Women as priests...a sin??? Vatican excommunicates 7. - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-05-2002, 10:33 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Normal Women as priests...a sin??? Vatican excommunicates 7.

As a woman who has struggled with issues of equality in the church, I honestly do not get how in this day and age it is possible to remain so narrow-minded. Whatever happened to "there is no male, female, Greek, Hebrew, slave, or free...we are all one in Christ?"

Quote:
Vatican Excommunicates Seven Women 'Priests'
Mon Aug 5, 8:24 AM ET

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Reinforcing its opposition to female priests, the Vatican ( news - web sites) said Monday it had excommunicated seven women, including a nun, who were ordained in June in a ceremony on a boat in Austria.

An Argentine bishop, not recognized by the Holy See, ordained the Austrian, German and U.S. women in a ceremony, witnessed by 300 people.

This prompted a warning from the Vatican last month, giving the women 12 days to repent.

"Because the women ... did not give any indication of amendment or repentance for the most serious offence they had committed...they have incurred excommunication," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a papal right-hand man, said in a press release from the Vatican.

He had earlier branded the ordination "an affront to the dignity of women," saying women had a specific role in the church which was distinctive and irreplaceable.
__________________

__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 08-05-2002, 10:49 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
adamswildhoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Somewhere in NorCal
Posts: 10,333
Local Time: 04:27 PM
WTF? I think women should be able to become priests if they want! It frankly pisses me off when the church or anyone says that a woman cant do what a man can.


BTW my grandmother agrees that women shouldnt be able to be priests!




__________________

__________________
adamswildhoney is offline  
Old 08-05-2002, 10:59 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 06:27 PM
Don't they realize that the first WITNESS of Christ's Resurrection was Mary Magdalene, a WOMAN? She discovered the empty tomb and spread the Good News! I support the Priesthood of All Believers.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 08-05-2002, 11:20 PM   #4
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Honestly, I don't know why anyone would WANT to be a priest in the first place, let alone believe they have a greater relationship with God and Jesus?

If you read history of the Catholic Church it was the female sex that was pivotal in its legacy during the first few hundred years. They ran the charities, administrations, etc. For this reason I find it incredibly bizarre that women would believe that their place is somehow subpar to those of men.

Playboy magazine has an interesting article on this subject. It's in the issue with Jordan on the cover. I think it's the September issue. It is written by a former priest who left the church after realizing the hypocrisy involved with the "big wigs" at the top. After reading it I'd be surprised if anyone placed a new-found faith in this religion's principles.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 08-05-2002, 11:40 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 06:27 PM

...although I disagree with you as to what role I think that a soft-porn magazine should have in the goings-on of the Catholic Church.
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 08-05-2002, 11:48 PM   #6
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Playboy will forever be associated with perverted sensibilities simply because it has pictures on attractive, young, nude women….(Ah, that reminds me….((Danospano glances over recent Playmate pictorial))….I love this magazine). Nevertheless, it DOES publish intriguing, thoughtful commentaries, interviews, and fictional pornographic cartoons. Three things that everyone hates to admit that they LOVE!!!!!!

I can’t defend the content of the article, because I’m sure that many will disregard its quality based on nothing more than the publisher’s reputation. That’s sad. I think that anyone who’s ever read…..yes, I said “read”, Playboy would have the understanding to pick fallacies from realities. That being said, find a copy on the internet, or even better, go to the nearest newsstand and shovel over a few bucks.
Don’t tell me your afraid you’ll go to hell? LOL
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 08-05-2002, 11:58 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 06:27 PM

So there really are people who "read it for the articles"?

No, I am aware that they publish valid articles in their cultural journal. But I have seen articles written by and/or about ex-priests in other mediae as well, including THE BIRMINGHAM POST-HERALD. I just don't really think the Vatican is going to change time because of what PLAYBOY prints. What's next? Hugh Hefner advising the Pope on the recent scandals in the Church? Anna Nicole Smith going to serve in Mother Teresa's mission?

