for catholics: Why do you view women as spiritually inferior?

why do i claim that catholics see women as spiritually inferior?
simply because they dont' allow women to become priests
a man can serve the same functions as a woman and more, but a woman cannot

the church claims that women and men are equal in the eyes of "god"
why doesn't the church act on "god's will"?

i'll expand this to all other christian sects that don't allow women to be some sort of religious leader on an equal position with men

what!?!?!?

i am a catholic (well, i am more of "undecided" right now but i have made the sacraments and all that) and i don't view women as "spiritually superior"...

a simple google search led me here:

Why Can’t Women Be Priests?...

So, if a woman’s abilities are not in question, what’s keeping the Church from ordaining her? For one, it should be noted that Jesus did not ordain any women. He selected all of his apostles, and none were women.

...

Two thousand years later, no one—including the pope—has the authority to change the designs of the Church that Christ instituted. Specifically, the Church is unable to change the substance of a sacrament. For example, a person cannot be baptized in wine, nor may a substance other than bread be used for the consecration at Mass. If invalid matter is used, then the sacrament does not take place. Likewise, since the priest acts in the person of Christ, the Church has no authority to confer the sacrament on those who are unable to represent the male Jesus Christ.

simply, jesus didn't ordain women for whatever reason and the church should not change something that jesus did or the rules and values he had (although they do sometimes)...

the same google search led me here:

Why Women Can't be Priests...

i liked this part:

We can't make the mistake of seeing the Church as an enterprise, goverment or any work place. Women aren't denied the priesthood because of a foolish law made by man but by the plan of God. There is no battle over equality in the church, women can give life, men can't; men can be priests and deacons but women can't and never will.

This is now a matter of faith, any priest who declares otherwise is wrong and against the definitive teaching of the Catholic Church: women will never be priests. The teachings of JP II are definitive and he has denied permission for any further discussion on this topic of woman priests.

here is what i got from searching "why can't woman be priests" in google:

linky...

again, i am what you may call "spiritually undecided," but i know the facts and that is all that matters...

i hope i answered your question...

i am not biased so, if you desire, post back and we can have a friendly debate...




EDIT: spelling...
[edit on 16-1-2007 by they see ALL]

[edit on 16-1-2007 by they see ALL]

Busted, LOL!
For one, Jesus did not ordain any women. He selected all of his apostles, and none were women. It wasn't Matthew, Mark, Luke and Janet. You know? Women followed him around and were allowed to spread his word. But men, were put in charge of his church. Women are viewed as lifegivers and caregivers by God. But he put the men in charge of his church and it's been that way since he died.


[edit on 16-1-2007 by rocknroll]

Originally posted by rocknroll
For one, Jesus did not ordain any women. He selected all of his apostles, and none were women. All men. Some say he was bound by the cultural norms of his time to suppress the roles of women, but no one can prove this was his motive. Furthermore, this would accuse Jesus of sexism which paints the wrong portrait of him. The idea of priestesses was not unknown to him, since it was a common practice in religions of his time.

[edit on 16-1-2007 by rocknroll]

did you copy-and-paste from here???:

linky...

you should change some words around...




[edit on 16-1-2007 by they see ALL]

Originally posted by they see ALL
did you copy-and-paste from here???:

Absolutely not. Why would you say that?

they see ALL, the "women can give birth and men can't" argument is very bogus
one is a biological function
the other is a spiritual function

you're simply saying that jesus didn't ordain any women so the church is absolved of sexism?

this still doesn't answer my question
actually, it complicates it

jesus didn't ordain any women
does that make them spiritually inferior?
hell, the OT states that no woman shall teach a man, don't have citation at the moment, maybe jesus was following that old sexist doctrine
you're basically painting women as spiritually inferior, but it's ok because jesus didn't ordain them

Originally posted by rocknroll
Absolutely not. Why would you say that?

just wondering...

to me it looked similar to a paragraph on the page linked above...

but, enough of this as you say you didn't, let's stay on this fun topic...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
hell, the OT states that no woman shall teach a man, don't have citation at the moment, maybe jesus was following that old sexist doctrine
you're basically painting women as spiritually inferior, but it's ok because jesus didn't ordain them

It's also in the NT. Timothy didn't have a very high opinion of women.

