September 22, 201115 yr You called the beliefs of Catholics the world over "humorous" in your very first post. That, if anything, is what I took offense to. And I did not say that I thought God cares about what I think think and not about what you think. The point I was going to make is that my belief for knowing that God cares is rooted in faith and that my faith is, at least in part, derived from a 2,000 year old tradition that you not only mock but reject the idea that it could have any value in the discussion whatsoever. On the contrary, I think God cares a great deal about what you think, but I was interested in what led you to the conclusion that God, if he exists, cares about you in any way if not through the means of scripture and tradition you seem to have so much revulsion toward. I apologize for not making the point immediately and it wasn't my intent to attack you in any way. Just so we're clear, you don't feel that not allowing a group of people to hold a particular job for no other reason than their gender is discrimination? It's a yes or no question, and an easy straightforward one at that.
September 22, 201115 yr Would you mind providing an example or two? "Thou Shall Not Kill", then boom God destroys entire cities and floods the world. Then there's that old "Angel of Death" incident. I already know the response. That's in the Old Testament. The New Testament supercedes the old.
September 22, 201115 yr "Thou Shall Not Kill", then boom God destroys entire cities and floods the world. Then there's that old "Angel of Death" incident. I already know the response. That's in the Old Testament. The New Testament supercedes the old. Did God ever say that he wasn't to kill?
September 22, 201115 yr Just so we're clear, you don't feel that not allowing a group of people to hold a particular job for no other reason than their gender is discrimination? It's a yes or no question, and an easy straightforward one at that. The priesthood is much MUCH more than a job. It's not something that you decide to apply for and are given as a 9-5, 40 hour a week setup. It's a life calling, inspired by God. I would fall back to my vocation response. Some men are called by God to be fathers. Some women are called by God to be mothers. Other men are called by God to lead his church as priests. As such...men can't be mothers. Does that mean that the fact that men cannot be mothers is a straightforward yes or no issue of gender discrimination? No.
September 22, 201115 yr Just so we're clear, you don't feel that not allowing a group of people to hold a particular job for no other reason than their gender is discrimination? It's a yes or no question, and an easy straightforward one at that. There's no such thing as an easy, straightforward question.
September 22, 201115 yr "Thou Shall Not Kill", then boom God destroys entire cities and floods the world. Then there's that old "Angel of Death" incident. I already know the response. That's in the Old Testament. The New Testament supersedes the old. In a word..."exactly". The Old Testament is the story of the Jews and of the First Covenant between the Jews and God. The New Testament is Jesus' birth (the fulfillment of the Old Testament) and God's Second Covenant, this time with all mankind, through Christianity.
September 22, 201115 yr The priesthood is much MUCH more than a job. It's not something that you decide to apply for and are given as a 9-5, 40 hour a week setup. It's a life calling, inspired by God. I would fall back to my vocation response. Some men are called by God to be fathers. Some women are called by God to be mothers. Other men are called by God to lead his church as priests. As such...men can't be mothers. Does that mean that the fact that men cannot be mothers is a straightforward yes or no issue of gender discrimination? No.To be fair, men can't be mothers because there anatomy will not allow it. I believe that comparison is a gigantic stretch.
September 22, 201115 yr To be fair, men can't be mothers because there anatomy will not allow it. I believe that comparison is a gigantic stretch. There's no denying that there is a leap that must be made there. But it's an analogy that's been used by the Church for centuries. I also believe it's meant to be illustrative, rather than argumentative. It's simply meant to illustrate the premise than men and women have different roles in the Church and that those roles are defined within our very natures in an order which God has willed rather than as a social construct that could in any way be altered. That is to say, even if Pope Benedict came out tomorrow and said "In 2012 we will begin ordaining women as priests." it could not be so and any such ordinations would be invalid and any sacraments they offered invalid. No one, not even the Pope, has the power to make it so.
September 22, 201115 yr There's no denying that there is a leap that must be made there. But it's an analogy that's been used by the Church for centuries. I also believe it's meant to be illustrative, rather than argumentative. It's simply meant to illustrate the premise than men and women have different roles in the Church and that those roles are defined within our very natures in an order which God has willed rather than as a social construct that could in any way be altered. That is to say, even if Pope Benedict came out tomorrow and said "In 2012 we will begin ordaining women as priests." it could not be so and any such ordinations would be invalid and any sacraments they offered invalid. No one, not even the Pope, has the power to make it so. I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse here, but by this do you mean there is no place for change within the Church?
