WiseOne wrote:Ordaining women is something that the church does not have the authority to change.
Could you explain that? Many Christian denominations have done exactly this. In the Catholic church it would require action from the Pope and possibly the Vatican council, but it is not by any means impossible. The last time this was addressed, Pope John Paul stated his belief that there were no female apostles, therefore... etc. However, if you read carefully it's quite apparent that Mary Magdelene was as much of an apostle as any of the 12. I bet this is the reason she was later labeled as a prostitute (and nothing to do with the da Vinci code theory). Step 1 is for the church to address this.
As far as feminism: I agree with Michelle that it's been badly distorted, just like all the other civil rights issues, but that doesn't mean we have to back off completely. Anyway sorry for derailing the thread a bit, but I do think the Catholic church's attitude is just about the last real challenge to equal rights that we have. As far as I'm concerned, on other fronts the goals have been achieved. Hurrah!
WiseOne wrote:Ordaining women is something that the church does not have the authority to change.
Could you explain that? Many Christian denominations have done exactly this. In the Catholic church it would require action from the Pope and possibly the Vatican council, but it is not by any means impossible. The last time this was addressed, Pope John Paul stated his belief that there were no female apostles, therefore... etc. However, if you read carefully it's quite apparent that Mary Magdelene was as much of an apostle as any of the 12. I bet this is the reason she was later labeled as a prostitute (and nothing to do with the da Vinci code theory). Step 1 is for the church to address this.
As far as feminism: I agree with Michelle that it's been badly distorted, just like all the other civil rights issues, but that doesn't mean we have to back off completely. Anyway sorry for derailing the thread a bit, but I do think the Catholic church's attitude is just about the last real challenge to equal rights that we have. As far as I'm concerned, on other fronts the goals have been achieved. Hurrah!
That's interesting, WiseOne. I'm not Catholic but I don't think feminists should try to impose their attitudes on the church. I don't personally agree with several of the practices of Catholics but I think that their traditions should be left alone and completely up to them to decide. Of course the exception I make and probably anyone makes regarding religious freedom is if people are practicing things that are outright illegal. But otherwise, I don't think any outside social movement should interfere.
It’s not like people are forced in this country to adhere to any religion so why should feminist ideology have any say in Catholic ideology?
Sorry, but I have a hard time taking seriously an ideology that insists gender preference, i.e. sexual orientation is inherited but gender is something we can choose. Political correctness has reached the point where it's difficult to tell what is and is not satire.
I grew up Catholic before converting to Orthodoxy so I am going to take a swing at this. The Pope can change the discipline of the church but not its doctrine. Discipline are the man made rules set up by the church for (presumably) good and practical reasons. This might cover things like the rules for fasting and abstinence which have changed quite drastically. However doctrine, which is to say divine truths or laws that are irreformable cannot be altered by anyone, including the Pope. The Catholic Church has consistently taught that by divine ordinance the sacrament of Holy Orders is reserved to men alone and that it is impossible to validly ordain women. On this point the Orthodox Church is in full agreement. The Pope can no more alter this truth than he can add or subtract from the Ten Commandments.
I grew up Catholic before converting to Orthodoxy so I am going to take a swing at this. The Pope can change the discipline of the church but not its doctrine. Discipline are the man made rules set up by the church for (presumably) good and practical reasons. This might cover things like the rules for fasting and abstinence which have changed quite drastically. However doctrine, which is to say divine truths or laws that are irreformable cannot be altered by anyone, including the Pope. The Catholic Church has consistently taught that by divine ordinance the sacrament of Holy Orders is reserved to men alone and that it is impossible to validly ordain women. On this point the Orthodox Church is in full agreement. The Pope can no more alter this truth than he can add or subtract from the Ten Commandments.
I was reading a book by Bart Ehrman not long ago, I forget which one, but it was interesting to learn that within the field of unbiased New Testament scholarship, it is generally believed that none of the verses in Paul's letters that are typically used to denigrate the role of women are authentic. Those that appear in his authentic letters are believed to be later interpolations, and in some cases, like 1 and 2 Timothy, the entire book is considered a forgery and not written by Paul at all. (and that triggers my memory that the book was probably "Forged").
