E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Bob Graf
Jesuit priest Bill Brennan, 92, was stripped of his priestly duties after he presided over a Eucharistic liturgy with a woman priest last month in Georgia.
A Milwaukee-area Catholic priest was stripped of his priestly duties after he presided over a Mass with a woman priest last month in Georgia.
On Nov. 17, the Rev. Bill Brennan, a 92-year-old Jesuit, performed a liturgy in Columbus, Ga., at which Janice Sevre-Duszynska, an ordained member of Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an advocacy group that is not sanctioned by the Vatican, was a participant.
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee and his religious order, the Society of Jesus, ordered Brennan not to perform any priestly duties in public or present himself as a priest publicly.
"I was really angry when I found out ... that his faculties were suspended, too, because for God's sake, he's 92 years old," the Rev. Jerry Zawada, a Franciscan and a friend of Brennan's who has also led liturgies with Sevre-Duszynska and was suspended for it, told NBC News. "But he's so faithful to what needs to happen."
"He's willing to take risks at that level," Zawada, a 75-year-old Franciscan, added.
The Catholic Church prohibits women's ordination, saying it has no authority to ordain women because Jesus chose only men as his apostles. The church's Canon Law 1024 says only baptized men may receive holy orders.
Pope urges 'obedience'
Pope John Paul II issued a letter in 1994 saying that the church "has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women," and in 2010 the church included the "attempted ordination of women" among the list of grave crimes against its law, under the same category as the sexual abuse of minors. Grave crimes are punishable by defrocking or excommunication.
Earlier this year, Pope Benedict XVI denounced the priests supporting women's ordination, saying their desire to change the church was a "desperate push" driven by their "own preferences and ideas." Instead, the pope urged for the "radicalism of obedience."
About 59 percent of American Catholics are in favor of women's ordination, according to a 2010 poll by The New York Times and CBS, but the Vatican sees the initiative as having the potential to cause a rift in the church.
Brennan is only the most recent priest to be penalized for his support of women's ordination.
Courtesy of Janice Sevre-Duszynska
Jesuit priest Bill Brennan and Janice Sevre-Duszynska, an ordained member of Roman Catholic Womenpriests, co-preside over a liturgy in Georgia on Nov. 17, 2012.
Last month, the Rev. Ray Bourgeois, an American of the Maryknoll religious order, was dismissed by the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for his support of women's ordination.
Last week, the Vatican also stripped an Austrian priest of his right to use the title monsignor for advocating in favor of women priests and married priests.
'Good stubborn'
Sevre-Duszynska told NBC News she wasn't surprised by the actions taken to penalize Brennan, whom she describes as being "good stubborn" and "full of such fire."
"It was a hope in the back of my heart that these men would walk in solidarity with Bill, stand up for justice and … make it a new world, make it a new day in our church, as Bill has done," she said. "It’s time for the rest of the male priests to find the courage to listen to the workings of the Holy Spirit in their heart and conscience."
Bob Graf
The Rev. Bill Brennan attends a protest in Milwaukee in 2008.
Sevre-Duszynska first met Brennan two years ago at a civil disobedience action organized by SOA Watch, an organization that seeks to close a U.S. Army training school at Fort Benning, Ga.
The school used to be known as the School of the Americas, and SOA Watch claims it was involved in human rights abuses in Latin America. For many years, Brennan worked as a missionary in the Central American country of Belize when it was a British colony known as British Honduras.
Brennan, who uses a wheelchair when his legs become tired, and Sevre-Duszynska were among the 29 people arrested at the protest.
"He's very fragile, but he's very strong in his heart," Sevre-Duszynska said of Brennan. "He's living in the heart of God, and he has lots of strength inside."
Not showing off 'for the ladies'
Brennan's "lifetime of service to the poor" and his work with immigrants and those marginalized by society will continue to be honored by the Jesuits, Jeremy Langford, a spokesman for the Jesuits' Chicago-Detroit province, told NBC News.
While Brennan's diocesan faculties have been withdrawn, he remains a Jesuit, Langford said, adding that the Society of Jesus has no intention of taking further actions against Brennan.
The Jesuits are mostly known for their missionary work and support of human rights, social justice and education. The Society of Jesus operates many colleges and universities around the world.
Brennan, who lives with other retired Jesuits in the Milwaukee area, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he understood the risks when he decided to perform a liturgy alongside a woman priest.
"Sometimes in our lives we have to trust our conscience and bring about the consequences," he told the newspaper. "I wasn't trying to show off for the ladies."
According to Sevre-Duszynska, Brennan compared his support of women's ordination to his support for women's suffrage, remembering that when he was born in 1920, his mother was still not allowed to vote.
Bob Graf, who was a Jesuit and has known Brennan for almost 20 years, spoke to Brennan this week and said he was taking the decision in stride.
"He’s very calm, he’s very peaceful, which is surprising, but he is," Graf told NBC News. "He’s a wise old man," he said, adding that Brennan will continue his life's work. "He just can't wear his robe and collar."
More content from NBCNews.com:
Leave a Comment:
The Catholic Church:
Reaction to pedophilia: relocation to new parish while secular justice is obstructed for years.
Reaction for praying with women: immediate excommunication.
More proof that religion is chock full of backwards morons. Only men are acceptable to preach? How stupid is that? In a generation, religion is going to implode. Normal, thinking people aren't going to swallow this much longer. Good riddance, too.
jake2247,
The Catholic Church is an Orwellian organization. Their top leaders are celibate males (often virgins) passing along immutable doctrines about sex. If it wasn't so unholy, it would be laughable.
As long as people remain afraid of the dark there will be some measure of superstition in society.
Atheist: I would have to agree with you there. There is no biblical basis for Catholic Priests to remain unmarried, yet many practice this as if it was ordained by God.
However, for you to equate Christianity with superstitution is just as absurd.
The Church has issues! If you don't believe, you're just dammed whatever you say.. That ain't the USA!
Unhappy, actually you don't understand Catholic theology because they are able to justify celibacy based on Scripture. All Christian faith leaders create their own little tautologies to excuse their behavioral demands upon their sheep.
We will have to disagree on the other point.
unhappy - If one person talks about an invisible being who rules the universe, and tells him what to do, we call it insanity. If hundreds of people talk about an invisible ruler of the cosmos, we call it a cult. If millions hold the same belief, we call it a religion.
What difference are you seeing that is invisible to me?
Maybe there is a God ruling this universe. But if so, to what purpose could he have designed a world where there is so much grief and suffering? Remember, whatever reason or need you ascribe to your God, he is responsible for that need too.
Omniscient and omnipotent ...and this is the best world he [she or it] could design?
