Catholics angry as church puts female ordination on par with sex abuse

[texmaster]

They're both sets of religious laws that can be followed as long as they remain within the bounds of the laws of the nation. Don't let your kneejerk distaste for all things Muslim blind you to simple comparisons.

Sharia law expoits women and eqates them to farm animals. To relate the two is completely absurd and a cheap shot.

And no I'm not Catholic. I'm Episcopalian.

 

[Guy Incognito]

These woman according to the Vatican are sinners in the highest regard, and to contain that they will be let back so easily is laughable. Heck my whole family on my Mothers side is Catholic, so I have inside knowledge on the workings of the Catholic Church. These things do take years to resolve, and they have to be approved by the church then, and only then are they allowed back in.

An excommunication can takes years to effect as well, it is a serious proceeding. The canon law has its own version of "due process" and there are many steps between an allegation of delicta graviora, a defrocking, and an outright excommunication. The excommunication isn't likely to happen at all unless there is a willful violation of the sacrament, which case of priests who perform the illicit ordinations. Should such a priest perform the illicit ordinations, resulting in an excommunication, and then repent fully, he will be welcomed back into full communion as a matter of law. Now, in practice, what you are seeing with these illicit ordinations are priests who have made a conscious decision to perform these illicit ordinations in protest, so the fact is you just aren't likely to see repentance warranting a return to the communion. Furthermore, I have read nothing that indicates the revision of these norms applied to the illicitly ordained women, it seems like a contradiction that women could even commit a delict. Do you have a link the actual revisions? I can't seem to find it anywhere, so I can't really say what will happen to the women themselves. However, if an illicit ordination carries the penalty of excommunication, all they have to do to return to communion is renounce their illicit ordination and perform a full penance, and they will be returned to full communion as a matter of law.

To my latter point about Mary being the reason woman are demonized in Christianity is because she was the mother of Jesus Child. I'm not saying everything in the Dinvi CI Code is true I just think some of the things like Jesus having a Child with Mary is true.

Gnostic writings say this to be true, and these are the earliest know writings to date about the life of Jesus which are dated to the 2nd century.


This is why I don't believe they will back in, so easily

It is getting a little tangential to the topic, but you are raising some interesting points. Historically, it is likely that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were husband and wife. A respected rabbi of the time would have been expected to be married, and Mary Magdelene just fits the bill. But there is really no definitive proof one way or another, and the Catholic Church takes the position that Jesus never married for a number of reasons. Similarly, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute, though this is part of the popular imagination it does not appear in the Bible nor is it part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

[texmaster]

Both care denominational laws based on religion. It's a clear similarity. Are there differences? Of course, I never suggested otherwise, but there are also similarities.

One treats women as being on par with farm animals Redress. To equate them is completely dishonest.

 

[Laila]

How is it that no matter what the original topic of the thread is within pages it somehow comes back to Islam?

 

[Jetboogieman]

How is it that no matter what the original topic of the thread is within pages it somehow comes back to Islam?

Because we all know that Christianity is infallible. And so if anyone attacks Christianity in any way, we have to resort to bashing another religion to make the Christians look better.

 

[spud_meister]

How is it that no matter what the original topic of the thread is within pages it somehow comes back to Islam?

'cause things are OK as long as islamic nutters do something worse

 

[Guy Incognito]

How is it that no matter what the original topic of the thread is within pages it somehow comes back to Islam?

Islam is a beautiful religion and a religion of Peace. The best way to show it the respect it deserves is to not even acknowledge people who have an unfortunate axe to grind.

 

[Laila]

Islam is a beautiful religion and a religion of Peace. The best way to show it the respect it deserves is to not even acknowledge people who have an unfortunate axe to grind.

Oh don't be bothered by other peoples comments on Islam. It is only Muslims opinion on Islam that matter anyway.
If anything I am very flattered that so many on this forum have a psychotic obsession with my religion.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Oh don't be bothered by other peoples comments on Islam. It is only Muslims opinion on Islam that matter anyway.
If anything I am very flattered that so many on this forum have a psychotic obsession with my religion.