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 08-06-2002, 02:05 AM   #8
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano
Honestly, I don't know why anyone would WANT to be a priest in the first place, let alone believe they have a greater relationship with God and Jesus?
priests don't have a greater relationship with God
they (should) dedicate their life to help us strengthen our faith

I do somewhat understand why the decision is made that priests can't be married
you are a priest all of the time - no office hours
people tell you things in strictest confidence
things you won't be able to share with your partner (because it was told in confidence) even when those things effect your mood for the rest of the week

I never really understood why women can't be priests though
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 08-06-2002, 02:10 AM   #9
Refugee
 
RavenStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 1,101
Local Time: 07:27 PM
I never understood the fact that while priest are celibit(sp?), you have to go in for marrage councilling(with a priest) before you get married.
Like I've always said [accent]"You no playa the game, you no makea the rules."[/accent]
__________________
RavenStar is offline  
Old 08-06-2002, 03:50 AM   #10
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Bama I am really surprised you are discrediting something because of its source. I am aware that source is important, but I sincerely doubt the magazine would publish such an article in the hope THEY may knock some sense into the vatican. As Danospano said, it was written by an ex-priest. I think an ex-priest, regardless of where his words end up printed, would have some interesting things to say about the church.

I dont know if I'm following this, these women were excommunicated because they were ordained without full authority?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-06-2002, 04:56 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Does this have anything to do with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? If so, I understand that this passage is often taken out of context and therefore misunderstood.

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

This is what I understand from the above passage. When Paul spoke this, there were fights or upsets going on between women in the church; I think it was due to cutting remarks, gossip, suchlike; and this is why he said what he said.

Of course, I don't think it is fair for priests/clergymen to extrapolate from this passage and say that women are not allowed to be ordained.



foray
__________________
foray is offline  
Old 08-06-2002, 09:15 AM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 09:57 PM
that passage actually has a simple meaning.

In Pauls time women would sit at the back and men at the front. It was common for women to talk to their husbands, who were up in front, to ask them what the preacher had said. This of course meant they had to raise their voice hence Paul telling them to wait until they got home.

This is taught at a prominent bible collage which my friend attended which actually boasts one of the most intelligent theologians in the world.

Now,
another thing, and I don't want to offend anyone here.

But this excommunication thing is one of the things I find wrong with catholicism. I was just saying how we are not living in the middle ages in another thread and here we're talking about a tradition which originated precisely then!

does it not irk catholics that you have someone way over in Vatican determining whether or not you can be a christian?? I mean, they excommunicate these women and say they have a certain amount of time to repent...
is that how God operates??? ARGGG! That's the most frustrating thing EVER!
God is always there, ALWAYS forgiving, and no f*cking man on earth can tell ANYBODY that they are not chistians.

The pope WAY too much power if you ask me.

And as to the person who asked why women would want to be priests...why should there be any pastors, why should there be any clergy at all?!?
These people want to have these positions because they feel that it is a good place from which to help others and to guide people in their christian walk. Of course, you can do that without becoming a clergyperson but people just look up to these people, often.
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 08-06-2002, 09:38 AM   #13
Refugee
 
notiti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kong Studios
Posts: 1,336
Local Time: 09:27 AM
Normal

If more women were preists then there would be less little boys getting molested....
I mean if someone wants to help inspire faith in others you would think the Church would support it. Well whatever the men can cling on to their out dated hierarchy. You boys can go play dress up with those big hats on your own. Don't worry, we'll be fine.
__________________
notiti is offline  
Old 08-06-2002, 10:12 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 07:27 PM

I've thought about this issue quite a lot (having been raised in a conservative sphere where women's ordination was never even considered) and have discussed it with other friends on this forum. Rather than re-type some of my thoughts, I have lifted a portion of an email discussing this topic that I think is relavent. (apologies to the original recipient for having to read it twice ).