Dman: You make the assumption that God created the grief and suffering, and fail to recognize the fact that most suffering in this world is not the result of natural disasters from God but men's own greed and lust.
The fact that you said that means that you are assuming that all religions are the same. That is why you can't see a difference. But that is what christians have been telling people for decades about having a relationship with Christ. It's never one-sided.
...and whom is responsible for man, and his greedy, lustful nature?
Whether you ascribe all evil in this world to the work of the Devil, to humanity's flawed nature, or to some combination of these two things, you cannot escape the conclusion that your omnipotent [all powerful] and omniscient [all knowing] God created these factors and allows them to exist.
That truly begs the question: Why?
Actually, I asked you a direct question: What is the difference?
All you've done in reply, is to evade the question.
If you know, why not share your knowledge. If you do not, perhaps you too should seek the answer.
If you believe in a loving God, explain bubonic plague for one.
GOOD. There is such a thing as obedience. This priest is flaunting his own opinions and that of his co--conspirators.
So let me get this straight. There is this God that's been around for ever (lets say a trillion years for practicality), then one day (lets say 4000-6000) years ago, he says, hey I'm bored, let me build a planet, make this human race and then put all these temptations in front of them just to screw with them, oh and while I'm at it I'll throw all these illnesses at them, never show myself and put a whole lot of weird people in charge of my organisation, make sure they always ask for money, hurt their children and create all these weird rules where no-one can challenge them under penalty of going to this very hot underground place. Then I'll let this devil fellow start a riot in my place, I'll kick him out and let him also screw with my little humans, just to make it interesting.
Then I'll create this prayer thing, where people can ask me for stuff and I'll chose what to give (or not give them). One last thing, let me create some different religions so they can always fight between each other and to add some interesting perspective, I'll hide some dinosaur bones underground to spice it up some more.
OK, I get it now..... (says using sarcasm font)
The bible was edited heavily about 200 AD to remove almost all references to women in a positive light except for Mary and one other (Name escapes me). Sooo... The church is following a doctrine made by men for men...
You can't change a church to suite yourself.
Christ made Peter it's leader, and who is to say He didn't know what He was doing?
If someone cannot accept that, they are free to worship elsewhere.
This may be beyond the intellectual capabilities of some to answer.
If there were no evil, then how would a person know what is good?
Is all pain bad? Is all pleasure good?
I'm sure there are a lot of people who will answer these questions which have been debated for centuries by using reasoning skills based on sophomoric logic or the lack thereof.
religion--ugh! It's ugly; rotten to the core. It's so much more spiritual to dance in the cosmos and smile.
Yes, Laspos, it all does seem pretty ridiculous when you look at it with a calm mind.
But faith answers a deep need in people, which affects virtually everybody to some degree. They say there are no atheists in fox holes, and I know that in times of stress I have occasionally called on God for deliverance.
That is probably why, while some day we may have a gay president, a female president, or maybe even a Muslim President [I know, some say we already have one.], we will never have an atheist sitting in the White House [I know, some say we already have one of those, too!].
I think it is just an aspect of human nature. Lemmings run to the sea. Humans search for their missing, all-knowing parents [father in heaven].
Who can blame us? It is a scary world.
Why would you care?
I know a drink of water to be good with or without the presence of evil, for example. I wouldn't consider thirst to be evil.
I'm sure you'll respond with more pretentious BS.
Why would women even want to be Catholics is beyond me. It seems like people stay where they are born, I guess. This is the same as some blacks being Mormon before they allowed blacks to be priests.
Have you proven my point?.
How would you be able to define caring without a reference of good and evil?
Those who know, understand whose pretentious.
I've always been skeptical of the "RCC," Roman Catholic Cult.
God did destroy the world once before because of the suffering caused by man, but left just a few. In your world a real God would've destroyed the whole thing to end the suffering man causes.
To those who come on thest boards and proclaim there is no God, that He is some fairy flying around in the air, and other assorted insulting nonsense, I say FINE...if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. Yet some feel they have to deliberately cause hurt with their words. One could liken that to another being insulting to, calling, perhaps, a parent, someone you love ugly names, making fun of them. Does it make you feel superior when you write ugly words to describe God? No human will convince you that there IS a God and you will not convince believers that there is NO God. So live and let live. We'll ALL have the answer...sooner or later.
Although supposedly Christ only chose men to deliver his wisdom, he apparently felt that coming into existence on this plane through the vessel of womanhood, was just fine.
The Roman Catholic Church....to say translates into the "Universal Roman Church"(the word "Catholic" means "Universal")....a self propogating entity, whose primary allegiance is to itself, and not necessarily to it's members. The Roman element being an entity that antidates the birth of Christ. An entity designed and operated to maintain control of all society.
GOD...an acronym possibly? Grand Overall Design
Jesus had many women in His ministry, including the Apostle Mary Magdala. In fact, other than the Apostle John, only some of the women disciples and Mary His mother remained at the foot of the cross with Him during the crucifixion. Also, the risen Jesus choose to first appear to a woman, the Apostle Mary Magdala. I seriously believe that scripture supports that Jesus would not want to prevent anyone, including women, from serving His ministry in the capacity that they felt called to do so...and that includes the Priesthood.
God Bless this man, the Reverend Bill Brennan, for realizing the ultimate good of following his conscience, and realizing that is more important than any human labels that a misunderstanding human decides to strip. God knows his heart belongs to Jesus and that is all that matters.
@dman353357 - never an atheist in the White house - I'm sure "Julia Gillard", would argue that point.
I'll also be sure to ask Santa to give me a Bible for Christmas.
@history addict. So I'm guessing you are referring to the great Flood, where Noah traveled the globe to grab two of every animal, he went to South America to get some Spectacled Bears, then he went to North America to grab some Bison, then he travelled to Australia to grab some kangaroos, then he went to Asia to grab some Tigers and then went to Africa to grab a couple of Rhinos. After the water subsided he travelled back to each continent and dropped them off again and all the animals of the world then reproduced from the two stock. Then he said to all his family (8 in total) and friends (if) on that same boat, go forth and repopulate the world with humans. Just make sure you create some Africans, Asians, Indians and and .......
@Laspos...
The spirit of Santa is alive and well...Here is your gift...with you always...
http://bibleontheweb.com
@KJR - http://bibleontheweb.com/
That horse has been beaten for so long it looks like a unicorn.
@Laspos...
Now you reject the gift you asked for? Hmmm.
@KJR - not rejecting, just looking for the "gift receipt" so I can return it for a more practical gift.
@Laspos...
Your gift was "bought" by God...so you'll have to talk to Him if you have a problem with it.
@KJR - I did... 26 years.. never got a response... I'm guessing the line was down. So seeing you "gave" the gift, i'll return it to you, you can return it.
