Discrimination in the Catholic Church

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Maybe not for their beliefs, but the government can prohibit their behavior if it's dangerous or discriminatory.

-Nato

It is not the government's right to decide what religious practices are bad. If churches do not want female pastors, that is their right.

 

[kepha31]

You proved that popes condemned it since the 1500s.

But in 1639 Pope Urban VIII bought slaves. And several other popes endorsed slavery prior to and after the 1500s.

Acording to this Protestant web site:
"As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Anselm (1033-1109)—forbade the enslavement of Christians."
The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Except when it wasn't:

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]

The Church never taught that slavery was good, only, as Paul noted, that, in a society in which slavery is accepted, the slave should be obedient to his master. Pope Pius IX
never taught that slavery was good either. He says there can be "several titles of just slavery" where human beings keep their dignity. He is not teaching chattel or racial slavery as your quote implies, which is what Wikipedia failed to mention.

They may have written things condemning slavery, but that sure didn't stop at least one of them from participating in the slave trade. This is all beside my points, which is that church tradition doesn't equal the word of God, and that the church discriminates.

A false conclusion based on misinformation and misrepresentation.

The infallibility of the teaching and doctrine are irrelevant if the church doesn't embrace them.

You confuse laxity with doctrine.

Who's to say who's right? The teachings keep changing.

Prove it.

Uh, slavery. The thing we were just talking about.

I don't mean scripture. I mean as taught papally.

"The essential anti-Catholic argument is this: "Catholicism must be false because it once endorsed slavery. The early Church approved slavery, as seen by St. Paul's command for slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22-25; Eph 6:5-8). Furthermore, the Catholic Church didn't get around to repudiating slavery until the 1890s and prior to that actually supported it. That the Church no longer does is fine. But this only proves the maleability of Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, if Catholicism can flip-flop on such an important moral issue as slavery, why not on others of its supposedly unchangeable doctrines, such as as the immorality of contraception or abortion?"

SLAVERY AND THE FIRST CHRISTIANS

But did the early Church endorse slavery? Certainly, the early Christians more or less tolerated the slavery of their day, as seen from the New Testament itself and the fact that after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, slavery was not immediately outlawed. Even so, this doesn't mean Christianity was compatible with Roman slavery or that the early Church did not contribute to its demise. In that regard, there are a number of important points to be kept in mind.

First, Let My People Go: The Catholic Church and Slavery

 

[blackout]

Songbird,any Pope is just human and a sinner [ just ask and he will say so ]
Anyways, a Pope only is infallible when it deals with the Christian faith ,not personal affairs, albeit most popes have been very good Christians, there is a big difference between impeccability and infallibility.

"Do as I say, not as I do"

 

[Quiddity]

Judas comes to mind.

 

[ryanam]

Male priests don't actually use their male genitalia as priests

Can't... tell... if... serious...

 

[Looncall]

It is not the government's right to decide what religious practices are bad. If churches do not want female pastors, that is their right.

So you are fine with people mutilating their daughters in following their religion?

 

[ryanam]

It is not the government's right to decide what religious practices are bad. If churches do not want female pastors, that is their right.

It is ABSOLUTELY the government's (or at least the people's) right to decide that child rape is a bad thing. Do some religious people truly believe they should have their own legislation which cannot be appealed to by the government?

You're lucky that what you just said is completely made up. There would be a whole new (even newer than ALL the others) war on religion's hands if it were the case.

 

[Sunstone]

"The essential anti-Catholic argument is this: "Catholicism must be false because it once endorsed slavery. The early Church approved slavery, as seen by St. Paul's command for slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22-25; Eph 6:5-8). Furthermore, the Catholic Church didn't get around to repudiating slavery until the 1890s and prior to that actually supported it. That the Church no longer does is fine. But this only proves the maleability of Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, if Catholicism can flip-flop on such an important moral issue as slavery, why not on others of its supposedly unchangeable doctrines, such as as the immorality of contraception or abortion?"

SLAVERY AND THE FIRST CHRISTIANS

But did the early Church endorse slavery? Certainly, the early Christians more or less tolerated the slavery of their day, as seen from the New Testament itself and the fact that after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, slavery was not immediately outlawed. Even so, this doesn't mean Christianity was compatible with Roman slavery or that the early Church did not contribute to its demise. In that regard, there are a number of important points to be kept in mind.