September 22, 201115 yr But it's an analogy that's been used by the Church for centuries.Still doesn't mean it's a good one. :lol: :lol:
September 22, 201115 yr To be fair, men can't be mothers because there anatomy will not allow it. I believe that comparison is a gigantic stretch. True, but my example was to illustrate the "calling by God" point. Vocations are things that we are taught as Catholics that we are called to do by God, and motherhood is certainly one of those vocations, as is the priesthood. Some of those vocations, as established by God (and Jesus), were specific to women only or men only. From a Catholic vocation standpoint, males only being anatomically able to be fathers is as equal as males only being able being able to be priests.
September 22, 201115 yr Would you mind providing an example or two? Please show me where in the Bible it contradicts itself. I want to preface this by saying I have not researched all of these so I don't know if all are accurate. I was having this same discussion with a friend of mine and he sent me this list. [TABLE=width: 1015] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, width: 1353, bgcolor: transparent]2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul" [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came... unto Jerusalem" [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem" [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa." ...OK, but this is the last time! [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..." ...... this one really quacks me up. [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent]John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
September 22, 201115 yr True, but my example was to illustrate the "calling by God" point. Vocations are things that we are taught as Catholics that we are called to do by God, and motherhood is certainly one of those vocations, as is the priesthood. Some of those vocations, as established by God (and Jesus), were specific to women only or men only. From a Catholic vocation standpoint, males only being anatomically able to be fathers is as equal as males only being able being able to be priests. Never heard a Catholic put it quite like that. Pretty interesting to me. So in the Catholic vocational viewpoint are their any other jobs which are gender specific other than nuns? Didn't teachers in Catholic elementary (maybe even further) always used to be nuns, thus gender specifc? This is a little more personal and I understand if you don't want to answer. Do you feel you were called to your vocation by God?
September 22, 201115 yr Never heard a Catholic put it quite like that. Pretty interesting to me. So in the Catholic vocational viewpoint are their any other jobs which are gender specific other than nuns? Didn't teachers in Catholic elementary (maybe even further) always used to be nuns, thus gender specifc? This is a little more personal and I understand if you don't want to answer. Do you feel you were called to your vocation by God? There are brothers who are also male only. They are considered to be lay ministers, but they take vows of celibacy and obedience. There are orders of nuns and sisters in the Catholic church who have chosen education as their order's specific ministry (School Sisters of Notre Dame, for example - the namesake of Notre Dame Academy). These types of nuns weren't necessarily intended to provide ALL of the Catholic school teaching out there, but it certainly was their life calling as nuns. Due to the obvious drop in vocations amongst the Catholic sisters in the last 50 years, there have been more and more non-religious teachers (I'm using "religious" as a term referring to monks, nuns, friars, and clerics) taking their place in Catholic schools. As for my vocation, I can tell you this, I am neither a priest, brother, monk, friar, deacon, lay minister or father at this time of my life. I was brought up to keep my mind open to all of those callings and to pray for discernment, and that really is something I have worked to try to do throughout my life. At this point I really feel called to be a family man. Still, through involvement at Cov Cath and Notre Dame Academy, I have also felt led (to an extent) to ministry. At this point in my life, I would say that my calling in life is to be a father, and then also either a lay minister or deacon. That's all "still in the works" at this point, but that's where I see myself headed.
September 22, 201115 yr I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse here, but by this do you mean there is no place for change within the Church? To a certain extent, the age in which it exists is reflected in the Church and the zeitgeist of any particular age in any particular society will have an effect on the Church. For example, the Second Vatican Council was very much a product of what the Western world was like 1950s and 1960s. It couldn't have taken place before then and I don't believe it would take place now... at least not with the sweeping consequences it had in its immediate wake throughout the late 60s and early 70s. That said, the basic concept behind immutable truth is that it is... immutable. This isn't to say that there is no room for change within the Church, but that in certain particular areas, in which scripture and tradition are indicative of God's will for the Church, (and the Church's definition of what constitutes "tradition" is a lot more detailed than the common understanding) these certain things cannot be changed. Other things have and continue to change.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.