The Theist Thread - Let's Share

Off topic. If you have an issue with moderation, PM me. - Certis

I think you can only really draw a great generalities about how people caucus in matters of social policy in a very general way, and in particular, a lot of what happens and is common in America is too often seen by Americans as applicable to everyone. For instance, being an agnostic theist apparently is rare in America, but I know many such of my acquaintance in the Philippines. As a local priest would say, "If we could prove that God exists, then we would not need to have faith in His existence."

That is, if God could be proven logically or scientifically, then believing in Him would no longer be a matter of faith, but simply a matter of sanity.

I think that in a multicultural country that honestly is trying to accommodate all its beliefs, it is incumbent upon the citizens of that country not to put matters of their own personal religion or faith in law or as common government policy. That is, if you don't really believe in theocracy, then stop basing legislating only on the articles of one or a few faiths, to the detriment of your own countrymen.

And if you do? Migrate to the Vatican.

darrenl wrote:

Also, any topics you guys want to share regarding Catholicism, I would be very happy to answer for you. Want to know the traditions of the Catholic Church but are afraid to ask, ask me.

Thanks for this thread darrenl. My question is why does the Roman Catholic church still refuse to let women enter the priesthood?

And for disclosure I am a life long protestant (Methodist) who did pretty much usual the "drift away from the faith when I entered college" thing. Drifted back about 13 years ago when I was in my early 30's.

Last historical book I read on Christianity was Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch.

MacBrave wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Also, any topics you guys want to share regarding Catholicism, I would be very happy to answer for you. Want to know the traditions of the Catholic Church but are afraid to ask, ask me.

Thanks for this thread darrenl. My question is why does the Roman Catholic church still refuse to let women enter the priesthood?

And for disclosure I am a life long protestant (Methodist) who did pretty much usual the "drift away from the faith when I entered college" thing. Drifted back about 13 years ago when I was in my early 30's.

Last historical book I read on Christianity was Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch.

My pleasure to start it...and I'm really pleased on the participation. Thanks guys.

First...Pheonix, you won the internet with the Life of Brian video. I tip my hat to you, sir!

Mytch, Ravi Z was the first religious author that I read when I started feeling that odd spiritual pull 2 years ago. I love the man for it. Read two of his books: Has Christianity Failed You and Can Man Live Without God. He really started the ball rolling in my return back.

OK, now onto your question MacBrave...and thanks for asking because it's an excellent question and I'll try my best to stumble over the answer. The short answer is the Catholic Church does not have the power to do so....even if it wanted to. JP II said as much in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994.

First, some ground work, and we'll hit this from many angles. Jesus is a man. Let's check that box right away. Men and women are different...clearly. Our bodies are different...clearly. During the last supper, note what he said; "this *is* my body". Since he is a man, and the Eucharist *is* his body, it makes no sense if a woman said those words during consecration since the one doing the consecration is acting in Persona Christi., i.e. "How can that be Jesus' body?...he is a dude...you're a woman. Those bodies aren't even close to the same". Sure, we're all human and equal, but our bodies are different...regardless of the cultural pressure saying otherwise. That's one practical reason.

Another reason. Jesus chose men for his discipleship, despite having a perfectly good woman to be one: Mary (his mother). There are other prominent women in the Gospels as well, but he still did not choose them. So..the church follows and obeys that example set for us by Jesus. Jesus clearly had other roles for women in mind....or more accurately, he had more important symbolism for the feminine side of our humanity; specifically the Church itself.

Take a look at how he refers to the Church in the gospels...,i.e."bride". The Church is the Bride of Christ...he is the Bridegroom. The Church itself is the feminine body. The relationship between the Church and Jesus is one of marriage. Again, since the priest is acting in Persona Christi ("In the person of Christ") during mass, that person must be a man in order for that sacred marriage relationship to be fulfilled. When I was reading up on this (...I had the same question as you btw...), I was struck by how beautiful and poetic this is.

That all being said, women play a HUGE role in the Church. Go to any parish and you'll see women in leadership roles in every aspect: admin, parish management, catechism, RCIA, formation, outreach programs...and I can go on. Women are the glue that holds everything together...ask any priest.

Here's some more information for you to read on this subject that goes deeper and more authoritatively than my poorly worded attempt:

http://olgcparish.net/files/frjohn/a...