First, Let My People Go: The Catholic Church and Slavery

I'll be the first to say I'm not an expert on this issue, Kepha, but I don't think you need to be an expert to reason that telling slaves to obey their masters, as Paul clearly did, amounts to condoning slavery. In fact, I think to see it any other way, you need to tie reason in knots, for nothing was stopping Paul from, say, being silent on the issue of slavery -- had he not actually wished to condone it. And, since, it seems Paul condoned slavery, and the later Church did not, that there has indeed been fundamental changes in Church doctrine.

 

[ryanam]

It is not the government's right to decide what religious practices are bad. If churches do not want female pastors, that is their right.

The problem is, as well, that you could just as easily reword that to "If churches want to rape children, that is their right." and give it the same level of conviction.

 

[sojourner]

Raping children is a completely different matter than the belief that God does not call women to ordination.

 

[ryanam]

Of course it is. But for one to declare that the government should not have any right to question what goes on in the church is an insult to the parents of the children who were violated by that clutch of hysterical elderly virgins.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Of course it is. But for one to declare that the government should not have any right to question what goes on in the church is an insult to the parents of the children who were violated by that clutch of hysterical elderly virgins.

********

 

[Falcon]

sojourner,I can see that regardless of the fact that Jesus only ordained men , you will still criticize Christ's only Church that He left us, for ordaining only men.I'm not an educated man but when I see evidence ,far more evidence than I can find for not ordaining only men ,then I am smart enough to believe that is the way Jesus wants us to set up His Church .
Of course I can understand your reason to criticize God's Only Church on earth, being that your mother is an ordained minister, but you must understand that your mother and all other women ministers , in fact , all ministers, both Protestant men and women ministers, none of them are ordained the Bible way .
Here is why , using the Bible I will show you passages that bear witness to only the ordination of men, and " all ordinations " must be as the Bible teaches.

You really should read the complete passages of the following --Hebrews 4v 14 and 5 : 1-4.
and also this important passage - Matt 28: 18-20.

To make sure that His work would be continued , Jesus established the Priesthood , through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. -- " On behalf of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, appealing through us " . 2nd. Cor. 5 v 20.

" 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 " ---Hebrews 5 v 1 .

Did the Apostles consecrate priests ?
Yes, for example , Paul , Barnabas , Timothy, Titus, and Matthias [ Acts 13v3 , 14v 22 , 1: 24-26 and Titus 1v 5 ]

When did Jesus make the Apostles priests ?
At the Last Supper , on the night before He died , when He gave them the power to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood . --" Do this in remembrance of me ". Luke 22v 19.

How did the Apostles ordain priests ?
" Then having fasted and prayed and laid hands on them , they let them go " --Acts 13 v 3 .

Where does the authority of the priesthood come from ? ----From Jesus:
" He who hears you , hears me ; and he who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me , rejects Him who sent me" --Luke 10v 16.

Who can give the Sacrament of Holy Orders ? --- Only a Bishop .
" For this reason I left Crete, that thou shouldst set aright anything that is defective and shouldst appoint presbyters in every city, as I myself directed thee to do " -- Titus 1 v 5 .

What is necessary to become a priest ? After graduating from four or six or more years of college, a man must study four years at a seminary and be approved by his bishop.
" Do not lay hands hastily upon anyone " -- 1st Timothy 5 v 22.

Why don't priests get married ? Some converts are priests before coming into the Church and so are able to stay priests on completion of religious classes. All Catholic priests have a vchoice before the calling , to either live a single celibate life , get married , or become priests.
The consecrated single life help priests more easily to live a life of loving dedication to Jesus with an undivided heart-- 1st Cor. 7: 32-34.

 

[sojourner]

sojourner,I can see that regardless of the fact that Jesus only ordained men , you will still criticize Christ's only Church that He left us, for ordaining only men.

I don't criticize Christ's only church for ordaining only men, for Christ's only church ordains both women and men. I criticize your branch of Christ's only church for ordaining only men.

Of course I can understand your reason to criticize God's Only Church on earth, being that your mother is an ordained minister, but you must understand that your mother and all other women ministers , in fact , all ministers, both Protestant men and women ministers, none of them are ordained the Bible way .

Yes. They are.

Here is why , using the Bible I will show you passages that bear witness to only the ordination of men, and " all ordinations " must be as the Bible teaches.

You really should read the complete passages of the following --Hebrews 4v 14 and 5 : 1-4.
and also this important passage - Matt 28: 18-20.

To make sure that His work would be continued , Jesus established the Priesthood , through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. -- " On behalf of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, appealing through us " . 2nd. Cor. 5 v 20.