Thanks, leaving now... have somthing more practical to do....... like figuring out which timezone this Mayan thing is going to start...... (Once again in case you cant figure it out, written in sarcasm font)
@Laspos...
Are you sure about that? I wish you well.
Excuse me sir, the Catholics might strip away your duties but if you know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior He will never strip away you Salvation.
Oh dear does that mean I could get excomuicated if the Virgin Mary appeared to me with a message. Because earthly common men said no women can give orders from God.
Children go ask your mommy and daddy about posting on the computer. You seem so educated to be putting such stupid things on the public internet. But I am quite sure that you have an opioion on almost everyhting without actually knowing anything about it.
Lawrence Grossman
If you believe in a loving God, explain bubonic plague for one.
I wonder the same question.But i also wonder about the holocaust and the millions of unborn babies killed each year and Stalin and WW1 and WW2 etc,etc..What calamities were in the 1300 i do not know..But what i do know>>
"I did not loose faith in God. I lost faith in mankind."
This is a discipline, not doctrine question.
The trouble is, the Roman Catholics are "ultramontaine," which they take to mean that people have allegiance that are "over the mountains." The discipline originally was to a local bishop, and over the local bishops, a bishop of a country (Patriarch or Pope), which would meet every so often with other Patriarchs or Popes in group meetings called "Ecumenical Councils," which means meetings of the Body of Christ (whole church). Things decided in those meetings then had to be ratified by all the laity in all the churches.
The first "Patriarch" or "Pope" to claim infallibility was the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, who called himself the "Ecumenical Patriarch," which was strongly objected to by Pope Saint Gregory the Great (the Dialogist), because he said no Patriarch could claim to represent, within himself, all the Body of Christ. Then the Pope of Alexandria called himself the "Judge of the Universe," not to be outdone by Constantinople, which was also considered to be going too far. The Pope of Rome didn't call himself "Infallible" until the Great Schism of 1054, and that was not put into Roman Canon Law until 1875. Before that time, anything a Pope or Bishop said had to be ratified by all the laity: obviously, if the Bishops do not ever listen to the laity, it is also possible for a Bishop to promote heresy, a reduction of the truth. (And that has happened in history too: Pope Honorius, Patriarch Nestorius, etc.)
Back to the Roman Catholic Church: the term "ultramontaine" is also something that can mean "ultra-Montaine," pertaining to a heretical cult called "Montanism," which looked at discipline and practices and not at theology very much. This cult was written about by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the 3rd century; it is one of the Gnostic cults, that worships its bishops. As long as a Bishop can remove a Priest for trying to serve the faithful without adding changes in doctrine, that reflects on the entire theology of what a Bishop is, not just what or who a Priest should be. Discipline is not doctrine, as long as discipline shows Christian doctrine and not behavior that goes against the Ten Commandments.
Many of you brought up the point that everything we got today is because of man's greed and man's action. Even if the Bible is inspired by God, what prevents man to change it later?
The answer is NOTHING. Therefore, how do you know the Bible you are using is the same Bible that was originally written based on God's wisdom?
Chinese history is even longer than Christian and it goes back to more than 4000 years. It's the longest recorded history in the world and it shows many manipulation throughout 4000 years where man tried to change history. What prevent the same thing for the Bible?
What precisely is your point, disabled voter?
Is it that God exposes us to misery in this world to teach us the meaning of joy, and then sends [some of] us to heaven, where we experience joy for all eternity?
What would be the point of such a plan?
Why not just precede directly to everlasting joy?
After the first million years in paradise are you really going to remember that third divorce, watching your child die of cancer, or getting cut from your high school baseball team?
Again, why would that be important? Do you strike your child's hand with a hammer to teach what the absence of pain feels like?
This from the person who posts such sentiments as...
...and
Whew! Do you have to stand on stilts to write like that?
BTW: Your last post should have read, "Those who know, understand who is pretentious.".
The adjective, "whose", is the possessive form of either the word "who" or "which". Adjectives are not typically used to modify another adjective. That is why God made adverbs.
I wonder just what it is you think you know.
It's crap like this that caused me to become a pagan.
"The Catholic Church prohibits women's ordination, saying it has no authority to ordain women because Jesus chose only men as his apostles."
It's not just a 'policy' by the Church - It has a biblical basis;
1 Timothy 2:11,12 (KJV);
"11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Also - 1 Corinthians 14:34;
"34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law."
Christianity is based on lying about the birth of Jesus to hide his status as a bastard.
Nothing much has changed since.
jake2247 " In a generation, religion is going to implode. Normal, thinking people aren't going to swallow this much longer. Good riddance, too."
The Romans and Jews tried that abut 2000 years ago - it doesn't seem to have worked. Nearly a third of the 7 billion people on Earth profess to be Christians.
By the way - Experts estimate that about 20% of all the people born over the last 6000 years are still alive today (no joke).
I saw a picture of the Virgin Mary burnt onto my toast this morning, but I was hungry so I ate it.
Read the article and it struck me: What do you call a guy who never gets married, gets into the water naked with another guy (to perform a sacred ritual) and all his close buds are guys? And they're worried about women priests? Also, aren't they pretty much the only Christian sect which places a major emphasis on MARY? Just saying :)
Maybe you have the choice to wroship where you please, but worshippng God should have nothing to do with who is allowed to lead the services, and especially to say who is worthy. THAT is just more man-made bull@!$%# that divides people even more.
This man was doing what he does...worshipping God...wth a woman who has, like him, chosen a life in God's service. To basically fire this man because of who he worshipped along side, NOT because he hurt anyone (which he didn't), is the real crime.
I highly doubt that God really cares what position one holds in this "church."
Pathetic.
What God creates is Perfect!!! When man gets involved in anything there is always manipulation, and so many times failure. I am a CHRISTIAN, stage 4 melanoma cancer. I have witnessed the power of the Holy Trinity!!! I was sent home to die from Duke Medical, with no hope. I was too sick for experimental chemotherapy.
For any man to say that a woman cannot represent God's Love to other's, is a hypocrite to GOD. Their church, cathedral, mosque, or temple are not the TEMPLE of the HOLY SPIRIT. Our Soul's are God's sanctuary. I am Eastern Orthodox (Greek) and our doctrine is the same as Catholics in a lot of ways. I disagree with both of them.
God said He made Man in His image, and that includes WOMEN!
My website may help those non-believers who may be searching for proof. If you are interested in my story? google my name and visit. I have written three books and one is on faith and miracles....they are under my pseudo name Bradley Dallas North.
