Discrimination against women by Christians

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]It is not exactly clear what you mean by 'spiritual authority'. This is not terminology seen in a Catholic context.

Well, like I said, "I don't know what would be the proper Catholic terminology...". I was hoping you'd be willing and able to try to discuss this outside of the Catholic jargon.

As for the rest of your post, try to keep in mind ...[text shortened]... with how responsibilities are divided between clerics and lay people is beside the point.[/b]

That you also perceive an issue with how responsibilities are divided between clerics and lay people is beside the point.

No, it is not besides the point. It is entirely relevant if you want to judge whether the Catholic Church practices discrimination against women. Gender discrimination is only an expression of a deeper structural problem of power between clerics and lay. The fact that women are excluded from the priesthood is only meaningful because the priesthood enjoys so much power. I do not believe that if the laypeople were truly empowered, then any accusation of discrimination would be very persuasive.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]That you also perceive an issue with how responsibilities are divided between clerics and lay people is beside the point.

No, it is not besides the point. It is entirely relevant if you want to judge whether the Catholic Church practices discrimination against women. Gender discrimination is only an expression of a deeper structural problem of pow ...[text shortened]... laypeople were truly empowered, then any accusation of discrimination would be very persuasive.[/b]

The question of "whether" the RCC practices discrimination against women is really simple. So long as as women are not given the same opportunities as men simply because of their gender, discrimination against women by the RCC will exist. Period. No matter how much you like to pretend it doesn't exist because you like the idea of hiding it behind a "deeper structural problem of power between clerics and lay", the above is true. It seems sometimes your zeal to protect the RCC blinds you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The question of "whether" the RCC practices discrimination against women is really simple. So long as as women are not given the same opportunities as men simply because of their gender, discrimination against women by the RCC will exist. Period. No matter how much you like to pretend it doesn't exist because you like the idea of hiding it behind a "deep ...[text shortened]... s and lay", the above is true. It seems sometimes your zeal to protect the RCC blinds you.

I don't see myself protecting the Catholic Church here. If you were concentrating, you would have noticed that I am actually presenting a criticism of the very structure of the Catholic Church and calling for a much more radical change than merely ordaining women. Sometimes old impressions just do not wear.

The Sacraments: 7 for men, 6 for women

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't see myself protecting the Catholic Church here. If you were concentrating, you would have noticed that I am actually presenting a criticism of the very structure of the Catholic Church and calling for a much more radical change than merely ordaining women. Sometimes old impressions just do not wear.

If YOU were concentrating, you would have noticed that I said that your criticism is beside the point that there is discrimination against women by the RCC. You seem to keep trying to insist that the discrimination is only some sort of unintended side effect. But the fact is that women are blatantly and intentionally not given the same opportunities as men. If you aren't trying to protect the RCC from being seen as intentionally discriminating against women, why the continued attempts to do so?

Originally posted by pawnhandler
The Sacraments: 7 for men, 6 for women

Can you be more explicit? I have no idea what your point might be. I'm not Catholic so please be liberal with your explanation.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently are either "playing the idiot" or are incapable of wrapping your mind around the concept that the meaning of a word can be dependent on context. Can't say as either is a good thing.

Riiight. Your spin on the gender-based responsibilities ends up with a label of discrimination, as though something bad, something eeevel were occurring... instead of what is actually happening.

Essentially, you're constructing a losing proposition, along the lines of asking, "Are you still beating your wife?" No matter how one responds, the bait received leaves the appearance of complicity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Riiight. Your spin on the gender-based responsibilities ends up with a label of discrimination, as though something bad, something eeevel were occurring... instead of what is actually happening.

Essentially, you're constructing a losing proposition, along the lines of asking, "Are you still beating your wife?" No matter how one responds, the bait received leaves the appearance of complicity.

Do you also advocate racial discrimination using the same line of "reason"? It's probably not too late to join the KKK if you haven't already. Just tell them that you believe in "racial-based roles" as they do.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If YOU were concentrating, you would have noticed that I said that your criticism is beside the point that there is discrimination against women by the RCC. You seem to keep trying to insist that the discrimination is only some sort of unintended side effect. But the fact is that women are blatantly and intentionally not given the same opportunities as me ...[text shortened]... being seen as intentionally discriminating against women, why the continued attempts to do so?

You seem to keep trying to insist that the discrimination is only some sort of unintended side effect.

Yes, that's exactly my point. If clerical responsibilities were shared with laypeople, then there would effectively be no imbalance between men and women. That is why I believe that the problem is not strictly about gender equality but about clericalism.

If you aren't trying to protect the RCC from being seen as intentionally discriminating against women, why the continued attempts to do so?

Simple: I believe that I am right. I am not motivated by any ulterior motivate. I just think that you are wrong and that I am right and that the point should be acknowledged for its own sake. Why is it that whenever I debate with you, you always have this urge to second-guess my motives?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Can you be more explicit? I have no idea what your point might be. I'm not Catholic so please be liberal with your explanation.

Catholics believe that there are seven sacraments: baptism, confession, Eucharist, confirmation, anointing of the sick, marriage and holy orders. A man can theoretically receive all of them (although not many are both married and ordained), while a woman cannot receive holy orders.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You seem to keep trying to insist that the discrimination is only some sort of unintended side effect.

