Jesus Needs Penises

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
Undeniable, but finally the Church is embroiled in a controversy involving grown men and women
The Vatican has informed a Roman Catholic priest in the United States that he will be excommunicated next week for participating in a ceremony it considers illicit and invalid: the ordination of a woman as a priest.

The priest, the Rev. Roy Bourgeois, 69, has been a member of the Maryknoll religious order for 36 years. He said he was anguished at the thought of excommunication, but could not disavow his actions.

“Who are we as men to say that we are called by God to the ministry of priesthood, but women are not? That our call is valid, but theirs is not?” he said in an interview. “We profess as Catholics that the invitation to the priesthood comes from God, and it seems to me that we are tampering with the sacred.”

Father Bourgeois served as a missionary in Bolivia and El Salvador, and concerned by what he witnessed, returned to the United States and became nationally known as a peace advocate.

He lives in an apartment outside the gates of Fort Benning, Ga., where he leads an annual protest against the United States Army School of the Americas, which trains military personnel from Latin America. Last year, 17,000 people joined the protest.

In August, Father Bourgeois joined a ceremony in a Unitarian Universalist church in Lexington, Ky., in which a friend from the peace movement, Janice Sevre-Duszynska, claimed ordination as a Roman Catholic priest. Father Bourgeois gave the homily and laid hands on her.

He had known that excommunication was possible but said he thought it unlikely. His order summoned him to headquarters and gave him a warning but did not discipline him.

Then he received a letter dated Oct. 21 from the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, warning that if he did not recant, in writing, he would be excommunicated within 30 days.

“When I got the actual letter, I had to sit down,” he said. “I felt nauseous. I thought, this is serious stuff. The first thought that came to mind was, How am I going to explain this to my dad and my family?”

After weeks of prayer, Father Bourgeois informed the Vatican that he would not repent.

Ms. Sevre-Duszynska, a veteran agitator for women’s ordination, is the 35th American woman to claim ordination from an increasingly vocal group known as Roman Catholic Womenpriests.

She grew up in a Polish Catholic community in Milwaukee and grew enamored of a priest’s work after her mother arranged for her to help a nun clean the priest’s sacristy every week.

“I have felt called to the priesthood since my childhood,” Ms. Sevre-Duszynska said.

The Womenpriests group has been holding its own ordinations of women as priests, deacons and even bishops across North America and Europe, starting in 2002 with a ceremony on a boat on the Danube River. Some of the ceremonies in Europe were done in secret, so even Womenpriest leaders say they do not have a complete count.

The Vatican and local bishops have notified the women that they are automatically excommunicated. But Father Bourgeois is the first priest to face discipline for his involvement.

Leaders of the Womenpriests say that three bishops in good standing have performed ordinations in Europe. But they have pledged not to identify the bishops until their deaths.

Pope John Paul II reiterated the church’s position in 1994 in an apostolic letter which said that because Jesus chose only male apostles, “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.”

A Roman Catholic nun who worked for the Archdiocese of St. Louis was removed from her position by her archbishop this year, and banned from receiving sacraments, after she attended a women’s ordination ceremony.

Father Bourgeois said he would try to appeal the Vatican’s decision. Excommunication, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is “the most severe ecclesiastical penalty.” The person is forbidden to receive or administer sacraments.

On a practical level, Father Bourgeois also faces the loss of his benefits and the $1,000 he receives monthly for living expenses. But, he said, “if I am without health care, I will be joining millions of people in the U.S. who don’t have health care.”

He has been at peace, he said, since he drove to his hometown in Louisiana and told his 95-year-old father, his 3 siblings and 13 nieces and nephews.

His father cried a little, Father Bourgeois recalled, then said: “God brought Roy back from the war in Vietnam, from his mission work in Bolivia and El Salvador, and God’s going to take care of him now. I support Roy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/us/14priest.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Freeloading institutions immune from anti-discrimination law really do make for good societies :)
 
The Vatican has informed a Roman Catholic priest in the United States that he will be excommunicated next week

The ultimate procrastinator. We will excommunicate you.... err next week. :D

From this Vatican you can expect nothing else. There is movement under the current Pope, but the direction is going back.
 