To all those who wish to call the Catholic Church out on its doctrines I would ask you why they have to prove anything to you. The Church was not established by man and as such does not need to answer to man. The Church originated with Christ - if you do not want to follow the rules then you don't have to - the judgement will decide how you fared in the end...but this much is true - if the world lived according to the rules of the Lord then there would be no problems but the sin of pride and arrogance keeps most people from submitting to God's will in lieu of their own
The insistence on celibacy for priests and restriction on priestesses in the Catholic Church is based on the premise of a single Pope in the 11th Century. Check the facts. St. Peter and many of the apostles were not male virgins. Most were married men. Jesus never taught that they had to leave their wives and children and become celibate...that would be a huge contradiction of the sacrament of marriage and Catholic dogma.
The only reason for priests being celibate has to do with the married Pope Innocent in the 11th Century. At that point, the Church in Rome had amassed great wealth. When Innocent died, his wife attempted to lay claim to the properties she believed her husband as pope owned. The Roman Curia went bananas. How dare a woman think she has rights to what her husband owns? Tah dah...those old Roman Curia cardinals hurried to their meeting chamber and with a teensy little flick of a pen, celibacy was born and women relegated to back burners so they never again would have an influencing voice in the Church. See how simple that was?
And then along comes La Popessa, the infamous Sister Pascalina, a Bavarian nun, who met then Monsignor Eugenio Pacelli, who was to become Pope Pius XII and his overriding influence to the major angst of the College of Cardinals. Don't believe it? Read a book called "La Popessa" by Paul L. Murphy, if it's still in print. Sister Pascalina wasn't just a nun behind the closed doors.
I didn't see a PhD after your name and you have no sources listed. There is no credibility in what you say.
when two or more are gathered in my name. It doesn't specify the sex of the person. Jesus was very forth coming about what God expected. Yes the last supper occured with only men, but i do believe that women were treated like property back then. Jesus saw value in Mary Magdolen, she was as pivotal to our belief as Christians as men are. God is the Alpha & Omega - we evolve through him , with him and in him. You cannot use the fact that God used only men as a deciding factor, had Jesus come today i think it would be different.And excommunication for a 92 year old man, loving heart of Christ- I do not see love or forgiveness and both are definetely of God. Time for a realty check people, we can still love God without buildings, or the Church. The church is able to do what it does because of our tything, simply put cut off the money and the church will have doctrine without the means to exact it . If we all band together they will have to change, or become extinct.
Happy,
The Catholic church was not only started by man, but by a politician better yet. You need to read up on the religion you argue so vehemently for.
Specifically, Council of Nicea and Constantine.
Besides, the entire christian religion is just a rehash of ancient egyptian sun worship. The term "son" is actually "sun". The SUN of god, said over and over and over in 5 other religions that predated christianity.
All you christians owe it to yourselves to research the truth and get past the dogma of rome.
You worship astrology and have no idea that you are doing it.
How about firing the priests who set off 500 skyrockets for 8 days straight at the Parroquia de Divina Providencia from 8 in the morning till 12 at night at the Parroquia de Divina Providencia in a densely populated area of Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico?
David ,
As someone deeply spiritual who adheres to no religion and has never congregated in prayer a day in my life, I somewhat agree with you that a soul, not man, is God's particular life form. God is the energy of life and is everywhere, and God did not create man in thy own image. It was man who created an image of God in his own likeness, complete with all his emotional deficiencies like discrimination, persecution, vengeance and the likes. Man's problem is he cannot imagine an entity without a voice, face, body or negative emotions.
Souls (we), are Gods particular lifeforms, and we are in likeness of our creator, the body is just a temporary vehicle which enables us to experience things and feelings of a physical nature which are not possible in a spiritual form.
The problem concerning most religions is they believe life upon Earth is all about sin and forgiveness, where in reality it is all about the education of a soul which was born without a comprehension of hatred and greed, or love and compassion.
In brief, Life upon earth is Gods method for educating us. It is Gods way of providing us knowledge and wisdom, Gods way of preparing us for things yet to come. It is true...there is a reason and purpose for everything, and there is a here-after...after all. It was God who established the curriculum, created Earth as a classroom, and life upon as the teacher.
Look for my non-profit, no-fee web site "Divine Science of Evolution" after the first of the year
Point of fact, witchrunner, in the Catholic Church baptism is typically performed during infancy, and the infant is typically clothed. Even in adulthood, no nakedness is involved.
I was raised Catholic, and I know of no ritual demanding naked men bathing together.
Atheist, this priest was stripped of his faculties meaning he can no longer perform Sacraments. A pedophille is excommunicated, big difference. All of you knocking the Catholic Church seem to know very little about it. With all that said, this Jesuit KNEW the repercussions and still opted to celebrate Mass with her. He got exactly what he was asking for, in my opinion.
A bunch of atheists discussing religion just isn't as amusing as I'd hoped it would be. Moving on now.
um...happy...ALL religions were formed by MAN....it is how they worship God...I know it might be hard for you to comprehend, but the Catholicism is NOT the ONLY religion out there...God just wants you to woorship Him...I highly doubt he cares what door you go thru to do this...
For those that say the rules of the catholic church cant be changed hoe do you explain that priest were allowed to marry for hundreds of years? Maybe the FACT that most priest in the dark ages were younger sons of noblemen to whom daddy had given some land and a small inheritance to live on. The ruling class were the only people who could read or write for the most part especially in Latin. If the priest died without any Heirs then the church got the property and the money. So the idea that priest should be celibate was nothing more than a land grab.
Love how a priest can rape dozens of little boys and remains a priest yet if he celebrates one mass with a woman he is kicked out. Shows you were the churches priorities are. Rape little boys is OK. Treat women as equals is heresy.
@OldDog47
Lots of Atheist are former Christian, Catholic and some even know more about Bible than those who in there.
You want to talk about ridiculous, how about priests who never have sex or marriage and talk about sex and marriage's life? Oh, that is perfectly normal by your standard, right...
Too many of these arguments are based on the Bible, a book replete with error; the earth, the center of the universe; Cain, one of only three people on earth somehow taking a wife from nowhere; a man living in a fish for 40 days; an ark that wasn't large enough to hold one dinosaur let alone two of every species on the earth, etc.,etc. This book of "truths" is a joke and cannot be the basis of a "religion" when educated people know that this good book is unreliable.The bible was "written" by men who subjugated women, including their wives and daughters, and the new testament, "written" hundreds of years after the death of a man called the Christ, is equally unreliable. The four gospels, putatively authored by disciples of Christ are at odds with one another over some very serious issues. Using these books as propaganda has been the mainstay of men who want to control women (Is it any wonder that the Republican party for eample, controlled by evangelists, have so much empathy for women?).
But the Catholic Church always has been a propaganda machine and until its flock starts thinking for itself they will subjugate themselves to the upper echelon morons who run the show, dictating to them about procreation, the family, and "sin". Happy to say that I was only 13 when I realized that these guys were charlatans and petting was just great fun, not a sin.
