The Silliest Aspect of Catholicism

What do you think it is?

1) Papal infallibility
2) Immaculate conception
3) Denying women access to the priesthood
4) Vow of celibacy
5) Purgatory
6) Taxonomy of sins
7) Impermissibility of contraception
8) Denial of Holy Communion to those deemed unworthy because of their stance in relation to the Church

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What do you think it is?

1) Papal infallibility
2) Immaculate conception
3) Denying women access to the priesthood
4) Vow of celibacy
5) Purgatory
6) Taxonomy of sins
7) Impermissibility of contraception
8) Denial of Holy Communion to those deemed unworthy because of their stance in relation to the Church

Vows of celibacy. I don't get it. I could understand a vow of not gossiping or something useful like that.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What do you think it is?

1) Papal infallibility
2) Immaculate conception
3) Denying women access to the priesthood
4) Vow of celibacy
5) Purgatory
6) Taxonomy of sins
7) Impermissibility of contraception
8) Denial of Holy Communion to those deemed unworthy because of their stance in relation to the Church

It depends on which silliness metric one chooses. From a social practicality point of view, impermissibility of contraception is silliest, theoretically causing problems for all Catholics. Vows of celibacy cause very bad silliness for a subset of Catholics (the priesthood) and arguably for a larger subset, if one chooses to partially attribute weird priestly sexual behaviour to vows of celibacy. The others are theologically silly, but I'm in no position to put them in order of silliness since I already think they're silly by virtue of being religious dogmas.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What do you think it is?

1) Papal infallibility
2) Immaculate conception
3) Denying women access to the priesthood
4) Vow of celibacy
5) Purgatory
6) Taxonomy of sins
7) Impermissibility of contraception
8) Denial of Holy Communion to those deemed unworthy because of their stance in relation to the Church

1) We've had this discussion before and you have never evidenced any understanding of the doctrine at all.
2) Doesn't strike me as anything unusual. You might as well list every other article of faith held by the church.
3) The way Catholics understand the role of the priest excludes female participation in the priestly vocation. All this means is that a woman cannot perform the sacrament of the Eucharist or penance. It really is a non-issue. Women are not being oppressed. The expansion of involvement of the laity has promoted female activity in the Church.
4) The vow of celibacy is not so much Catholic. Priests in other Catholic churches, such as the Melkites, do not observe celibacy. Celibacy is, however, perceived as a higher spiritual life and in my experiences, celibate priests are more avilable to their community as well. This is why nearly all bishops of the 21st and 20th century have been celibate. The demands imposed on a bishop are difficult to negotiate with a family.
5) Again, what is so silly?
6) We categorise transgressions of law. Why not sins? The identification of different sins allows them to be anticipated and prevented in individuals. I rarely ever hear the term, "taxonomy of sins". Is this protestant language?
7) I personally do not accept the encyclical, "huminae vitae" and will agree that its stipulation of the impermissability of contraception constitutes one of the most problematic parts of Catholic morality. I don't think I am in a minority of Catholics either.
8) The denial of Holy Communion is overseen by the bishop. While different congregations in Rome might discountenance the distribution of communion to, say, rainbow sash bearers or pro-abortion politicians, the bishop can choose whether to enforce that policy over his bishopric. I myself am disapppointed that a clear majority in America have politicised the Holy Communion.

So, in the end, 7) and 8) I think are silly, but they are not inherently Catholic.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
but I'm in no position to put them in order of silliness since I already think they're silly by virtue of being religious dogmas.

Actually, only two were religious dogmas.

EDIT: Sorry, three, maybe even three and a half.

Originally posted by Conrau K

3) The way Catholics understand the role of the priest excludes female participation in the priestly vocation. All this means is that a woman cannot perform the sacrament of the Eucharist or penance. It really is a non-issue. Women are not being oppressed.

Are women allowed to receive the same seminary education that men are?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are women allowed to receive the same seminary education that men are?

If you mean receive tertiary education in theology? Yes - at least in my country, Australia, it is demanded that all religious women receive formal instruction in theology and there are various theological unions to support them. I'm not sure they are the "same". Secular priests in Victoria attend by far the best university, while I would expect that female religious would probably attend one of the theological unions. I'm not sure whether there is a difference in quality though.