Good points!

 

[Hatuey]

Sharia law expoits women and eqates them to farm animals.

Hope you have a source for that other than a blog.

 

[ric27]

Anti-Semitism? Really? You can document that?

A left wing rag with left wing editors....

Oh, dear!...its wikipedia :shock:

The Guardian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

accusations of bias in coverage of Israel
Despite its early support for the Zionist movement, in recent decades The Guardian has been accused of exaggerating in bias criticism of Israeli government policy. In December 2003 columnist Julie Burchill cited "striking bias against the state of Israel" as one of the reasons she left the paper for The Times.[42] A leaked report from the European Monitoring Centre on Racism cited The Economist's claim that for "many British Jews," the British media's reporting on Israel "is spiced with a tone of animosity, 'as to smell of anti-Semitism'... This is above all the case with the Guardian and The Independent".[43][44] Greville Janner, former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, has accused The Guardian of being "viciously and notoriously anti-Israel".[45]

 

[Redress]

One treats women as being on par with farm animals Redress. To equate them is completely dishonest.

What about Sharia law though?

 

[Thorgasm]

What is this CCD class? It's theological. A sacramental marriage is between two baptized Catholics. It is a marriage that literally takes place through Christ, so it cannot be undone by any act of man. A nonsacramental marriage is any other kind of marriage, between a Catholic and a non-Catholic and technically including a marriage two non-Catholics as well. It is considered to be a valid marriage, but since it is not through Christ it is not permanent in the theological sense, so it can be undone. A sacramental marriage that has not yet been consummated can also be annulled by a bishop by the same principle.

So the other marriages don't go through Christ. They wouldn't be considered "holy matrimony".

 

[ric27]

I have never understood the fierce insistence with which people cling to churches whose beliefs they disagree with. If you think Catholic doctrine is morally disagreeable, why in the Hell are you still Catholic?

Nope. Not Catholic, but my wife is Jewish

 

[Redress]

A left wing rag with left wing editors....

Oh, dear!...its wikipedia :shock:

The Guardian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really, so a few people say a paper is anti-semitic, and we are supposed to believe that? When so much as lightly criticizing Israel can lead to charges of anti-semitism?

 

[Deuce]

What about Sharia law though?

There are female imams...

 

[Dogger807]

WTF is wrong with these people??? Child molestation is a minor inconvenience to be shrugged off , but women priest are soooo evil that they have to be excommunicated!!!! I mean seriously WTF!!!!

 

[Guy Incognito]

So the other marriages don't go through Christ. They wouldn't be considered "holy matrimony".

Actually, there is some debate about whether or not mixed marriages are "holy" (the technical term would be "state of grace" if I am not mistaken). Essentially, there are those who consider that the marriage is in a state of grace with respect to the baptized Catholic party, and there are those who feel that the marriage does not confer a state of grace with respect to either party. But as far as I can tell there is no established Church doctrine on the matter.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Nope. Not Catholic, but my wife is Jewish

Wasn't referring to you specifically. I'm referring to Catholics who disagree with the Church's stance on moral issues. If they believe that the Church is morally wrong, that it holds false and harmful beliefs, what possible value could still belonging to the Church hold for them? If the Church is wrong, how can it lead them to salvation?

 

[Tucker Case]

I see this as a topic to be debated for Catholics only as it only affects them.

I vehemently disagree on this.

I'm not a Catholic, but my entire family is Catholic. My wife and her family are also Catholics. My wife currently wishes to baptize and raise our children as Catholics.

So I absolutely have a vested interest in what the Catholic church decides because it directly affects me in a very real way.

Trust me, one of the biggest points of contention in our marriage is that idea of raising our children to trust the Catholic Church.

I have no problems raising our children as Christians who believe in God, because I would like them to have the spiritual comfort that comes from religion.

But what I don't want is for them to be raised in any church that has proven itself to be a danger to children and that has misogynistic ideals.

