14 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadEvidently some Catholics see it as a "bad thing".
If defined in that way, then the question remains whether such discrimination is a bad thing. The title of the thread implies women are necessarily loosers, when in reality that is not proved simply by saying that different posts are available to different genders. I am sure one could argue that a man could not take up the post of Mother Superior, but wou ...[text shortened]... by men are generally better posts then maybe you have a point. I have not read the whole thread.
From http://www.womenpriests.org/care/vision.asp
The Catholic Church still does not recognise the full equality in Christ that should be enjoyed by women (Galatians 3,28).
A Catholic woman is, in fact, disqualified from dealing with the sacred. She may be a consumer of it but has only access to it through men. She is not deemed capable of being the life-giving image of Christ at the eucharist. It is our duty as women to draw attention to this anomaly which is surely against Jesus’ own intentions.
I love the Church as do all of us in our campaign. But Church leaders can make, and have made, mistakes. Cultural prejudice has clouded Christian thinking before. It does so now with regard to women.
14 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadDid you read the quote? Or just my comment?
I am not surprised, but that does not make it so. I am sure there are men vying for the position of Mother Superior, but that does not mean it is wrong to keep them out of the job.
You might want to consider that the whole concept of having "nuns" and "mother superiors" likely came about because of the same gender discrimination that still exists today.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLike I kept trying to get across to you, the RCC does not allow women to be clerics on the basis of gender, so there clearly is a gender issue. It's just that simple. You're the one who has kept insisting that there isn't.
[b]Yeah, right. If you say so.
Like I kept trying to get across to you, the RCC does not allow women to be clerics on the basis of gender, so there clearly is a gender issue. It's just that simple. You're the one who has kept insisting that there isn't.
Yes, I believe that is what I said.
By "any and all distinctions" I meant "any and al ...[text shortened]... . Even if you weren't, as it stands currently there is gender discrimination in the RCC.[/b]
I have acknowledged this as discrimination. What I dispute is the attendent moral connotation of this and also the accusation of 'inequality' and denial of 'equal opportunity'.
If this is what you were trying to say, then you certainly went about it in a round about way. Seemed to me you were speaking of something that would fall short of this. Even if you weren't, as it stands currently there is gender discrimination in the RCC.
What I am talking about specifically was the restriction of clerical power and administrative responsibility. The cleric would retain his place in the sanctuary and the laypeople would have the pews but since all other matters would be handled collaboratively between clergy and lay alike, I do not think that there would be inequality.
15 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadi am not so sure about men trying for mother superior. also it could be argued there are similar positions for men. a man can become father superior in a monk monastery.
I am not surprised, but that does not make it so. I am sure there are men vying for the position of Mother Superior, but that does not mean it is wrong to keep them out of the job.
there is no equal position for women in priesthood.
15 Jul 10
Originally posted by FabianFnaslets just have a black pope first
When I see a Mother Pope, then I will change my mind.
Until then (or when hell freeze to ice, whichever comes first) I will remain in my opinion that the Catholic Church is discriminating women and see them as inferior beeings.
baby steps.
15 Jul 10
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat do you mean by "What I dispute is the attendent moral connotation of this and also the accusation of 'inequality' and denial of 'equal opportunity'. "
[b]Like I kept trying to get across to you, the RCC does not allow women to be clerics on the basis of gender, so there clearly is a gender issue. It's just that simple. You're the one who has kept insisting that there isn't.
I have acknowledged this as discrimination. What I dispute is the attendent moral connotation of this and also the accusation ...[text shortened]... aboratively between clergy and lay alike, I do not think that there would be inequality.[/b]
the priest is supposed to be the pillar of community. to be a bridge between god and the people. to be an example. to advise. and the catholic church are claiming that women cannot ever become that role because they are missing a vital organ. and what is ironic is that the male priests are forbidden to use the very organ that qualifies them for the job😀
it's funny, huh.
15 Jul 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziTo have a woman as pope you must have to have a woman cardinal. I don't think there are any.
lets just have a black pope first
baby steps.
To have a black man as pope they you must have a black cardinal first. There are plenty.
As this thread is about "Discrimination against women by Christians" I prefer wishing for a Mother Pope.
