-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should women be ordained?
- Thread starter Feathers in Hair
- Start date
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
I think that the only fundamental difference between men and women is the fact that we have different genitals. Really, that's all you can see. To people who say that women shouldn't be ordained, because Jesus/God wouldn't want it, I relate the following story.
A young girl and her family look eagerly forward to the date of the young girls First Communion. Unfortunately, they find out that the girl is fatally alergic to even small amounts of gluten, a major ingredient in wheat, which is a major ingredient in the Eucharist. They go to the church and ask for a way to get around this. The priest suggests that they get her to drink the wine. The family disagrees, on the grounds that they disaprove of her drinking any alcohol. The family suggests that they pay for a box of Eucharist wafers made from rice, with no wheat in them, and no gluten. The church adamantly refuses, even though the family would pay, on the grounds that Jesus wants the last supper to stay with the exact ingredients they always were, and there was no rice. The wafers needed to have wheat, and therefore gluten. The church suggests wafers with a low gluten percentage. The family refuses, on the reasonable grounds that their daughter would DIE from even small amouts of gluten. The church continues to disagree, and finally, the family leaves the Catholic Church.
Do you really think that Jesus wanted this, a blatant act of cruelty and prejudice? If not, then why do you assume that prejudice can be applied in other areas?
A young girl and her family look eagerly forward to the date of the young girls First Communion. Unfortunately, they find out that the girl is fatally alergic to even small amounts of gluten, a major ingredient in wheat, which is a major ingredient in the Eucharist. They go to the church and ask for a way to get around this. The priest suggests that they get her to drink the wine. The family disagrees, on the grounds that they disaprove of her drinking any alcohol. The family suggests that they pay for a box of Eucharist wafers made from rice, with no wheat in them, and no gluten. The church adamantly refuses, even though the family would pay, on the grounds that Jesus wants the last supper to stay with the exact ingredients they always were, and there was no rice. The wafers needed to have wheat, and therefore gluten. The church suggests wafers with a low gluten percentage. The family refuses, on the reasonable grounds that their daughter would DIE from even small amouts of gluten. The church continues to disagree, and finally, the family leaves the Catholic Church.
Do you really think that Jesus wanted this, a blatant act of cruelty and prejudice? If not, then why do you assume that prejudice can be applied in other areas?
Ok, yeah, the Catholic Church's hiearchy is patriarchal. The Pope, a male, is at the top. But, women can lead the church in soo many ways. I can be a leader. I am a leader. I might not get to lead from the Priest's chair, but I lead in my own ways.linwood said:
This is just a question, shouldn't you ask a Catholic female if she feel's discriminated against? It seems to me like all the guys are saying that it is discrimination. From a Catholic girl's point of view, I don't see it as discrimination at all. I do not feel offended by not being a priest. Frankly, I don't know if I could handle being a priest. They have a huge job. I have thought of being a nun. It would be cool to be a nun. Helping out in soo many ways.
Iacobus
New Member
If I am not mistaken it has to be grape wine.Trinity said:
Rember, not you Trinity, that communion in the Catholic Church is the Body and Blood of Christ, thus they have specific rules about it. Christ used wheat bread and grape wine when he started the meal almost 2000 years ago, and thus we conuntie it today. The young girl could have recivied the Blood without problem. I doubt many would consider that to be "drinking." It is grape wine and water, and you don't really taken in much. Most people only drink a few mL if that. So the family in refusing to let the girl take Blood (and about the low glueten host, it is very possible that she could have used that based on what her doctor said, unless she was extremly sesitivie) was probly more of an attempt to raise a fuss than a true point.
maggie2
Active Member
I have known several Catholic women who would have loved to be a priest but could not. They were so turned off by this that two of them left the church and joined a Protestant denomination and became ministers. I also know several members of the Catholic church (both men and women) who totally disagree with the fact that women cannot be priests.
Recently I've been reading a number of books about the early church. It has become clear to me that there were many different branches of the church, some of which accepted women as equal with men and had women ministers. The Gnostic segment of the church was one of these.
In this study I've also discovered that the Gnostics and several other sects were ostracized around 300A.D. because they held quite different beliefs from the so-called orthodox church. The orthodox church was focused on creating a heirarchy and a unified belief system. The Gnostics believed that everyone in the church was equal and all could preach, teach, prophecy etc. etc. The orthodox church hated them because they didn't submit to the heirarchal system the bishops were trying to impose.
This lead to the texts that had been written by the Gnostics being labelled heretical. The orthodox church fathers ordered these texts to be burned and it was only in 1945 that some of them were discovered in Egypt. Recearch has shown that some of these texts probably pre-date the four gospels and some of Paul's writing. It's been interesting reading.