What are you talking about, look how highly they hold the virgin Mary.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
What are you talking about, look how highly they hold the virgin Mary.

only because she was conceived without sin

today, the virgin mary would not be allowed to become a deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope

It doesn't matter, we know God sees all people equally, and that is what matters.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
they see ALL, the "women can give birth and men can't" argument is very bogus
one is a biological function
the other is a spiritual function

true, but its not my argument...

it was www.domestic-church.com's words and i just posted it because i thought it clearly explained my stance on this (i guess it didn't)...

you're simply saying that jesus didn't ordain any women so the church is absolved of sexism?

the church isn't sexist at all...

jesus didn't have female apostles for whatever reason, but it certainly wasn't because he was sexist...

in fact, one of jesus' close friends was mary magdalen (yes, a female)...

the bible shows that she was a close friend to him and maybe something more special to him (a girlfriend or a wife if you follow other texts)...

this still doesn't answer my question
actually, it complicates it

i answered the original question perfectly...

jesus didn't ordain any women
does that make them spiritually inferior?

absolutely not...

although, in certain gnostic texts, it is said that jesus taught that women were spiritually inferior...

hell, the OT states that no woman shall teach a man, don't have citation at the moment, maybe jesus was following that old sexist doctrine
you're basically painting women as spiritually inferior, but it's ok because jesus didn't ordain them

the old testament is just that, and old testament filled with old jewish information...

it is my understanding that jesus came to fulfill certain aspects of the old testament and to break certain old traditions...

again, jesus was definitely not a sexist...

he loved all, including his mother, mary magdalen, an other women...

they see ALL, what about all the rampant sexism in the new testament?
want citations on sexism?

Romans 1:27
1 Corinthians 11:3
1 Corinthians 11:7
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Ephesians 5:22-24
Colossians 3:18
1 Timothy 2:11-12
1 Timothy 2:14-15
Titus 2:4-5
1 Peter 3:1
1 Peter 3:2-6
1 Peter 3:7

i'd post the actual excerpts, but that would be far too time-consuming for me to do right now

simple...the Catholic church is a boys club.

Eve was tempted by the devil and ate the apple - strike 1

Lot's wife defied him and looked back - strike 2

just two examples off the top of my head...there must be many more.



Eve set the precedent and women will forever been seen as weak and not to be trusted



my 2 cents worth


[edit on 17-1-2007 by resistancia]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'd post the actual excerpts, but that would be far too time-consuming for me to do right now

when time permits, post them...

i actually can't believe i am defending christianity here :bash:

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
they see ALL, what about all the rampant sexism in the new testament?
want citations on sexism?

Romans 1:27
1 Corinthians 11:3
1 Corinthians 11:7
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Ephesians 5:22-24
Colossians 3:18
1 Timothy 2:11-12
1 Timothy 2:14-15
Titus 2:4-5
1 Peter 3:1
1 Peter 3:2-6
1 Peter 3:7

i was bored at 2:47am and decided to pick some random passages to see what i could make of them...

here is what i got:

1 Peter 3:7...

bible.cc...

KJV: Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

is peter saying here that the wife is "the weaker vessel"???

if so, this is pretty new to me...

but look at the main point of the message: giving honor to the wife and sharing the grace of life...

Titus 2:4-5...

bible.cc...

KJV: That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

(continued below)

bible.cc...

KJV: To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

this is not really sexist (unless you think its sexist to state that teaching women to be chaste and keepers of the home is sexist)...

these were the old days and women had duties like these...

christianity / jesus aren't sexist because of the traditions back then...

1 Corinthians 11:7...

bible.cc...

KJV: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

so this quote is saying that men are the image of god and women are the "glory" of the men...

again, this is pretty new stuff to me...

the women being the glory of the men (whatever that means) makes sense because god made adam first and then took out his rib to assist in making eve...

but, maybe i am looking too much into it (it may be my "advanced placement english" class)...

i took these three passages at random and did my best to put my two cents in for you...

its now 3:03am here and i am tired...

thus, i will retire now and continue later (after you post the rest of the passages using the king james version of the bible)...

Originally posted by resistancia
Eve set the precedent and women will forever been seen as weak and not to be trusted

this makes you seem like a sexist...

That whole story about the rib doesn't bear out scientifically. Genetic science has shown that the y chromosome is a mutant version of the x, that the x chromosome is the template and the y mutation is missing a segment of the x.

Mind you - the gospels were written in a man's world, by men, where even today women do 80% of the world's labor and hold only 2% of the wealth. As I type a mutant version of humanity is causing his wife to weep loudly - echoing through the thin wall constructed with profit in mind by mutants. Now it is rising to a crescendo of loud desperate wailing punctuated by a resounding thump.

I think I'll call the police.