I'm all for women becoming priests. The Bible even mentions female ministers in the New Testament. I can't believe the Church still insists on priesthoods for men only. I mean, is that really a reflection of God?
 
It's not representative of social progression, at all :down:
 
1 Corinthians 14:34

:wink:

<>

Completely irrelevant, in light of the fact that Christianity had female priests until the time of St. Augustine of Hippo, who then ushered in Christianity's long obsession with misogyny. The logic was that pagans had priestesses, thus they were wrong. Never mind that pagans also had priests; I guess that kind of logical consistency was peripheral in those days.

Nonetheless, quite clearly, early Christians did not agree with you.
 
Completely irrelevant, in light of the fact that Christianity had female priests until the time of St. Augustine of Hippo, who then ushered in Christianity's long obsession with misogyny. The logic was that pagans had priestesses, thus they were wrong. Never mind that pagans also had priests; I guess that kind of logical consistency was peripheral in those days.

Nonetheless, quite clearly, early Christians Catholics did not agree with you.

I think Christ's Church was corrupted long before St. Augustine came along which was in 350 AD.

There was no Apostolic succession after 96 AD when John the Beloved was banished to the Isle of Patmos.

That said Joseph Smith translated that paticular verse as:

That women were *not* to be silenced in Church but to not rule over it.

Makes better sense to me.

<>
 
I think Christ's Church was corrupted long before St. Augustine came along which was in 350 AD.

There was no Apostolic succession after 96 AD when John the Beloved was banished to the Isle of Patmos.

That said Joseph Smith translated that paticular verse as:

That women were *not* to be silenced in Church but to not rule over it.

Makes better sense to me.

<>

And what does it matter if women "rule" over the church or not? Is there some particular insight or lack of incompetence that men have over women? Does a penis somehow automatically make you more qualified to be a leader than, say, Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher?

The creators of the Biblical canon did not believe the Bible to be infallible; thus, we had the instruction of church leadership, who, presumably, would rule on theological matters on the instruction of God. This allows for the idea of "continuing revelation," which the LDS church seems to make liberal use of (i.e., the prohibition of polygamy after it was allowed, the inclusion of blacks after they were prohibited). Nonetheless, I'd say that, even by the Renaissance of the 12th Century, there arose the idea that God was governed by the principles of logic and philosophy, thus giving way to the idea of "natural law." Unfortunately, the original application of "natural law" was mainly to develop a warped sense of nature, based on their interpretation of the Bible, rather than actual observations of nature as it existed. However, if we are to apply the central tenet of Christian natural law--that all of nature is created by God, and, thus, good--we can clearly see that, by observation of nature, that 1 Corinthians 14:34 is, essentially, nonsense. The minds of women are identical to those of men, and it is just as conceivable that some women will have more theological insight and brilliance than that of most men, just as some men will have more insight and brilliance than others. I will judge them by the fruits of their message, rather than that of the physical anatomy of the messenger, because the latter is a logical fallacy, and I presume that God is not governed by the blatant and arbitrary illogic that is the provenance of mankind.
 
That said Joseph Smith translated that paticular verse as:

That women were *not* to be silenced in Church but to not rule over it.

Makes better sense to me.

<>

Shouldn't God rule over the church?

Makes better sense to me.

Yeah, Joseph Smith wasn't one for equality now was he?
 
2000 years of tradition have shown that the ideal environment for a Church is with men ruling over it....wait, why am I getting déj? vu here? :scratch:
 
That said Joseph Smith translated that paticular verse as:

That women were *not* to be silenced in Church but to not rule over it.

From what? His imaginary tablets?

The Church is backwards on this, but it's not the first time. There is a reason why I only go at Christmas when I'm visiting my parents and don't wish to create a scene with older family members (my brother does the same). They don't get a penny of my money though, that's for sure.
 