Recently I've been reading a number of books about the early church. It has become clear to me that there were many different branches of the church, some of which accepted women as equal with men and had women ministers. The Gnostic segment of the church was one of these.
In this study I've also discovered that the Gnostics and several other sects were ostracized around 300A.D. because they held quite different beliefs from the so-called orthodox church. The orthodox church was focused on creating a heirarchy and a unified belief system. The Gnostics believed that everyone in the church was equal and all could preach, teach, prophecy etc. etc. The orthodox church hated them because they didn't submit to the heirarchal system the bishops were trying to impose.
This lead to the texts that had been written by the Gnostics being labelled heretical. The orthodox church fathers ordered these texts to be burned and it was only in 1945 that some of them were discovered in Egypt. Recearch has shown that some of these texts probably pre-date the four gospels and some of Paul's writing. It's been interesting reading.
maggie2
Active Member
Hi Linwood,
Yeah, Pagels is one of the authors I've been reading. She's good. I've read a couple of others as well, can't remember the names off the top of my head. I have "The Origins of Satan" and will start reading it soon. I also have her book about 'Adam and Eve and the Serpent', not sure of the exact title but will read it soon also. Interesting writings.
My favorite of her books so far is 'Beyond Belief" about the Gospel of Thomas. It was a book that really set me free from Christian dogma and I refer back to it frequently. Have you read it?
Yeah, Pagels is one of the authors I've been reading. She's good. I've read a couple of others as well, can't remember the names off the top of my head. I have "The Origins of Satan" and will start reading it soon. I also have her book about 'Adam and Eve and the Serpent', not sure of the exact title but will read it soon also. Interesting writings.
My favorite of her books so far is 'Beyond Belief" about the Gospel of Thomas. It was a book that really set me free from Christian dogma and I refer back to it frequently. Have you read it?
linwood
Well-Known Member
No I haven`t but it is on my list as all her work is.maggie2 said:
I`ve only finished the Gnostic Gospels by her as of yet and am about halfway through The Origins of Satan.
Although I haven`t read it I can see how an honest analysis of The Gospel of Thomas might make one think seriously about the validity of modern Christian dogma.
Do either of you have a link to site that has the gosple of thomas for reading?
On another note, I thought the gnostics were branded heretics for their beliefs concerning Jesus not that everyone is equal.
Thirdly, and on topic, I see no reason why a women who wishes to should not be able to be ordained.
On another note, I thought the gnostics were branded heretics for their beliefs concerning Jesus not that everyone is equal.
Thirdly, and on topic, I see no reason why a women who wishes to should not be able to be ordained.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Here`s an overview of gnosticism..
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/gnosticism.htm
Here`s the Gospel of Thomas
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/gos_thomas.htm
At the first link I gave I belieev they have links to the entire Nag Hamadi library(Gnostic Gospels) near the bottom.
Mostly they were branded heretics because they didn`t believe Jesus was the road to salvation.
They believed that road was within ones self and they believed that is what Jesus taught.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/gnosticism.htm
Here`s the Gospel of Thomas
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/gos_thomas.htm
At the first link I gave I belieev they have links to the entire Nag Hamadi library(Gnostic Gospels) near the bottom.
Yes thas right but one of those beliefs was a much more equal standing between men and women.
Mostly they were branded heretics because they didn`t believe Jesus was the road to salvation.
They believed that road was within ones self and they believed that is what Jesus taught.
mr.guy
crapsack
I think the meat of this line of questioning is: Can a women hold a post in the catholic church that would EVER put her in a position of authority over a man? (please don't tell me everyone is equal in the church hierachy. Go flip off your friendly neighbourhood bishop and then tell me there'd be no real consequence.)linwood said:
Anyone who's looked below the belt might have heard of these things. But it seems a tenuous leap to equate that because i have a penis that that all women ought to be subserviant to me. That might equate that any of the debates on this forum ought to be judged firstly by one's gender. If women can't be trusted to lead in any meaningful way, perhaps their input here should be weighed in regards to their sex. I mean, is it really a woman's ROLE to argue with us men?trinity said:
If you want to run a succsessful fascist society, then regulating women's rights are definately the most effective means of insuring a long-lasting totaliarinism. Can't help but notice most right-wing activists (men and women) obsess on little else but the recindment of women's rights. And in any crushingly repressive regime, women ALWAYS brutally oppressed. I would suggest that any woman who's satisfied with their "roles", that is, a binary life choice of nun or baby-factory, is an active and willing masonginist. After all, the boys can't hold the paternalism all by themselves. They need your help if it's gonna work.