I'm not going to bash anyone for their beliefs because 1) it's not worth anyone's time and 2) It's a personal attack against that person.
Anyhow, do I believe in "God"? Yes, but I also believe in Allah, Buddha, Vish'nu, etc. I just don't believe in any organized religion. Here's why, I think there was and original writing of the "Bible" at one point and religions took what they wanted from it and tossed the rest. Another thing is Christianity came along thousands of years after these other religions and through force, The Crusades, became the largest religion in the world. The Vatican waged this war and for any religion to say it's peaceful and "love thy neighbor" just look through history and see the wars the Vatican waged on people who didn't agree with them.
I think when we go to "Heaven" we will each see the "God" we believe in. If you're Atheist, that's your belief and I'm not going to insult your beliefs. It's a waste of everyone's time. I think this priest has it right, who are we to say what Jesus or God wants? The Bible has been translated by men to fit their needs and beliefs. So unless either God or Jesus came to your house for dinner and you asked them face to face, you have no clue what they think.
Men corrupted everything, what prevent men from corrupt the Bible? The answer is NOTHING because you don't even have the original Bible to compared to.
As for miracle, just around 200 years ago or so, many people still die from common illness. If we use that as basis, there would be world-wide miracles every minutes now.
And if there is a cure for cancer like 10 years from now, by using today's standard, there would again be world-wide miracles and do you bend down and pray for each "miracle"?
I did not loose faith in God. I lost faith in the Roman Catholic Church.
ROY WILSON-336103
The irony being that Christians denounce such sentiment towards women by OTHER religions.
I guess they missed the part where the men he chose were all JEWS too. Not surprising when you consider that god (Jesus) also had siblings which they also seemed to have missed. Mary Magdeline was a apostle boys.
We didn't see one behind your name either Al... but if you're realy interested in the entire works of the Bible, read the Egyptian Bible. It's the same Bible, but it contains all the books, not just the ones adopted by the Catholic Church... oddly enough, about 200 AD.
I never understood why Atheists are so drawn to religion. It never fails, an article comes out about some internal dispute or relic or evidence etc. in the Church and the comment board is littered with dozens of Atheists debating or insulting the followers of the church.
Does this happen in any other topic?
I mean, If an article was posted about needlepoint - let's say the international association of embroiderers refuses to acknowledge cross stitching as a legitimate form of needlepoint design - would a group of irate fashion designers read and comment about how lame needlepoint is, how old fashioned and out of style, how anyone who wore embroidery was hopelessly out of touch with fashion and should wake up to style already? Could we expect Ralph Lauren to write a lengthy comment about how important cross stitching was to the early American settlers and deserves the same recognition as any other form of needlework, especially since all needle work is in and of itself utterly ridiculous anyway? Would we expect hobbyists around the world who read the disparaging views of their craft to suddenly undergo a conversion and take up knitting instead?
If you don't believe, that's fine. It's your right. It does not further your cause however to belittle others with what you perceive to be your superior intellect. Yes, many Christians are simple people, not intellectuals and they probably believe only because they were taught to as small children, not ever really giving it a moment of critical thought. That being said, there are also many of us who have set a critical eye to it. Who are educated and well read. There are many of us who have left the Church only to return.
Is the Church perfect, no of course not. It's riddled with corruption and the hierarchy has painfully lost sight of their calling and mission. But it's what we have and it serves a vital purpose to our lives. For one thing it's very much a cultural institution, the sacraments acting as rites of passage that speak to us on a very primitive level. Ritual is a very human behavior as as far as anthropologists can see has always been a deeply ingrained part of our being. To ask mankind to do away with ritual is like asking the birds not to sing. Christianity is in my opinion a very useful and valid religion. It's my religion of choice because it's most compatible with my culture and upbringing. I'm sure if I was raised a Hindu in India that I would feel just as comfortable in that religion.
As for God himself, yeah, I do believe. I don't think that our understanding of His nature is accurate. And I don't think that it is possible to fully understand his motives. Atheists like to point to the pain and suffering of the world and say that is proof that there is no God. It's true we suffer. It's true that terrible horrible things happen in the world. If you're Christian you believe that even God's own son was allowed to suffer, not only on the cross and when he was tortured before hand... But also growing as a boy into a man always knowing that he was destined to die, that he would never have the simple life and love of a man with a wife and children, I'm sure that Jesus had to have suffered in his loneliness at times. The Blessed Virgin also must have suffered. To look into your parents eyes and have them look at you as if you were a whore, to have everyone point and whisper about your swollen belly. To bear a child and love him as all mother's love their babies, and watch him set forth on a path that you know can only end one way, with his death- must have been heartbreaking.
God never promised us a world without suffering. Christ never promised us that we would feel no pain. All that we were promised was that if we put our faith in God and trusted Him with our burdens, that he would help us through the pain and deliver us to the other side. If we accept the sacrifice of Christ on the cross then the pain and suffering that we bear in this life would be repaid in the next.
The faith we have lends us strength when we are weak. It makes us brave when we wish to cower. It gives us hope when we would give into despair.
That is the purpose that religion provides. And yes, any religion can provide it. I am not foolish enough to believe that any one church has a monopoly on the truth. Rather I think that God is so big that any one person can only glimpse and understand a mere fragment at a time.
happy: I don't believe anyone is saying the Catholic Church has to prove anything to anyone. People here are commenting on an article written. The fact is that all religions are open to criticism. Not that they are necessarily wrong with whatever they believe, but because it is human nature to express opinions on various things. If you don't want to question what the Catholic Church does then that is your prerogative.
Why is it that only warlock shamans can perform magic voodoo rituals and spells to turn stale bread and cheap wine into the body and blood of a goblin? Why can't witch shamans do it? After all, Samantha, Endora, Tabitha, Agatha and Aunt Clara could do it all the time (although Aunt Clara sometimes messed up and turned it into George Washington or a donkey). If it was okay for Maurice and Uncle Arthur, it should be okay for Benedict.
The Catholic Church, like the Republican Party is woefully out of touch. The church does crap like this and then wonders why the number of parishioners is dwindling. Anyone with a functioning brain cell cannot understand why both of them hate women so much that they either have to relegate them to being servants (i.e. Nuns) or believe they have to control them (i.e. both groups stance on abortion). What ever happened to 'treat others the way you would have them treat you?'
This,among other reasons, is why I walked out of the Catholic church and away from the Catholic religion when I was 9 years old. Obviously I haven't missed much, since nothing has really changed in the last 45 years.
dman: Point of fact, in the old days, including the days of Christ, and hundreds of years thereafter, baptism was frequently done naked in the river. In fact, and you can look in the bible, preachers historically disrobed before beginning their preaching. I suppose this was to show they had nothing to hide.