1 Corinthians 14:34

:wink:

<>
This isn't Corinth. Maybe the women in Corinth were just really loud and annoying during services.


That said. Where would men be without women? Nowhere. Everyone has a mother, even Jesus. None of you would be here without us. Women could so take over the world if we just united and said "No more sex/babies for any of you until we get what we want!"



And this is totally off topic, but for some reason this reminds me of whoever it was that said IVF babies don't have souls. A close friend of mine was conceived through IVF (the only way for her parents to have kids), and when I read that, I was like "lolol you don't have a soul!!!!!1"
 
This isn't Corinth. Maybe the women in Corinth were just really loud and annoying during services.


That said. Where would men be without women? Nowhere. Everyone has a mother, even Jesus. None of you would be here without us. Women could so take over the world if we just united and said "No more sex/babies for any of you until we get what we want!"


"

all true.

the espitle to the corinthian saints were letter exchanges between the apostle paul and timothy.

paul was speaking about a localized problem w a certain members in a certain congregation(s).


<>
 
all true.

the espitle to the corinthian saints were letter exchanges between the apostle paul and timothy.

paul was speaking about a localized problem w a certain members in a certain congregation(s).


<>

Exactly why it really has no relevence as far as women in leadership roles, in general.
 
If this is true why were Mormon women allowed to vote in 1840, while the rest of US population forbade them until a century later?

<>

Women's suffrage in Utah was two fold, it was a PR move to show the rest of the country Mormon women weren't slave or prostitutes, and two it was done to maintain polygamy since more and more antipolygamy groups were moving into Utah.
 
Women's suffrage in Utah was two fold, it was a PR move to show the rest of the country Mormon women weren't slave or prostitutes, and two it was done to maintain polygamy since more and more antipolygamy groups were moving into Utah.

LDS women were able to have a voice and govern long before they came to Utah-try again.

<>
 
Mormon treatment of women is nothing short of pioneering. Do you still require the women, and men for that matter, to wear garments? How do women overcome breastfeeding issues, not to mention what on earth do they do during their period? Just curious.
 
It's up to a member to choose to wear the sacred garment. However the rules and requirements upon wearing them are not as stringent as some people conjure up in their minds.

As many children as LDS families average, it's not that much of an impediment as some ppl may have thought.

:)

<>
 
It's up to a member to choose to wear the sacred garment. However the rules and requirements upon wearing them are not as stringent as some people conjure up in their minds.

As many children as LDS families average, it's not that much of an impediment as some ppl may have thought.

:)

<>
Do you wear yours? My sister and her husband wear theirs. I was told that once you'd been baptized at the Temple, that you had to wear them.


To Anna: Menstruation wouldn't be a problem. The women's garments are essentially longish shorts (like bike shorts) and a tanktop with cap sleeves. Nursing would be a big issue though. Unless they make a special 'nursing bra' version of the women's garments. I wouldn't know.
 
Then where were they in 1840? Please tell me...

They were voting their consent and sustaining of or non consent and non sustaining of both female and male leaders in the Church since it's inception in 1830.

They were also running their own philanthropic group called the Relief Society.




Relief Society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Relief Society
Relief Society Seal
Motto "Charity never faileth"
Formation March 17, 1842
Type Non-profit
Purpose/focus gospel instruction, women's/familial support, humanitarian aid
Headquarters Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Membership 5.6 million women in over 170 countries[1]
General President Julie B. Beck
Parent organization The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Website lds.org
The Relief Society is a philanthropic and educational women's organization and an official auxiliary organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Founded in 1842 in Nauvoo, Illinois, USA, the Relief Society today claims more than 5.2 million members in over 170 countries and territories, and is one of the oldest and largest women's organizations in the world.[2]
 
Do you wear yours? My sister and her husband wear theirs.


.


Yes I wear mine.

Once you covenant to live a higher law beyond baptism although baptism is needed this goes even beyond that- you can choose to wear them.

And they're pretty comfortable actually.

<>
 
Back
Top Bottom