Let me know if you need followup or have any other questions.

darrennl - Why do you buy into every apologist creed? You should know that the laity is as important as the hierarchy. Meaning their wishes and conscience means as much as what the Popes and Bishops cite as true. In our day and time there is a belief there is nothing immoral about women being priests. So it comes down to what is interpreted. What if the interpretation is wrong? For me that symbolism is an artifact of medieval times and has nothing to do with our spiritual growth now.

goman wrote:

darrennl - Why do you buy into every apologist creed? You should know that the laity is as important as the hierarchy. Meaning their wishes and conscience means as much as what the Popes and Bishops cite as true. In our day and time there is a belief there is nothing immoral about women being priests. So it comes down to what is interpreted. What if the interpretation is wrong? For me that symbolism is an artifact of medieval times and has nothing to do with our spiritual growth now.

Hey Goman...

So, I guess the main thrust of your question is the authority of interpretation in regards to the Pope and the Magistrate? Where does it come from? I.e. Why is their interpretation to be believed over everyone else, including the laity?

Am I reading you correctly on that?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

A recent Focus On The Family podcast featured an interview with a fellow who had written a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Very much piqued my interest, both in that biography, and in anything Bonhoeffer had written. I'll look up the title of the bio on my lunch break.

Darren, +1 to your comment about women playing a huge role in the Church. My mom would often leave my sister and I with Sister Jo while she went shopping, and I credit Sister Jo with first explaining what is necessary for salvation to me in a way I could understand.

Edit: Found the title of that Bonhoeffer bio..."Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy" by Eric Metaxas.

Edit edit: Well, that Amazon link doesn't seem to be working.

darrenl wrote:

Let me know if you need followup or have any other questions.

Thank you darrenl, you covered it quite nicely.

I guess you have to chalk this one up to one of the primary differences between Catholics and Protestants, most whom are firm adherents to the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers.

MacBrave wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Let me know if you need followup or have any other questions.

Thank you darrenl, you covered it quite nicely.

I guess you have to chalk this one up to one of the primary differences between Catholics and Protestants, most whom are firm adherents to the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers.

My pleasure MacBrave.

Indeed. The main rift we're seeing is again, sola scriptura. Here's hoping that we resolve this issue sometime in the future and that we come together again. In the meantime, we can still celebrate those things we do have in common.

Another good topic for those who are curious...Excommunication. What is it?

http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/...

Darrenl. My question was clear. Why are you just citing the magistrate apologies? The church is there to serve us, not us to serve them.

Also - It is the only thing you do in this forum. Don't you have opinions on other things?

goman wrote:

Darrenl. My question was clear. Why are you just citing the magistrate apologies? The church is there to serve us, not us to serve them.

Also - It is the only thing you do in this forum. Don't you have opinions on other things?

Regarding your question on Magistrate...because I wish to present the most accurate position of the Catholic Church (..and Theism in general...), as well as provide links, resources and other places where others can go to find them should they either want to dig further on their own or double check my understanding of the issue in question.

Do I have other opinions on other things? Yes.

goman wrote:

Darrenl. My question was clear. Why are you just citing the magistrate apologies? The church is there to serve us, not us to serve them.

Also - It is the only thing you do in this forum. Don't you have opinions on other things?

Regarding your question on Magistrate...because I wish to present the most accurate position of the Catholic Church (..and Theism in general...), as well as provide links, resources and other places where others can go to find them should they either want to dig further on their own or double check my understanding of the issue in question.

Do I have other opinions on other things? Yes.

Would like to keep this on topic if at all possible. So, if you have a question that isn't about me, then shoot....otherwise, I propose we move on.

Actually @MacBrave...so you ever see the issues between Catholic and Protestant being resolved?

wow...my first double post. How did that happen?

darrenl wrote:
goman wrote:

Darrenl. My question was clear. Why are you just citing the magistrate apologies? The church is there to serve us, not us to serve them.

Also - It is the only thing you do in this forum. Don't you have opinions on other things?

Regarding your question on Magistrate...because I wish to present the most accurate position of the Catholic Church (..and Theism in general...), as well as provide links, resources and other places where others can go to find them should they either want to dig further on their own or double check my understanding of the issue in question.

Do I have other opinions on other things? Yes.

That is not the most accurate position. The Church is the people, not the written rules.

