that can trace their religious lineage directly back to Jesus and His Apostles/ Successors and all with the same 'Doctrine " ] and that is just the way Jesus formed it , take it or leave it. Jesus doesn't lie or make mistakes. God isn't the inventor of confusion , mere man is, that's why there are so many conflicting confused churches along with their brain-washed [ even more so confused ] cults.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

that is just the way Jesus formed it , take it or leave it. Jesus doesn't lie or make mistakes. God isn't the inventor of confusion , mere man is, that's why there are so many conflicting confused churches along with their brain-washed [ even more so confused ] cults.

I certainly don't want to run the risk of brainwashing. Could you suggest a dogma I could believe unquestioningly instead?

-Nato

 

[Songbird]

Again, I say to you that if you are calling His Church [ Jesus said " my church " in Matt. 16 18-19 ] discriminatory, then you are calling Jesus discriminatory. Jesus is the Founder of His Church. That is the way He set it up .

No He didn't.

 

[Falcon]

Songbird, you are mistaken, pick up your Bible and read verse Matt 16: 18-19. Jesus said He will build His Church on earth and always provide a shepherd for us ,until the real "Shepherd " returns. Jesus said : " my church ' [ singular form ] not churches .

 

[Songbird]

Songbird, you are mistaken, pick up your Bible and read verse Matt 16: 18-19. Jesus said He will build His Church on earth and always provide a shepherd for us ,until the real "Shepherd " returns. Jesus said : " my church ' [ singular form ] not churches .

I read it, Falcon. Nowhere did he specify a male priesthood. Nowhere.

 

[Falcon]

Originally Posted by Falcon
Again, I say to you that if you are calling His Church [ Jesus said " my church " in Matt. 16 18-19 ] discriminatory, then you are calling Jesus discriminatory. Jesus is the Founder of His Church. That is the way He set it up .
Songbird, this is what you wrote as an answer to that which I originally posted--
Originally Posted by Falcon
Again, I say to you that if you are calling His Church [ Jesus said " my church " in Matt. 16 18-19 ] discriminatory, then you are calling Jesus discriminatory. Jesus is the Founder of His Church. That is the way He set it up .
Songbird , you answered : "No He didn't."

I'm saying that Jesus said "my church " in Matt 16: 18-19.
Of course I realize that Jesus no where said He only would 'ordain " men. But, at the same time , He never said to ordain women also. All we got to go by is the true fact that Jesus only ordained men "only ". So, don't you think that if Jesus only appointed men that His Church that He founded would continually ordain only men also.
To really understand this , you must read the following passage, it is quite long, but here is a snippet Heb. 4: 14-5: 1-4, ........" For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in the things pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins'.........
Songbird, read that passage in its entirety, hope it helps you to understand why only men are ordained.

 

[Songbird]

Originally Posted by Falcon
Again, I say to you that if you are calling His Church [ Jesus said " my church " in Matt. 16 18-19 ] discriminatory, then you are calling Jesus discriminatory. Jesus is the Founder of His Church. That is the way He set it up .
Songbird, this is what you wrote as an answer to that which I originally posted--
Originally Posted by Falcon
Again, I say to you that if you are calling His Church [ Jesus said " my church " in Matt. 16 18-19 ] discriminatory, then you are calling Jesus discriminatory. Jesus is the Founder of His Church. That is the way He set it up .
Songbird , you answered : "No He didn't."

I'm saying that Jesus said "my church " in Matt 16: 18-19.
Of course I realize that Jesus no where said He only would 'ordain " men. But, at the same time , He never said to ordain women also. All we got to go by is the true fact that Jesus only ordained men "only ". So, don't you think that if Jesus only appointed men that His Church that He founded would continually ordain only men also.
To really understand this , you must read the following passage, it is quite long, but here is a snippet Heb. 4: 14-5: 1-4, ........" For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in the things pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins'.........
Songbird, read that passage in its entirety, hope it helps you to understand why only men are ordained.

It doesn't help at all. And as someone earlier pointed out, he also only ordained Jews.