I've granted multiple concessions regarding the Church in my marriage thus far, including getting married in a Catholic church even though I felt it was a compromise of my own ideals to do so.

I was willing to make a compromise in that regard because it only affected myself. But with **** like this being spewed by the Church, I flat-out refuse to give ground regarding our children.

I will not raise my son to think it's safe to trust a Catholic priest. No way, no ****ing how.

I will not raise my daughters to think that they are not fully and completely equal in the eyes of their God. No way, no ****ing how.

I've done what Kori was asking about earlier. I found the Catholic doctrine morally disagreeable and that's why I'm not Catholic.

If I were to suddenly rediscover a faith in God, I would still never return to the Catholic church because my disagreements with that Church are not due to my lack of belief in a god. I will never be a part of the Catholic Church again, regardless of any future circumstances or beliefs I have.

So, while I understand your sentiment, the truth of the matter is that Catholic doctrine does affect non-Catholics as well.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I will not raise my daughters to think that they are not fully and completely equal in the eyes of their God.

Your personal animosity toward the Church aside, you couldn't be more incorrect about the above statement. If we do not allow anger to cloud our understanding of the issue, then it becomes clear that we are not talking about the "equality" of women, which the Church unequivocally recognizes. The Catholic Church does not "think that women are not fully and completely equal," far from it. A priest is not any more or less "equal" in the eyes of God, merely a holder of a particular sacramental position. The prohibition against women is just a question of liturgical tradition, not based on any idea of spiritual inferiority. At the end of the day, all people, clergy and laity, men and women, are equally sinners in the eyes of God, and equally loved by God.

 

[ludahai]

I vehemently disagree on this.

I'm not a Catholic, but my entire family is Catholic. My wife and her family are also Catholics. My wife currently wishes to baptize and raise our children as Catholics.

You made the choice to marry a Roman Catholic with the knowledge, presumably, that as a Catholic, your wife is obligated to raise her children Catholic. My wife is Buddhist, and this is something we talked about in depth at the pre-Cana conference we were required to attend prior to marriage in the Church. You knew this, yet you still chose to marry her. So, while you are not Catholic and as such are not obligated to believe what our Church teaches us through the guidence of the Holy Spirit, but if you wife wishes to remain a communicant Catholic, then she is required to follow the teachings of the Church, whether you agree with them or not.

 

[MaggieD]

The Catholic Church does not "think that women are not fully and completely equal," far from it. A priest is not any more or less "equal" in the eyes of God, merely a holder of a particular sacramental position. The prohibition against women is just a question of liturgical tradition, not based on any idea of spiritual inferiority. At the end of the day, all people, clergy and laity, men and women, are equally sinners in the eyes of God, and equally loved by God.

That may be true....but perception is reality, yes? There is certainly history of discrimination of women in the church, taken from scripture:

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels....If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God." (1 Corinthians 11:3-10,16)

This is the scripture from which came the tradition of women wearing a headcovering in church. I don't they're required to any more.

I've never quoted scripture on a forum before....just in case you think I'm thumpin'.

 

[liblady]

Until the Pope has a conversation with God that changes the rule that only men can be priests, this is blasphemy. On par with pedophile prists...whom the Catholic church, as a whole, covered up for forever. Watch for the news alert!!

Ya' know all those people that went to hell for eating meat on a Friday and not getting to confession before they died? Well, this is kinda' like the same thing.

Give me a freakin' break.

i think women should be allowed to be ordained. however, it's up to the catholic church, not me. that's part of the reason why i changed churches. god will sort it all out, i think.

 

[Middleground]

It's a Catholic matter, strictly internal to that church and having no effect outside of those who are voluntarily part of it, and I'm not Catholic.... so I don't much care.

Agreed.

So just to change the subject just a tad, why is gay marriage such a big deal then? Is it not supposed to be at the discretion of the church/religion? Aboslutely, yet people are rabid on their opinions... even the non-religious. Makes me shake my head.