-----

Let's begin with the traditional concept of biblical womanhood. The more "conservative" one and the one that I have been exposed to in one form or another. Keep in mind of course that because I went to a boarding school, I was "raised" by many people not necessarily my parents and so I have a variety of conflicting influences pulling at my subconscious. By that I mean, the stereotype I am about to put forward is not necessarily one that I was taught but one that I observed with some regularity. That said, here we go. In a nutshell, the rules are: women should if at all possible stay at home with their children, women should never be in ultimate authority in the church (they can be involved in varying degrees but the top dog MUST be a man), in the marriage relationship husbands have the final say, women with leadership capabilities are rebellious and not truly "spiritual" else they would be more submissive. Now particularly in the church environment, women are viewed as suspect. They can "give their testimony" but they can't "preach." They can shepherd a small group, but they can't pastor a church. They can go to college (although why should they? Good Christian women should only want to be housewives and mothers) but seminary is out of the question, except in the case of preparing for the foreign mission field. Oh and on the mission field, they are expected to have a male leader figure in charge of the work in their area. Sound about right? And if you question this arrangement, you are given a stern warning about the evils of our “liberal media” and on the soundness of "God's plan" for "biblical masculinity and femininity". And after all, no one would EVER want to be labeled a * gasp* "feminist" as they are the evil to end all evils. Now if you detect a note of sarcasm, you're astute. Lol. I don't agree with a word of this, but I have been led to believe that this is Gospel truth from a very early age.

First, how is it that I could possibly be expected to love and trust a God that considers me a second-class citizen, an afterthought, or a "weaker vessel"? That flies in the face of everything that I've read about Jesus. Second, if Jesus doesn't see me that way, then why is it that the church, the group that is supposedly his representative on earth, would like to impose this upon me and convince me of it?

The question at stake is very simple. "Are women fully human?" If the answer is yes, then it follows that they must then be endowed with every trait and quality that makes up what it is to be human. That would mean that there is nothing inherent in womanhood that would limit her function and status. And if Christ died on the cross to redeem all of humanity and restore it, then how is it that his redemption is not enough to restore women to the same level as men? One thing I have noticed in the research I have done is the concept of "human liberation" not "women's liberation." There is a motif of Old Testament law being overturned by New Testament fulfillment that I think bears on the situation. Women may have been held in low esteem in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of Christ they are restored to their rightful place as equals.

Now specifically about women in the church. Simply put, I don't believe that there is precedence for keeping women confined to a supportive role rather than a leadership one. The early church happened to be starting off in the first century, a time with it's own culture and social fabric, and in my opinion any interpretation of Scripture as it concerns church government at the time should be seen in its context and not made normative. It seems to me that we pick and choose those things that we would like to be "contextual" and those that should be taken "literally." When Paul talks of women covering their head, there are not many (although there are always a few) today that would seriously try to convince us that women should cover their heads in church and that to refrain from doing so is to rebel against God and to fail to be obedient. How is it that a verse from this very same passage is used to keep women from preaching in church? Who draws the line and decides which part is literal and which is meant as a model for all time? I find it shocking that in the extremely male-dominated society of the Mid-East and Rome, that Paul would refer to women as his "fellow workers", address letters to house churches run by women (actually that's John who did this, but you get the point), and even refer to what looks suspiciously like a woman apostle (whose name was changed to a male version in later translations because the scholars assumed that naturally the text couldn’t mean THAT – only MEN could be apostles).

This would suggest a pattern to me, one that Paul would not have been able to fully expand in his culture, but one that we have the means of making a reality today. After all, slavery was another evil that existed in Paul's day and although he gives guidelines for how Christians are to function with that institution still fixed in society, does that mean he should be interpreted as condoning the practice or even advocating its continuance for all time? Hardly. I think this is an excellent model for how the position and treatment of women in the early church vs. now should be viewed. It's not static and was never meant to be.

Another way to look at this is the subject of spiritual gifts. In all the lists of gifts that are in the NT, you will not find one that is split up by gender. It's never said that "here are the men's gifts...and oh here are the ones that are for women." They are for all Christians. Now, if God were to give me the gift of prophecy or of preaching and exhortation, would he then turn around and tell me that to use that gift is a sin? That to find an outlet for it is against his will? It seems contradictory.

Anyways, that's a starter, I suppose. I'm reading some excellent research on the meaning of some of the original Greek such as the word "head" as used in "the man is the head of the woman." Such as the fact that this word has 27+ connotations/translations and NONE of them have anything to do with authorship or leadership, except of course supposedly in this one instance.
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 08-06-2002, 11:17 AM   #15
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 08:27 PM
::applause::
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com