I don't know - maybe it has to do with religionists always sticking their noses into everyone else's business? Maybe it has something to do with religionists insisting that everyone, through the power and authority of the secular law, must follow their beliefs and practices? You know, like marriage, for example? No one's telling anti-gay religionists that they have to marry someone of the same sex. No one's even telling them they have to attend the wedding or send a Hallmark card. No one's telling them to be nice to the new gay or lesbian married couple that moved into the neighborhood, welcoming them, dropping off a bundt cake, accepting them as the are. You know, acting christian? Religionists, including and especially christians, can believe and practice whatever they want, so long as they keep it out of the lives of everyone else and the laws of a secular nation. If their dogma states that marriage should only be between opposite-sex people, well, then, like I said, don't marry someone of the same sex or attend the wedding or be nice to them if that pleases they god they have to appease. But the moment they say that the law must reflect only their beliefs then we'll come out with both fists swinging and go after their superstition-based beliefs. Don't like them mocked? Then keep them out of our faces, lives and laws. I have very nice neighbors. They're christians (and Republicans). They know I'm gay, but they don't care. They bring over meals and other food, mow my lawn, plow my snow. Do I make fun of their beliefs? Of course not; they're wonderful people. They don't push their beliefs on me, nor treat me like trash because of them. If more - or all - of you acted like them, no one would care what you believe.
Jerry - I respect that, but this article had nothing to do with Gay marriage. Had it, then I would certainly expect and encourage you to read and comment on it. Rather the article had to do with whether or not internally the Catholic Church would accept women priests.
As for your opinions on Gay marriage I am inclined to agree with you. I honestly think that it should be legalized. Don't be naive and think that it's religion that's stopping it though. American Catholics are happy to abandon their religions prohibitions when it suits them. Just look at the rate of married Catholic women using contraception. Look at how many Catholics are not virgins on their wedding days. Look at how many Catholics get divorced.
Rather the main roadblock to legalizing gay marriage in this country is not "religious" prohibition, rather it's that for thousands of years marriage was thought to be the union of a man to a woman. Even in ancient cultures where homosexuality was accepted, marriage was defined as a woman joined to a man. It's a cultural shift, and like most cultural shifts it will require time to become normalized in society. If you look big picture at it, the Gay rights movement is moving lightening fast to have so many in support of Gay marriage at this point. I do believe that we'll see it come to pass in my lifetime, probably in the next 10-15 years fully accepted.
You can believe in social equality for LBGT folks and still believe in God you know.
Xina the awesome -- although written with heart, I believe the answer you're seeking as to why these stories bring out all of us non-believers is because religion has always been an open question whether any behavior based on fear of eternal punishment can be regarded as ethical or should be regarded as merely cowardly.
We live in a violent and indifferent universe. God has nothing to do with it. We are saddened by those that do lack the critical thinking you mentioned and, furthermore, persecuted by those from within the faith they hold so dear. It's pathetic, really. Yet, to read these stories it's like watching a train wreck; one can't turn away.
@Jerry-1903677
In other words, if they want any respect from you they should all fit into your mold.... hmmm, who does that remind me of?? Oh, yeah... the "religionists" you're bitching about.
religion has always been an open question whether any behavior based on fear of eternal punishment can be regarded as ethical or should be regarded as merely cowardly.
I don't know that I would say that Religious people behave a certain way merely because of fear of punishment. That's like saying that Secular people don't steal or kill merely because they might go to jail. I think that some rules are followed without full understanding of why, but MOST of the moral behaviors are not done to avoid Hell or to get into Heaven but rather because it's the right thing to do.
I have yet to meet a Christian that spends time helping the poor, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, etc. who does so because of fear of punishment or to earn points with God. Usually they are very genuine and sincere in their beliefs that they are doing what they should because it's right and moral to do so. That's really the beautiful side of Christianity, and though it's so mainstream now, in it's infancy it was a radical idea that the Christians pooled their resources and helped one another and others so selflessly. It was so novel that it became a defining characteristic of the Jesus movement. Kind of like flower children of the 60's.
Backcountry -- Jerry is saying that behaving like decent, civilized and respectful human beings poses no problem to him or anyone else. If this is a foreign concept to you by describing it as a "mold", please stay in the back country.
Witchrunner - They did a lot of things back then we don't do now, such as allowing priests to marry.
How that relates to your observance about naked, celibate men engaging in water rituals today, I cannot guess.
@Annie-322924
No he's not, look at the quote he replied to. He's being a hypocrite by applying the same logic that the religious folks do. If you behave in a certain way you are "ok" but anyone and everyone else is "wrong". Gay marriage is struck down again and again and the idea that it is only "religionists" who are responsible is ridiculous, he's just looking for someone to point his finger at. In fact I'd bet 50 bucks his "wonderful" neighbors would vote against gay marriage also so who exactly are these "religionists" he's referring to? Why do the neighbors get a pass? Just because they mow his yard? Most people who oppose gay rights are "decent, civilized and respectful human beings" so basically the "bad" guys are just the ones who come out and admit it? While the people who are nice to your face but then stab you in the back when you turn around are "wonderful"? Even someone who lives in the backcountry (I only visit) can see the fallacy in that logic.
Back Country -- I maintain that, in this case, Jerry is making a point that he and his neighbors have a simbiotic relationship (albeit that they are religionists) and that neither party IMPOSES their lifestyle on the other. With all due respect, this is not an argument in logic. To presume that it's all an act, that they're probably stabbing him in the back, that they cast political votes against him, may or may not be true. But, let's say it is. Even in that instance, they STILL treat each other, as neighbors, with respect. This is an exception, as most religionists who go so far as to try to "mold" our nation's legislature to their beliefs.
Annie, This is a story about an internal conflict within the Catholic religion. Someone asked why atheists feel the need to show up on such message boards to debate or insult members of the church. Jerry's response was- "maybe it has to do with religionists always sticking their noses into everyone else's business?"
I maintain that not only was that an example of hypocrisy but even an admission of such. Basically- (some of) you @!$%# with us so we will @!$%# with (all of) you. The little story about the neighbors tagged onto the end was nothing more than an attempt to show that he is "better" than the people he admits he is exactly like. You bought it; I didn't.
I didn't say it was an act, I know many Christian republicans who are "decent, civilized and respectful human beings" just like Jerry's neighbors. But not even the ones who would accept a gay pastor in their church believes there should be gay marriage. Since that is obviously the source of Jerry's anger it seems fair to say that denying him that right would amount to a stab in the back regardless of how nice they are at any other time.
