The Silliest Aspect of Catholicism

Originally posted by Conrau K
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.

You don't understand incoherence.

Seeing that you think that the doctrine of infallibility entitles the pope to declare that women cannot be priests because Jesus chose all non-women, while also believing that it is possible to have Chinese priests even though Jesus chose all non-Chinese, I think it is you who is incoherent.

Originally posted by Conrau K
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 ...[text shortened]... n.

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

You can't hold to papal infallibility and reject ex cathedra papal pronouncements like those regarding the impermissibility of contraception. You are undoubtedly correct that most lay Catholics (at least in "Western" countries) reject 7, but they also reject 1.

Originally posted by Conrau K
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 ...[text shortened]... celebrate the mass they may not need Latin. I presume that they would all study core theology.

That is Australia. In the US, women religious only go to a university for theology if that is the wishes of their community. Formation is determined by the community. They may take courses with someone within the community. They may also only take those university courses necessary for a degree in their field of work and not necessarily theology. There are a wide range of communities here and thus a wide range of formation models.

In the US, the Catholic Seminaries are both the housing and the formation. They don't go to university elsewhere. http://consortium.villanova.edu/statements/seminaries.htm

Originally posted by reader1107


In the US, the Catholic Seminaries are both the housing and the formation. They don't go to university elsewhere. http://consortium.villanova.edu/statements/seminaries.htm

Are women allowed to enroll in these?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are women allowed to enroll in these?

I seriously doubt it. I only checked out the first one. My understanding is that their excuse is to keep women away so the men aren't "distracted." Also, how can you teach -- overtly or covertly -- that women are lesser if they get to meet them and form their own opinions?

Originally posted by reader1107
I seriously doubt it.

I see.

Conrau claims that "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."

Do you suppose that seminarians learn more than just how to perform the sacrament of the Eucharist and penance, or do you think that that actually is the extent of their seminary education?

In other words, is Conrau wrong in his delimitation of the effects of the Church's position with respect to restrictions on women? Might he be minimizing them, or neglecting to account for all of them, or even failing to acknowledge or realize some of them?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I see.

Conrau claims that "The way Catholics understand the role of the priest excludes female participation in the priestly vocation. [b]All this means is that a woman cannot perform the sacrament of the Eucharist or penance."

Do you suppose that seminarians learn more than just how to perform the sacrament of the Eucharist and pe ...[text shortened]... s delimitation of the effects of the Church's position with respect to restrictions on women?[/b]

As you'll notice in my post in another thread, I think Conrau is wrong about a number of things. Perhaps things are different in Australia from the US in terms of ... well ... many things.

Many Catholics do NOT understand the role of a priest in a way that excluded female participation in the priestly vocation. And obviously if all that involved was consecrating the Eucharist (which anyone old enough to read the book aloud can do) or perform the acts involved in the sacrament of reconciliation -- these things can be taught in a Saturday workshop. No need for the extensive Seminary education isolated from women. So there is much more happening in a seminary, and it includes enculturation in a male-only or male-dominated realm.

Originally posted by reader1107
I seriously doubt it. I only checked out the first one. My understanding is that their excuse is to keep women away so the men aren't "distracted." Also, how can you teach -- overtly or covertly -- that women are lesser if they get to meet them and form their own opinions?

According to this site, http://www.career-planning-education.com/social-science/roman-catholic-priest.htm

seminaries are post-graduate education generally requiring a 4 year degree for admission and seminary education last for 4 years or more. Since the purpose of seminary education is to prepare for the priesthood, women aren't allowed in them.

Originally posted by reader1107
So there is much more happening in a seminary, and it includes enculturation in a male-only or male-dominated realm.

Of course there is. I just wanted to get it on record and verify for my own sanity that at least not all Catholics are as blinded, brainwashed and crippled by dogma as Conrau.

There are also high school seminaries, but I think those are more like "feeder programs" http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=high+school+seminaries&btnG=Google+Search

I've not done any research on it though.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course there is. I just wanted to get it on record and verify for my own sanity that at least not all Catholics are as blinded, brainwashed and crippled by dogma as Conrau.

Ah, my dear Doctor, there are entire movements of Catholics who do not even closely resemble Conrau.

Originally posted by reader1107
Ah, my dear Doctor, there are entire movements of Catholics who do not even closely resemble Conrau.

Why don't they take after Martin Luther and sever themselves from the nonsense? Surely one of them has a hammer.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Why don't they take after Martin Luther and sever themselves from the nonsense?

Martin Luther merely replaced one brand of nonsense with another.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Martin Luther merely replaced one brand of nonsense with another.

But maybe the "New Catholics" could be just like the old ones, except without the repression of women. That would at least be a marginal improvement, as it was when people stopped paying the Church for absolution of sins.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Why don't they take after Martin Luther and sever themselves from the nonsense? Surely one of them has a hammer.

Some did, and became part of the American Catholic movement. Others are trying to work within the system. Others are seriously considering simply walking away.