How interesting that this thread has been revived. I just read through the whole thing, and many people have brought up some good points. 
I, too, have known many women in the Catholic church who have been silently putting up with the idea that they and their daughters can never become priests. One can put the idea forward that all parts of the church are equally important to maintain the strength of the whole, however when one group holds the decision-making power over another group because of gender, ethnicity, economic class, etc., the risk of exploitation runs much higher than if the job of head honcho were open to any healthy-minded adult.
One can wax poetic about the importance of motherhood, nuns, and the women in the laity, but women in the Catholic church will always be subject to the decisions of the current pope and the local bishop - who will be male. I can wax poetic about the importance of fatherhood, too, and that a father tossing a football with his son or daughter is just as miraculous as a mother nursing her infant child. The role of parenting has little to do with the issue of papal authority.
Jesus was not a woman. That is true. However, he also was not Korean. He was also not deaf, not near-sighted, not chair-bound, and not mute. There were many things that Jesus was not in his earthly physicality. What IS important is how his message is kept true in it's teachings to the masses. To maintain that a woman should not be in charge of decision-making for the dignity of the church is discrimination, and it truly is a sad form of discrimination.
Peace,
Mystic
I, too, have known many women in the Catholic church who have been silently putting up with the idea that they and their daughters can never become priests. One can put the idea forward that all parts of the church are equally important to maintain the strength of the whole, however when one group holds the decision-making power over another group because of gender, ethnicity, economic class, etc., the risk of exploitation runs much higher than if the job of head honcho were open to any healthy-minded adult.
One can wax poetic about the importance of motherhood, nuns, and the women in the laity, but women in the Catholic church will always be subject to the decisions of the current pope and the local bishop - who will be male. I can wax poetic about the importance of fatherhood, too, and that a father tossing a football with his son or daughter is just as miraculous as a mother nursing her infant child. The role of parenting has little to do with the issue of papal authority.
Jesus was not a woman. That is true. However, he also was not Korean. He was also not deaf, not near-sighted, not chair-bound, and not mute. There were many things that Jesus was not in his earthly physicality. What IS important is how his message is kept true in it's teachings to the masses. To maintain that a woman should not be in charge of decision-making for the dignity of the church is discrimination, and it truly is a sad form of discrimination.
Peace,
Mystic
Of course you realize this isn't supposed to be sexism on the part of God, according to the Bible. It is supposed to be his 'division of labour'; not that I agree with it though.MysticSang'ha said:How interesting that this thread has been revived. I just read through the whole thing, and many people have brought up some good points.
I, too, have known many women in the Catholic church who have been silently putting up with the idea that they and their daughters can never become priests. One can put the idea forward that all parts of the church are equally important to maintain the strength of the whole, however when one group holds the decision-making power over another group because of gender, ethnicity, economic class, etc., the risk of exploitation runs much higher than if the job of head honcho were open to any healthy-minded adult.
One can wax poetic about the importance of motherhood, nuns, and the women in the laity, but women in the Catholic church will always be subject to the decisions of the current pope and the local bishop - who will be male. I can wax poetic about the importance of fatherhood, too, and that a father tossing a football with his son or daughter is just as miraculous as a mother nursing her infant child. The role of parenting has little to do with the issue of papal authority.
Jesus was not a woman. That is true. However, he also was not Korean. He was also not deaf, not near-sighted, not chair-bound, and not mute. There were many things that Jesus was not in his earthly physicality. What IS important is how his message is kept true in it's teachings to the masses. To maintain that a woman should not be in charge of decision-making for the dignity of the church is discrimination, and it truly is a sad form of discrimination.
Peace,
Mystic
Personally, I still believe (personally) that many of these rules were much more applicable & 'natural' at the time of all these commands, and that we have changed the structure of society to a point where it no longer seems right.
Also, understand that you personally hold a more progressive view of God's purpose through Christ, Michel.
It may have seemed more "natural" 2000 years ago, because overt sexism was the norm. Women truly were considered not much more than chattel. There are still many today (men AND women) who hold this hierarchal view of men's and women's roles in the church and in the home. It is a view that I do not subscribe to, either, BTW.
Peace,
Mystic
It may have seemed more "natural" 2000 years ago, because overt sexism was the norm. Women truly were considered not much more than chattel. There are still many today (men AND women) who hold this hierarchal view of men's and women's roles in the church and in the home. It is a view that I do not subscribe to, either, BTW.
Peace,
Mystic