Originally posted by Conrau K
If you mean receive tertiary education in theology? Yes - at least in my country, Australia, it is demanded that all religious women receive formal instruction in theology and there are various theological unions to support them. I'm not sure they are the "same". Secular priests in Victoria attend by far the best university, while I would expect that female ...[text shortened]... one of the theological unions. I'm not sure whether there is a difference in quality though.

No, that's not what I mean. I am asking if Catholic seminaries allow women to enroll and receive the same education, in the same classrooms and attending the same lectures, as prospective priests who are there in preparation for their ordination.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, that's not what I mean. I am asking if Catholic seminaries allow women to enroll and receive the same education that prospective priests do in preparation for their ordination.

There is no such thing as a "Catholic seminary". Men who want to become secular priests (not affiliated with an order) will live together in a seminary, but attend courses at a university somewhere else. Women may or may not live in seminaries, they might instead live with order immediately. They will still go to university though.

I do not know if both men and women complete the same subjects, but it is expected they have a bachelor of theology. I know all men wanting to become priests must achieve a certain level of Latin, but since female religious do not celebrate the mass they may not need Latin. I presume that they would all study core theology.

Originally posted by Conrau K
There is no such thing as a "Catholic seminary".

Interesting.

http://consortium.villanova.edu/statements/seminaries.htm

If there is no such thing as Catholic Seminaries, and if priests learn theology at any old university, you really have to wonder why this web page is entitled "Catholic Seminaries in the United States" and following the links leads you to a description of academic coursework offered by each seminary and the associated tuition charges.

Originally posted by Conrau K
6)I rarely ever hear the term, "taxonomy of sins". Is this protestant language?

I've never heard it. If you ever attain my level of proficiency in communication, you'll realize that you don't need to rely on established rhetorical terms. You can create your own.

Originally posted by Conrau K
1) We've had this discussion before and you have never evidenced any understanding of the doctrine at all.

Perhaps it's impossible for a reasonable person to understand an incoherent concept.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Interesting.

http://consortium.villanova.edu/statements/seminaries.htm

If there is no such thing as Catholic Seminaries, and if priests learn theology at any old university, you really have to wonder why this web page is entitled "Catholic Seminaries in the United States" and following the links leads you to a description of academic coursework offered by each seminary and the associated tuition charges.

This is simply a barrier in language.

You originally wrote:

I am asking if Catholic seminaries allow women to enroll and receive the same education, in the same classrooms and attending the same lectures, as prospective priests who are there in preparation for their ordination.

This misrepresents what a seminary is. There are seminaries that are Catholic. But it is important to understand that there are subsets of secular seminaries and religious seminaries as well. Men wanting to become priests responsible for a parish and live alone will attend secular seminaries. Men and women who want to become members of the religious will generally enter religious life immediately. And in such cases, there is no defined seminary. Secular seminarians will generally live together in a seminary and receive instruction. It is misleading to say that there is a Catholic seminary; as this would suggest a place where all these people come together. In my state the secular seminarians live a few kilometers away from the university they attend. They are educated among lay people also taking the same courses - including, possibly, women. The "Catholic seminary" cannot prevent women sitting the same classes.

Obviously in America there is a different system where seminaries is responsible for the education. I doubt then that females would be educated with male seminarians. But normally seminaries are associated with a university, Dominicans, Franciscans and Carmelites in England have special seminaries around Oxley for education in theology, they are joined by a number of sister orders as well.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I've never heard it. If you ever attain my level of proficiency in communication, you'll realize that you don't need to rely on established rhetorical terms. You can create your own.

I would expect that a person with "proficiency in communication" would use terms that are comprehensible and have meaning to others, rather than coin mystifying innovations.

EDIT: I assumed that "taxonomy of sins" referred to the classification of sin as venal or mortal, or as one of the capital vices. If so, using those terms instead would have done much better.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Perhaps it's impossible for a reasonable person to understand an incoherent concept.

Seeing that you think that the doctrine of infallibility entitles the pope to declare that first-born daughters should be killed as moral, I think it is you who is incoherent.