To cross the two discussions, there was an event in Pittsburgh a few years back where some Catholics decided that no women priests was archaic, and had an ordination. The Bishop shortly thereafter issued a blanket excommunication of all of the women, any priest that participated, and anyone in attendance. Up until that point, I had no idea they could just excommunicate in absentia and without a specific... Target? That's not the right word but it's the only one I can think of.

goman wrote:
darrenl wrote:
goman wrote:

Darrenl. My question was clear. Why are you just citing the magistrate apologies? The church is there to serve us, not us to serve them.

Also - It is the only thing you do in this forum. Don't you have opinions on other things?

Regarding your question on Magistrate...because I wish to present the most accurate position of the Catholic Church (..and Theism in general...), as well as provide links, resources and other places where others can go to find them should they either want to dig further on their own or double check my understanding of the issue in question.

Do I have other opinions on other things? Yes.

That is not the most accurate position. The Church is the people, not the written rules.

MacBrave's question was specifically for the Roman Catholic position on female priests. I think I represented that specific position quite accurately and have given enough to MacBrave to double check me on the Catholic position.

Regarding "Church is the people, not the written rules". Not sure what you mean, here. It certainly sounds nice and democratic, but can you expand a bit more? The Bible has written rules in it, i.e. 10 Commandments, Beatitudes, etc...is that in play in your statement or are you talking about interpretation only?

goman:

I think that if you want to make any sense of how something in the Catholic Church is decided, you have to understand how the Catholic Church defies itself, rather than how you prefer to think of it.

The Church is both the clergy and the laypeople, but I've never had the impression that it was a democratic affair.

NSMike wrote:

To cross the two discussions, there was an event in Pittsburgh a few years back where some Catholics decided that no women priests was archaic, and had an ordination. The Bishop shortly thereafter issued a blanket excommunication of all of the women, any priest that participated, and anyone in attendance. Up until that point, I had no idea they could just excommunicate in absentia and without a specific... Target? That's not the right word but it's the only one I can think of.

Nice cross of the two.

Yeah, I had no idea regarding the automatic excommunication either. That was something new to me.

I heard about that case as well. I'm really hoping they go after some of these politicians as well, if out of anything to at least make them stick to their convictions of being Catholic in the first place..what do you think Mike?

I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.

I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.

I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.

NSMike wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.

I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.

I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.

I would think a true statesmen would say, "Yes, I'm Catholic. If you don't like it, then I will thank God that you didn't vote for me"...and then see what happens.

Looks like we're pretty close. Stick to your convictions or get out of the way.

darrenl wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.

I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.

I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.

I would think a true statesmen would say, "Yes, I'm Catholic. If you don't like it, then I will thank God that you didn't vote for me"...and then see what happens.

Looks like we're pretty close. Stick to your convictions or get out of the way.

We are pretty close, but I happen to think that there isn't really a religion out there whose tenets have the best interests of society at large at heart. To put it harshly, religions are generally selfish to their own causes. To serve in public office, where you're meant to represent a diverse selection of citizens, you have to consider the positions of your constituency as a whole. If that constituency's opinions happen to override your own, or that of your church, you have a duty to represent your constituency (barring, of course, that your constituency is advocating for something that is clearly a human rights violation). This is a fairly far-fetched ideal, but it would still be very nice.

NSMike wrote:
darrenl wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.

I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.

I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.

I would think a true statesmen would say, "Yes, I'm Catholic. If you don't like it, then I will thank God that you didn't vote for me"...and then see what happens.

Looks like we're pretty close. Stick to your convictions or get out of the way.

We are pretty close, but I happen to think that there isn't really a religion out there whose tenets have the best interests of society at large at heart. To put it harshly, religions are generally selfish to their own causes. To serve in public office, where you're meant to represent a diverse selection of citizens, you have to consider the positions of your constituency as a whole. If that constituency's opinions happen to override your own, or that of your church, you have a duty to represent your constituency (barring, of course, that your constituency is advocating for something that is clearly a human rights violation). This is a fairly far-fetched ideal, but it would still be very nice.

I understand....but that would apply to plenty of things beyond religion, after all, most causes are selfish by their very nature of being "causes", in the political sense. So therefore I think it would be a weak case to specifically point to religious values as exempt from informing (...not dictating...but proposing...) public policy. Certainly I would agree that secular mechanics should be in place to prevent a Taliban (...or worse...) scenario.

..we're getting off topic again. So, counter-reply back if you want and I'll let it go after that.