" 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 " ---Hebrews 5 v 1 .

Did the Apostles consecrate priests ?
Yes, for example , Paul , Barnabas , Timothy, Titus, and Matthias [ Acts 13v3 , 14v 22 , 1: 24-26 and Titus 1v 5 ]

When did Jesus make the Apostles priests ?
At the Last Supper , on the night before He died , when He gave them the power to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood . --" Do this in remembrance of me ". Luke 22v 19.

How did the Apostles ordain priests ?
" Then having fasted and prayed and laid hands on them , they let them go " --Acts 13 v 3 .

Where does the authority of the priesthood come from ? ----From Jesus:
" He who hears you , hears me ; and he who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me , rejects Him who sent me" --Luke 10v 16.

Who can give the Sacrament of Holy Orders ? --- Only a Bishop .
" For this reason I left Crete, that thou shouldst set aright anything that is defective and shouldst appoint presbyters in every city, as I myself directed thee to do " -- Titus 1 v 5 .

What is necessary to become a priest ? After graduating from four or six or more years of college, a man must study four years at a seminary and be approved by his bishop.
" Do not lay hands hastily upon anyone " -- 1st Timothy 5 v 22.

Why don't priests get married ? Some converts are priests before coming into the Church and so are able to stay priests on completion of religious classes. All Catholic priests have a vchoice before the calling , to either live a single celibate life , get married , or become priests.
The consecrated single life help priests more easily to live a life of loving dedication to Jesus with an undivided heart-- 1st Cor. 7: 32-34.

I don't have a problem with any of this, either as it pertains to ordination in the RCC, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, or Protestants. We all do these things, whether we call them "priests" or "presbyters."

 

[Falcon]

sojouner, you are so wrong. First -supply evidence from any reliable competent sourse to show where Jesus formed and left us with more than His "one "Apostolic Church ,while proving from the Bible that it wasn't based on His Apostles, being that they alone, with nobody else [ with the exception of their qualified successors ],were given all authority ?,
Second, Book , Chapter and Verse where Jesus or any one of His Apostles ordained [ the Bible way ] any woman as a presbyter.
Third -
Where does your authority come from? If from Jesus, please show it from the Holy Bible where Jesus gave your particular church the authority to start your particular church different from that "One Church" that Jesus left us with ? [ Presbyters/elders [ priests ] were ordained , preached and taught the flock, administered sacraments , Acts 15: 6; 23; 1 Tim4: 14; 5: 22; 1 Tim 5: 17; Jas 5: 13-15; Rom 15v16
Built on Apostles -1 Cor 3:10; Eph 2; 20; Rev. 21v 14.
Where is your' same 'Doctrine as Christ's Church recevied from Him [sacred rite [ bread ] as found in Acts 2 v 42 ?
Where is your authority as given by Jesus to only His Apostolic Church ? [ Mt. 16: 18-19; 18; 18; Jn 20 : 23 ]
Please show be any kind of documentation , even if it's from any writings that you have from the early Christians, that show Jesus predicted or preached of other churches being formed under His Authority that will have the same authority and power as given that One 'Apostolic "Church infused with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost 1st. century. Try and prove your point sojourner,that Jesus either made a mistake by forgetting to inform
us, as from the Bible, or from his oral preachings to His Apostles of these different churches all invented by mere men who apparently think that they have as much authority as Jesus to break away from His Church and go off and invent their own curches and cults ?
Only 'One "Church belongs to Jesus and that Church is based on His Apostles/ successors which was the only Church ever infused with the Holy Spirit .

 

[sojourner]

sojouner, you are so wrong. First -supply evidence from any reliable competent sourse to show where Jesus formed and left us with more than His "one "Apostolic Church ,while proving from the Bible that it wasn't based on His Apostles, being that they alone, with nobody else [ with the exception of their qualified successors ],were given all authority ?,

I'm not saying that Jesus left us with more than his one Church. It was based upon Jesus and his teachings (at least from a Biblical POV). How does the Bible specify "qualified?"

Book , Chapter and Verse where Jesus or any one of His Apostles ordained [ the Bible way ] any woman as a presbyter.

Gee... I was unaware that the RCC had ever adopted sola scriptura.
It's at least passably arguable that Prscia was in charge of a congregation -- and Phoebe.
Nevertheless, we've already established that cultural practice may be overridden when it does not contribute to Xian practice in other cultures.

Where does your authority come from? If from Jesus, please show it from the Holy Bible where Jesus gave your particular church the authority to start your particular church different from that "One Church" that Jesus left us with ?