Backcountry164 "ROY WILSON-336103 The irony being that Christians denounce such sentiment towards women by OTHER religions."
So your view is that women not being able to be priests is the moral equivalent of women being denied getting an education, drive a car, raped by their husbands, denied any property rights and being treated as little more than chattel?
I suppose that you're also one of those that think there was a 'War on Women' because some people thought they should pay for their own birth control pills rather than having the taxpayers pay for them.
I find it humorous and hypocritical that many who would attack Muslims for their treatment of their women based on the Kuran somehow find it OK for the Catholic Church to lay down rules to treat them in the same way.
I think the deists had it right. There is a god, but he plays no active role in the lives of men. How else can it be explained the roads that men have led us down. Churches of all faiths simply practice social engineering for power over the masses.
I often wonder the same thing, but then I remember that women voted for a senatorial candidate who thinks that rape can be classified as "legitimate" or "illegitimate". They voted for state legislators who passed laws requiring transvaginal ultrasounds before an abortion. They've voted for candidates who oppose abortion, even to save the life of the mother. So, like so many others, women will do things that are against their own best interests.
Said it before (here on NBC numerous times) and will say it again- the catholic church will be a thing of the past in 50 years. This coming from a catholic.
ROY WILSON-336103
I was referring specifically to the whole "be silent thing" but since you mention those others I will point out that many of them were perfectly acceptable within Christianity once upon a time. In fact I'd guess many were so when the verses you quote were written. So while the Bible uses the word "silent" all of those other things were happening at that same time. I'd also point out that in some small sects today women are little more than "chattel" expected to obey their husbands or fathers.
LOL! I guess you've never read any of my posts because nothing could be further from the truth.
Does anyone doubt that the Bible was put together from scriptures chosen to suit the church? They left out many scriptures that did not suit their idea of what a religion should be. Why??? For the purpose of having people follow the church and give them money. One scripture states that a man does not have to belong to a church to reach to kingdom of Heaven. Wonder why they left that scripture out?
The problem with religion is that they all believe that a person will go to hell if they don't belong to their church or maybe I should say their religion since they all believe that their religion is the right one. Based on that theory...hell is going to be a very powerful place compared to Heaven.
Barry-NJ
Yeah, don't you just hate it when people do what they think is right instead of just whatever is best for them personally? /sarcasm
A democratic President once said- "'ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country" So WFT happened?? Now the liberal mantra seems to be "do whatever is in YOUR best interest", everyone else be damned.
dman: "How that relates to your observance about naked, celibate men engaging in water rituals today, I cannot guess." I notice you threw in the term "celibate." I didn't say that. Given that: Seriously? Did you read the article? If you had, you'd notice that the position of the Church now is based on what happened then. They interpreted what happened then in today's terms, so to speak. So, I was doing the same.
Your original words:
Definition of Celibate (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/celibate):
What do you call somebody who does not know the meaning of his own words?
Sure you were.
"In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must above all be a sheep oneself." - Albert Einstein.
I find this to be very thought provoking. Many of you may wish to apply the following self-examination to yourselves.
If ask to provide specific labels to myself, I might respond as such; I consider myself to be Christian, a Democrat, a patriotic American and reliable defender of the underdog. Further investigation of all of my thoughts and deeds( past and present) would inevitably prove that I am both all of the above and none of the above depending on the perspective of others.
My faith in Christianity starts with my perception of Jesus Christ as having such a profound influence on the masses of that era (to later encompass much of the civilized world) as remarkable beyond the capabilities of mortal man . Some of the history of His miracles may have been exaggerated by His most faithful followers, but not all of them with so many witnesses at many events that would easily refute them. His influence was obviously so great that His most powerful government and religious enemies chose to publicly execute Him in place of a piercing spear in the still of the night that would have silenced any mortal man forever. This statement would undoubtedly place me in high regard with most Christian religious organizations until I divulge my deeper religious convictions.
There is nothing "Holy" about the Holy Bible. It is merely a book written and rewritten many times by fallible men to describe the days of Christ. A strong element of truth remains in it's content as an even stronger element of personal political and religious convictions fill it's pages. That explains the many contradictions within the book. Yet, a careful examination of the entire New Testament reveals a basic understanding of the teachings and examples of Christ. It's a handbook or guide to become a faithful Christian while never choosing particular verses or phrases to substantiate our own interpretation as religious law for all.
That's why I disdain all organized religion. They unanimously proclaim it is their way or the highway to hell for anyone that disagrees with any portion of their dogma.
The Golden Rule can never be disputed by those that profess to be Christian( followers of Christ). The concept that judgement of others is the sole domain of God and never to be practiced by men against their brothers and sisters is widely accepted by all Christian faiths. Jesus said, " For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."Does that statement suggest that a congregation of millions of Catholics are much closer to Jesus than a casual religious discussion between a Christian friend and myself?
More importantly, does the Pope( a self-proclaimed right hand man of God) have the authority to violate all of these well established Christian principles to both judge and punish this long faithful priest for disobeying one of the man-made rules of this particular church?
What a stud. He was making a move for some booty.
If God does not Exist/Live/Love/Be then it is a discussion of human sociology, psychology, ethics, morals, cultures. If God Lives/Exists/Loves/Be and is Infinite Compassion & Love, then God will be compassionate & loving toward all people regardless of what religious or atheistic mindset we were raised in and developed into as we've grown into adulthood. Now to Christianity.
The Church IS the Body of Christ, the community of humans, Christian believers spread around the earth & throughout 2 millenia, people challenged by sin yet immersed in God's grace/love, hopefully generally good-&-decent people, people whose thoughts have been molded by their childhood teachers/parents/peers & by their era of birth & by their local community/communities. The Church IS NOT the priests, Popes, Bishops, Bible, and 2 millenia of judgements/laws/proclamations put forth from various centers of power or influence. As an analogy a Body human is so complex, even modern medicine & modern psychology understand so little. Brain, cardiovascular system, system of nerves, organs, emotions/heart/soul, thoughts/language/intelligence/book-learning/street-smarts/organizational-skills/relational-skills, even the transformation of food into self, and (though a single bacterium is utterly tiny) the presence of roughly 5 pounds of beneficial bacteria in each person without which one couldn't live.
My point: The Church is the Body of all believers. IF some of the proclaimed "leaders" are out of touch with truly important issues of respect of women & men in evolving human cultures, (any of the Rome-based clerics, if humble like Jesus, would surely admit being out of touch with the human realities of marital relationships & family dynamics embodying grace/love; any of the Rome-based clerics, if humble like Jesus, would surely admit --for having been long celibate and perhaps never having seriously dated or engaged in any adult sexual relationship-- as well as being out of touch with the realities adult human sexual relationships), THEN it is within the realm of the rest of us believers to audaciously incarnate the graces of our common life experiences and lead our community, Christ's Church, forward with human compassion, authenticity, dogged determination, patience, and bottomless respect of one another, neighbors & aliens, my gender & the other gender, nonChristians & atheists too -- bottomless respect that ascends to the infinite Love that God bears for His/Her Creation.