Attendance at church has dwindled down to a mostly female fellowship, in the Western world. The highest numbers of new devotees praying fervantly in Africa and South America for some type of human worth that doesn't hinge on power or wealth.

I would have to say that the church doesn't ordain women simply because they already have enough work to do and this way mutants are compelled into the spiritual service of them instead of the biological and social reverse predictably compelled by a man's world.

After all, if they did ordain women - there would be quickly a 90% disadvantage to the mutants in said roles being outnumbered within a few short years. Since females have more frail physical attributes and shriller voices which the human ear doesn't hear as easily or with as much comfort, the church would immediately suffer a set-back in social standing and be viewed as a female cult of Isis, or something.

In order to guarantee at least a modicum of spiritual husbandry and mutant responsibility to the flock - mutants are solely offered the position. That way their flagging egos which depend so much on the rather homosexual inclination of each other's approval to the exclusion of the female opinion - which remains free to nurture in a more motherly way - is not threatened and the church remains viable in a male power-structured world. Women have enough work to do as it is. If they're permitted to be priests the value of the position would drop and the last few remaining chaste and stalwart souls of the mutant gender would abdicate the job with a self-satisfied flourish.

Ah beelzebub - I hate wife-beaters.

lol Jesus didn't ordain women 'for what ever reason'?

Wake up will you, Jesus didn't ordain women because 2000 years ago women had there place in the home and thats where they should stay(2000 years ago that is). And don't think that just because Jesus may have been the son of God that he should think any differently, he was brought up around a world where women had there place in the home, there was no reason for him to think differently, he was after all only human.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
What are you talking about, look how highly they hold the virgin Mary.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

only because she was conceived without sin

Well, technically anyone who was born within a covenant of marriage was "conceived without sin" I believe. Or if you buy into the idea we are all conceived thorugh sin because of original sin-what/where says her parents were exempt, thus she was conceived without sin?

Perhaps you meant to imply Mary is revered because she herself conceived a child without sin? But actually it was that she conceived as a virgin-without sex with a mortal man taking her virginity-but sex and sin are not interchangeable. Fornication (as in sex outside of marriage) and adultry are sin, but not all sex.



[edit on 17-1-2007 by 2l82sk8]

as to your original question-which I can't even believe I'm getting into this *flaming for points* political-liberal-psuedo-religious-Christian-bashing topic....

What makes you think because the burden of tasks given to men is not equal to that which is given to women...and that women are to be loved, cherished, protected, and cared for...that women are not revered, or are seen as inferior by churches or God?

Perhaps they are quite revered-even above men...and the tasks of men, are beneath them? Could be...

Now, perhaps you have children or have at least heard from other's people's children, or have cried out yourself with indignation to your own parents, the famous cry of "That's not fair!" then you can understand how childish this arguement is seen by me.

There is balance everywhere. Who are you, or anyone, to try to discredit or blast the beliefs of others through a thinly disgused topic for debate in the form of a question?

Why question the religious beliefs or pratices of others? Surely it is not to truly understand, gain perspective or tolerance.

Why not be tolerant and let those who believe, believe as they do and practice as they wish? Why-besides controversy, self importance or the Almighty ATS(or in this case BTS) Points, do people start such threads?

Anyway, even within the order of spiritual gifts given, the Bible says I believe, that some will have the gift of prophecy, some healing, some teaching, etc...

Shall they then cry "thats not fair!" or "He is favored over me because of his gifts!" Or "Why are all the good gifts given to the most holy of men?" or something similarly ludicrous by the men?

Women are given many gifts as well as men anyway, and many tasks in this life.

The giving birth arguement is very valid btw, even if it is a biological function. How does that negate it's importance in comparing the roles, and tasks, and gifts, and burdons God distributed between man and women?

Also, as someone mentioned, there was a priesthod order before Jesus was ever born, and because he too followed the ways from the begining and ordained men, does not mean he saw women as inferior, or that God his father did. There are just some taks women were and are just not chosen for.

I am sure there are some men in some churches, and groups who wish to interpret things as you do and see it as reason to believe women inferior or treat them so, but God sees them as equal, even if he doesn't burdon women equally with the same tasks of men on earth.

Is it fair? Does it imply inequality? Let each within their OWN belief system work that out. The answer even for them might still be "life is not fair" "Tasks are not equal" however, humans-male and female are equal in the eyes of God-regardless if life is fair or tasks are equal.



[edit on 17-1-2007 by 2l82sk8]



[edit on 17-1-2007 by 2l82sk8]