I grew up Catholic before converting to Orthodoxy so I am going to take a swing at this. The Pope can change the discipline of the church but not its doctrine. Discipline are the man made rules set up by the church for (presumably) good and practical reasons. This might cover things like the rules for fasting and abstinence which have changed quite drastically. However doctrine, which is to say divine truths or laws that are irreformable cannot be altered by anyone, including the Pope. The Catholic Church has consistently taught that by divine ordinance the sacrament of Holy Orders is reserved to men alone and that it is impossible to validly ordain women. On this point the Orthodox Church is in full agreement. The Pope can no more alter this truth than he can add or subtract from the Ten Commandments.
I was reading a book by Bart Ehrman not long ago, I forget which one, but it was interesting to learn that within the field of unbiased New Testament scholarship, it is generally believed that none of the verses in Paul's letters that are typically used to denigrate the role of women are authentic. Those that appear in his authentic letters are believed to be later interpolations, and in some cases, like 1 and 2 Timothy, the entire book is considered a forgery and not written by Paul at all. (and that triggers my memory that the book was probably "Forged").
I love how you put Ehrman in the same paragraph with "unbiased scholarship." Surely you can see he's a very angry, reactive sort, no? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but please disabuse yourself of the "unbiased" myth.
I take it you don't like him very much but I've never actually seen him get angry. In debates he seems like a pleasant enough person.
As far as being "unbiased" I generally use that term to describe a scholar who works in an academic environment in which he won't be fired and lose his paycheck if he fails to tow the party line.
Desert wrote:
I love how you put Ehrman in the same paragraph with "unbiased scholarship." Surely you can see he's a very angry, reactive sort, no? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but please disabuse yourself of the "unbiased" myth.
I take it you don't like him very much but I've never actually seen him get angry. In debates he seems like a pleasant enough person.
As far as being "unbiased" I generally use that term to describe a scholar who works in an academic environment in which he won't be fired and lose his paycheck if he fails to tow the party line.
I would generally class the leading "new" atheists as follows:
1. Hitchens (deceased): funny, sarcastic, entertaining
2. Harris: Most calm, logical guy; I really like Sam Harris, even though I no longer agree with him
3. Ehrman: Obviously put off by religion; classic case of exiting religion because of a sin/guilt/anger cycle; obvious agenda, supported by typical liberal religion departments in major U's.
4. DeGrasse Tyson: Big entertainer. Probably the silliest of all new atheists. Proclaiming science fiction as fact, and as refutation of religious beliefs. Also very entertaining, but the most cartoonish of all new atheists.
In general, it's important to accept the bias of all such folks. If you really want to learn from a new atheist, I'd recommend Harris. Ehrman and Tyson are dripping with bias.
Probably better leave off with this before Xan moves it to the religion thread but do you know what Ehrman's sin was that started the cycle? I've heard his testimony of how he first came to realize the Bible wasn't inerrant as he was taught at Moody Bible Institute, then tried liberal Christianity for a while, before realizing this too had its own inconsistencies and so became an agnostic. So now I know he was lying and it really all started with some kind of sin. I'm a member of his website, the proceeds of which he gives to charity, so I'm able to ask him questions. Maybe I should ask him what secret he is hiding that Desert knows about.
Generally speaking I'm interested in facts and evidence and it matters not what a person's biases are.
Ad Orientem wrote:Sorry, but I have a hard time taking seriously an ideology that insists gender preference, i.e. sexual orientation is inherited but gender is something we can choose. Political correctness has reached the point where it's difficult to tell what is and is not satire.
This is the best description of the "LGTBQIAPK" insanity I have ever seen. Kudos for that one, Ad. (I don't buy your other thesis though.)
Contrast this with the basis for today's version of feminism: it sucks to be female and you have no choice about it if you are. Hey people, there's an easy solution now if you really want to fix the problem.
I am perfectly content to remain female, and to attend the church a few blocks south instead of the one a few blocks north.