Please show me from the Bible where Jesus says there is any particular church other than his one church -- you know, the one church you and I are both part of.

Where is your' same 'Doctrine as Christ's Church recevied from Him [sacred rite [ bread ] as found in Acts 2 v 42 ?
Where is your authority as given by Jesus to only His Apostolic Church ?

In the Bible.
With Jesus.
Same as you.

Please show be any kind of documentation , even if it's from any writings that you have from the early Christians, that show Jesus predicted or preached of other churches being formed under His Authority that will have the same authority and power as given that One 'Apostolic "Church infused with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost 1st. century.

I'm not the one saying there are multiple churches. I'm insisting that there is only one church, and you and I are both part of it. If it ain't in there, why are you arguing for it?

Try and prove your point sojourner,that Jesus either made a mistake by forgetting to inform
us, as from the Bible, or from his oral preachings to His Apostles of these different churches all invented by mere men who apparently think that they have as much authority as Jesus to break away from His Church and go off and invent their own curches and cults ?

I'm not aware of any church that broke from itself. I am aware of churches breaking with Rome's authority, but it's obvious to anyone with a brain stem that Rome does not hold and never has held all of the authority cards. Which mere men apparently think that they have the monopoly on authority? Certainly not my branch! Jesus wanted us to share our toys and play nice with the poor kids. Which branch, according to this thread is patently refusing to do that?

Only 'One "Church belongs to Jesus and that Church is based on His Apostles/ successors which was the only Church ever infused with the Holy Spirit .

Yep, and we're both part of it.


Keep this up, Falcon, and you're going to force me to rescend everything I've said here about the RCC not engaging in discriminatory acts. Jesus said we get to play too. Share the monkeybars!

 

[Falcon]

Why are you afraid to admit that Jesus taught exclusely to only His Apostles on matters of the Christian faith ,to them went everything needed for salvation , why , because they were the nucleus of His Church, which was Apostolic ,and not Baptist, Methodist , Anglican. JW. Mormon etc. Only One Church can trace their lineage directly back to Jesus and His 'Teaching Apostles " for the last two-thousand years, none other and that Church has to be Apostolic. If any Church can not claim themselves Apostolic by lineage then they are simply man-made and not from Jesus , they may teach Jesus , but not with the Fullness of the Christian Faith, along with that "One " interpretation, as was intended, not as we have it since protesters split from Christ's Church and still spitting along with entirely different understanding of the Gospels. One Flock, One Shepherd , with the same commands / teachings [ interpretation]. from that Shepherd , the Head of His One True Church.

 

[sojourner]

to them went everything needed for salvation , why , because they were the nucleus of His Church, which was Apostolic ,and not Baptist, Methodist , Anglican. JW. Mormon etc.

Nor Roman...

Only One Church can trace their lineage directly back to Jesus and His 'Teaching Apostles " for the last two-thousand years, none other and that Church has to be Apostolic.

You're deluding yourself. No branch can definitively do that. Oh, sure, there are traditions and legends about Linus, but nothing really hard and fast. The Orthodox can come just as close, and so can the Copts.

If any Church can not claim themselves Apostolic by lineage then they are simply man-made and not from Jesus , they may teach Jesus , but not with the Fullness of the Christian Faith, along with that "One " interpretation, as was intended,

Including the RCC. Those who live in glass houses ought not to throw rocks...

not as we have it since protesters split from Christ's Church and still spitting along with entirely different understanding of the Gospels.

The only one claiming you have "it" is ... you. You split from the Orthodox. You forced Luther out -- he wanted to remain within the RCC. Seems like you're as guilty as the rest of us.

One Flock, One Shepherd , with the same commands / teachings [ interpretation]. from that Shepherd , the Head of His One True Church.

Oh, if wishes were horses...
Why are you so afraid to admit that unity is found in diversity -- not in uniformity?

 

[Me Myself]

Why are you afraid to admit that Jesus taught exclusely to only His Apostles on matters of the Christian faith ,to them went everything needed for salvation

Because it´s wrong? Jesus wanted everyone in, it was ridiculously obvios.

Now, just because Paul was dense that doesn´t mean his sexism should modify every branch of christianism.

Paul was sexist. There are passages that make it obvious enough.

 

[Me Myself]

Why are you so afraid to admit that unity is found in diversity -- not in uniformity?

Cause that would take all the fun out of shameless discrimination under the excuse of alleged divine authority