Well, the context is religious in this thread so that's how I framed the original idea. Of course it would apply to non-religious contexts, like corporate interests, lobbying, etc.

NSMike wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.

I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.

I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.

I think the issue is one of what are his convictions. Just because someone believes a certain act is wrong because of their religious values, that doesn't mean they also believe that it is their duty to use force to compel others to agree with them, which is what is happening when the government takes state action: using force to compel you to do something.

I am not Theologian and I am certainly not an apologist. But I do know there are many theologians, including priests in good standing, that take a more nuanced version of the Magistrate. Who if it wasn't for these people's arguments, I would not consider myself Catholic. I just cannot in good conscience believe the apologist's arguments if they go against what I believe what Jesus was preaching.

Jesus never said "Women cannot be leaders/priests/elders/popes of the Church" He said Peter should start the Church. The Church has interpreted this wrong in my opinion and is now dismissing a lot of laity wishes in this regard. Excommunication should be taken out of the Catholic Church lexicon. Jesus did not preach this either. He in fact preached the opposite.

CheezePavilion wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.

I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.

I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.

I think the issue is one of what are his convictions. Just because someone believes a certain act is wrong because of their religious values, that doesn't mean they also believe that it is their duty to use force to compel others to agree with them, which is what is happening when the government takes state action: using force to compel you to do something.

In which case, he needs to leave office. Because if he doesn't believe that government should be used to "force" things on people, he's a freaking anarchist.

NSMike wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a true statesmen would rescind his religious affiliation if he believed that he had to serve the nation first, and that service conflicted with his religion.

I'm of the opinion that if your affiliation requires it, a Catholic/Faithful/Whatever should abandon his public office ambitions if he's not willing to remain true to his convictions while in office.

I'm also of the opinion that the church can do whatever it wants to its membership, but that cashiering politicians looks too much like a political statement for my taste.

I think the issue is one of what are his convictions. Just because someone believes a certain act is wrong because of their religious values, that doesn't mean they also believe that it is their duty to use force to compel others to agree with them, which is what is happening when the government takes state action: using force to compel you to do something.

In which case, he needs to leave office. Because if he doesn't believe that government should be used to "force" things on people, he's a freaking anarchist.

I only mean forcing people to agree with them on the specific issue of that religious value. Maybe an example will help.

We've got freedom of religion in this country. There are politicians who believe their religion is the only correct one. Does that mean all those politicians have a conflict between their religion and their duty to their nation?

Not necessarily: unless their religion also preaches its members should use all the power they have--like any office they are elected into--to get people to agree theirs is the one true religion, there is no conflict. If their religious conviction is "my way is the right way, but I can only use non-violent persuasion to convince you" there's no conflict.

goman wrote:

I am not Theologian and I am certainly not an apologist. But I do know there are many theologians, including priests in good standing, that take a more nuanced version of the Magistrate. Who if it wasn't for these people arguments, I would not consider myself Catholic. I just cannot in good conscience believe the apologist's arguments if they go against what I believe what Jesus was preaching.

Jesus never said "Women cannot be leaders/priests/elders/popes of the Church" He said Peter should start the Church. The Church has interpreted this wrong in my opinion and is now dismissing a lot of laity wishes in this regard. Excommunication should be taken out of the Catholic Church lexicon. Jesus did not preach this either. He in fact preached the opposite.

Jesus also never said that they could be priests either...so maybe it is your interpretation that is incorrect? So that puts you in the position of saying why they should be knowing full well that there is no scriptural or traditional basis to support it. Jesus clearly made no woman apostles, nor did he choose a woman as a pope..DESPITE there being a perfectly good ones all over the place to fill those roles: Elizabeth, Mary, etc. It is interesting though, how prominant woman are in the Gospels: Woman at the well is first one to know he is Messiah, first ones to see risen Christ are woman. Very significant.

As nice as it would be to do a popular vote on all doctrinal issues, it just doesn't work that way. Jesus left us a church to guide us, not a system by which to vote on things we like or don't like.

Excommunication is completely supported by Jesus. Take a look at Matthew 18:17. Jesus did't just let things go when you screwed up, he called you on it...but you're right, he did not abandon you when you did and allowed you to return, but it is you who must do the returning. Excommunication is used as a starting point for restoration back to the church.

In which case, to bring this circle back around, it's up to the authority of his particular religion to decide what to do with him, officially. Catholics are really the only ones who exercise that kind of authority, though.