But a black pope, a gay pope, an atheist pope, a vegan pope, a young pope, a communist pope would be nice too. Why not all in the same person? And female on top of that?
16 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KSeems like those who advocate discrimination often attempt to whitewash their discriminatory practices by trying to convince others that "equality" exists when it does not. They come up with all manner of schemes that fall short of true equality. For example, look at segregation in the US where the prejudiced tried to hide behind "separate but equal" propaganda. For true equality to exist the RCC would need to either allow women to be clerics or remove any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people like I said earlier. Anything short of this is just an attempt to whitewash. If clerics and lay people were ever truly equal, it would be absurd to keep the distinction. The distinction is kept precisely because they are not truly equal.
[b]Like I kept trying to get across to you, the RCC does not allow women to be clerics on the basis of gender, so there clearly is a gender issue. It's just that simple. You're the one who has kept insisting that there isn't.
I have acknowledged this as discrimination. What I dispute is the attendent moral connotation of this and also the accusation aboratively between clergy and lay alike, I do not think that there would be inequality.[/b]
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOf course they're not, and children are taught that from a young age. The pope is on top, then cardinals, then bishops, then priests, and then us (the laity).
Seems like those who advocate discrimination often attempt to whitewash their discriminatory practices by trying to convince others that "equality" exists when it does not. They come up with all manner of schemes that fall short of true equality. For example, look at segregation in the US where the prejudiced tried to hide behind "separate but equal" prop ...[text shortened]... to keep the distinction. The distinction is kept precisely because they are not truly equal.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
16 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes, thank you for repeating everything you have already said. I however disagree with your assumption that discrimination equals inequality.
Seems like those who advocate discrimination often attempt to whitewash their discriminatory practices by trying to convince others that "equality" exists when it does not. They come up with all manner of schemes that fall short of true equality. For example, look at segregation in the US where the prejudiced tried to hide behind "separate but equal" prop ...[text shortened]... to keep the distinction. The distinction is kept precisely because they are not truly equal.
And the comparison with racial discrimination was really great. Really engaged with the argument I was making. Really great stuff. Perhaps a reference to Hitler would have rounded it off.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by pawnhandlerI think there is a crucial lack of precision here. In terms of hierarchy, there are only three ranks: ordained, consecrated and lay. It would be a mistake to rank these however. Obviously the ordained have special prestige but the consecrated and lay have their own special significance. Only a layperson can hold political or sovereign office. So, in fact, in the real world, laypeople essentially hold most power. Consecrated people are also significant, as I have explained before, becausse they have an eschatological meaning, taking the counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience, in expectation of heavenly life. A linear ranking of orders is simplistic and mistaken.
Of course they're not, and children are taught that from a young age. The pope is on top, then cardinals, then bishops, then priests, and then us (the laity).
Furthermore, the cardinalate is not strictly any special rank. It is not a level in Holy Orders. In fact, there have actually been non-ordained cardinals (the last one was about 130 years ago) and theoretically there could be a female cardinal. There have also been cardinals not ordained as bishops (the last one, Cardinal Dulles, died only a few years ago.) A cardinal is not above any other bishop. He cannot manage the diocese of another bishop and, unless specially empowered by the Pope, he has no power outside his own diocese. He enjoys prestige only because he elects the Pope and has some advisory capacity.
It would also be wrong to describe the papacy as another rank. Vatican II emphasised that the Pope is not a higher rank of bishop; he is simply a bishop among bishops who enjoys precedence. It is for this reason that the Pope tends not to interfere in the affairs of other dioceses.
16 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneactually, no. your "If clerics and lay people were ever truly equal, it would be absurd to keep the distinction. The distinction is kept precisely because they are not truly equal." is incorrect. equality doesn't mean we all get the same jobs and responsibilities. equality means that each of us have equal opportunity to get a certain job. removing the priest job leads nowhere.
Seems like those who advocate discrimination often attempt to whitewash their discriminatory practices by trying to convince others that "equality" exists when it does not. They come up with all manner of schemes that fall short of true equality. For example, look at segregation in the US where the prejudiced tried to hide behind "separate but equal" prop ...[text shortened]... to keep the distinction. The distinction is kept precisely because they are not truly equal.