Yes, that's exactly my point. If clerical responsibilities were shared with laypeople, then there would effectively be no imbalance between men and women. That is why I believe that the problem is not strictly about gender equality but about cler y is it that whenever I debate with you, you always have this urge to second-guess my motives?[/b]

If clerical responsibilities were shared with laypeople, then there would effectively be no imbalance between men and women.
Listen it's really simple. Women are not allowed to be clerics strictly on the basis of their gender. For there to truly be equal opportunity, the RCC would have to either allow women to be clerics or dispense with clerical positions altogether. Surely you are aware that those who advocate prejudicial practices often try to disguise them as something else: "There's no prejudice, there only SEEMS to be. Really." How pathetic.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Catholics believe that there are seven sacraments: baptism, confession, Eucharist, confirmation, anointing of the sick, marriage and holy orders. A man can theoretically receive all of them (although not many are both married and ordained), while a woman cannot receive holy orders.

What makes a "sacrament" a sacrament?

Which can a man and woman give respectively?

It'll be interesting to see what point he was trying to make.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What makes a "sacrament" a sacrament?

Which can a man and woman give respectively?

It'll be interesting to see what point he was trying to make.

What makes a "sacrament" a sacrament?

It's a hard question. I guess what makes a sacrament is three things: 1. it is an action insistuted by Jesus Christ; 2. it always communicates grace, and 3. it leaves a mark on the soul.

Which can a man and woman give respectively?

Well, only an ordained man can validly give Eucharist, confession, confirmation and anointing, and only a bishop can give holy orders. A woman can technically baptise but generally that job is restricted to priests. Technically the couple perform the sacrament of marriage but a priest or deacon is required to witness it. So generally, these sacraments are confined to men.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What makes a "sacrament" a sacrament?

Which can a man and woman give respectively?

It'll be interesting to see what point he was trying to make.

The point is about eligibility for receiving the sacraments, not administering them (per se). A man can receive any of them. In fact, depending on the circumstances of his life, he can receive all of them. That is, if he's married but then his wife dies (presumably not murdered by him), he can then be a "late vocation" and receive Holy Orders. A female, however, is only eligible for six of the sacraments. Being a nun, for example, isn't a sacramental equivalent of being a priest. It isn't a sacrament at all.

Many people on the site are old enough to remember when women weren't allowed on the altar at all, except to clean it. Instead, only men could do the readings or give communion, and in some churches only boys can be altar servers and not girls. The church has a long history of excluding females from ministries, positions, callings, etc. And while women may be the directors of their religious communities, this is limited as well. Bishops have often taken away property from nuns just because they felt like it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]If clerical responsibilities were shared with laypeople, then there would effectively be no imbalance between men and women.
Listen it's really simple. Women are not allowed to be clerics strictly on the basis of their gender. For there to truly be equal opportunity, the RCC would have to either allow women to be clerics or dispense with clerical ...[text shortened]... hem as something else: "There's no prejudice, there only SEEMS to be. Really." How pathetic.[/b]

Listen it's really simple. Women are not allowed to be clerics strictly on the basis of their gender. For there to truly be equal opportunity, the RCC would have to either allow women to be clerics or dispense with clerical positions altogether.

We seem to be conflating terms. If the issue is 'equal opportunity', then the Catholic Church obviously does not qualify; if the issue is 'discrimination', then the Church obviously discriminates against women in the sense that it excludes women from any sacerdotal ministry; if the issue, however, is equality and has some moral connotation, then I think you need to employ some subtlety.

There needs to be some clarification about what constitutes unjust gender discrimination. I would argue that it is not mere gender diefferences. For example, in the second-wave of feminist theory, there was a growing criticism of earlier feminists who merely advocated income parity and equal opportunity. These new feminists argued that the problem was not about equal opportunity but equal value. They argued that rather than demanding that women have equal place in the workforce, they should be equally valued whatever their work. So, for example, domestic work should be valued equal to public work. Equality should mean, not equality merely in the public sphere, but equal value across the public/private divinde. This lead to greater calls for paid maternity leave and paid domestic work (which, in many countries outside the US, has been very successful.)

I think this criticism can be abstracted. Inequality is not merely difference. It is not enough to show that group A can engage in work a whereas group B cannot. What has to be demonstrated is that there is different value -- so, v(a) > v(not-a). Equality then would not be equal opportunity but about equal valuation of different roles. It might be, for example, that group A is required to do work of less value (for example, military service) in which case, inequal opportunity might actually be favouritism. It might be that work a has no value, in which case it is irrelevant whether one group is excluded.

Now I would agree that in the Catholic Church, there is disaprity of value. Only men can become priests and the priesthood is highly valued. I do not think, however, that the problem is essentially about excluding women -- but rather about valuing priests too much. If clerical responsibilities were shared with laypeople and priests were deprived of their privileges, then there would be equal valuation. You might argue that there is still discrimination and inequal opportunities -- but I would argue that there is no longer inequality. That is why I say that the problem is structural. It is not a superficial difference between men and women but a deeper problem about how power and responsibility is distributed in the Church.