Some have posted, understandably, the claim that Loving God does not live & is a fiction created by humans for whatever reasons (psychological crutch?, tool of those wish some power to control the mindsets of the masses?) -- that Loving God does not live since history is overburdened with human pain & suffering. And your corollary thought is that all religions are fictions (or fairy tales or hogwash) too. I think such harsh judgements of religion & God are very reasonable. After all, throughout human history (& perhaps pre-history too), many people have justified hate or obscene aggression against or judgemental (perhaps chauvinistic) condemnations to eternal damnation, by their religious perspectives; some have been animated by their religious zealotry or their subconscious mindsets formed by their religious upbringings in their carrying out acts of disrespect or hate or prejudice against some individual "sinner"/"sinners" or against some alien religious culture(s).
Allow me still to offer a couple other perspectives, when considering in our thoughts & hearts whether God lives.
(1) Do you think/feel that your life is worth living? I trust that most all people do.
Even though we face many challenges, widely varying from day to day & from person to person, and many sad times & sorrows & many views of human antagonism or disease or poverty or natural-disaster suffering, somehow most of us still feel that life is worth living. Moreover, I think most of us humans, in our own kind of self-awareness, guess/presume that we appreciate living more than a mosquito or a tree appreciates living. And we feel that we have some freedom of personal decision, not that we are completely pre-determined like a machine in our responses to life situations.
OK, so life is worth living. IF SO, then IMO there is no argument to be made that "There can't possibly be a loving (& omnipotent) God, because the world has too much pain & hate & suffering." Bottom line here: Billions of people throughout human history & pre-history, feel & have felt that life is worth living. With so so many votes that life is worth living, how can anyone argue that God is an utter failure, or even that God is a sadistic engineer, and that therefore there is really no God who lives.
Sure, in my weaker moments, weaker months, weaker years, I might piss out "God, why is life so hard?! so challenging?!" But we buck up and say instead, at least some of the time, "OK, life has rough edges, life is stressed, challenging, tempted toward becoming depressed -- but, whatever, I've got enough of having been raised with parental love or peer love in me, enough of personal successes behind me, that I feel strong enough to face this strange life, this strained life -- heck, in the main, life is good, MY life is good, life is surely worth living. I want to press forward, I do press forward."
So, again IMO --all said-- God (if God truly lives) is not at all a failure. (Though in many ways it sure is a strange 'game' that God/He/She/It/THEY engineered & gifted us with. Strange. Challenging (but who doesn't like a challenging game?). Difficult. Surprisingly wonderful in many regards. Weird. "Thanks.")
(2) Respect for the masses, humility, being slow to judge others as errant. Even if God lives not, let's look at human cultures throughout the eons of human history. Yes, definitely a mixed bag of horrors, aggressions, self-defense, battles, love, peace, kindness & community concern, family, friends. But somehow, throughout it all, human cultures have experienced/developed some spiritual sense, some personal spiritual experiences, as well as some socially shared ("let me tell you what I felt inside my heart yesterday! I felt like there was some strong love hope & courage outside of me! I felt that the life we live, the world of this earth, is good!") spiritual experiences -- and such group sharing of spiritual experiences, at least in part, led to development of community religion. It may have been based solely in imagined "inner heart" experiences, it may have been psychological. And along the way it was surely influenced by some persons who felt somehow threatened and wanted a greater sense of power. But I don't believe that spiritual & religious experiences of different human individuals & cultures/communities throughout many eons were SOLELY the result of negative factors, of some few wanting to control the masses. Perhaps some of the energy to develop religious culture came from a fragile community, threatened with "civil war"-type fracturing while simultaneously threatened either by a foreign community across the desert or by a disease or shortage of resources to live -- and perhaps while under such threat the community found it beneficial to bind more closely together via some relatively common body of ritual & thought/belief.
In any case, I think it's too myopic of me to write off the eons of human cultural experience as totally worthless. IMO I must at least give it (religion and its positive aspects) a chance, I must consider it with respect. Throughout human history, at least some of the billions of humans have been positively guided by, invigorated by, and sustained their love or courage through, religious experience. It's is so impossibly difficult to gauge the statistics of the issue: what percentage of religiously influenced humans have been basically good & decent persons, strengthened in their goodheartedness & their courageousness by their religious experiences?; what percentage of religiously influenced humans throughout history have been corrupted by their religious perspectives? I think that honest assessment of the issue demands consideration of the statistics of the entire human population, not just those in power (whether political or economic or dogmatic). Again, achieving ANY sense of the statistics of this issue is nearly impossible. (In lieu of having any good statistical assessment, for me it comes down to whether I have a general permeating sense that humans, although challenged by many factors and flawed in many ways, are basically in general good & decent people, striving to care for their loved ones and striving to survive with some measure of security/comfort.)
(3) It bears being noted that, IMO, anyone with a humble religious perspective can appreciate blessings brought their way by the challenges that atheists present. In a sense, atheists are prophets. In general, I suspect that atheists might be classifiable (for one who is perhaps overly inclined toward analysis) via 3 driving/initiating factors: (A) some are motivated by sadly negative experiences of their own religious youth; (B) some are motivated by seeing the blasphemous obscenities of prejudice or wars or intolerance, etc., or by the cruel condemnations of a person's sexual life (whether hetero or homo sexual) or condemnations of a person's skin color or ethnicity or religion, or by abominations of the "leaders" of a religious community committing grave acts; (C) some are motivated by logic or science that has difficulty assessing issues of heart or spirit and sees claims of supernaturality or miracles or inexplicable mystery as unjustified & unjustifiable.
If a religionist has deep & abiding faith in God, and security in her/his loved one's faith in God, then the existence of atheists should be no threat. If God lives, and if I & my loved ones believe, there is no threat; surely a human atheist is no threat against God. Only if I suspect that I, or my love ones (including, in an extended way, my religious community), are weak in my faith, or their faith, only then does an atheist become a threat to me or my loved ones -- perhaps that/those atheist(s) will adversely affect my faith, my loved ones' faiths. On the other hand, if a religionist recognizes her/his/our human foibles, our slow path toward more authentic living that embodies courageous love & respect, then s/he can welcome challenges that are voiced by atheists who in some ways have clearer visions of life because they are not trying to falsely justify the failings of persons or dogmas in a religious community. On balance, religious believers can justifiably take critiques of atheists with some grain of salt, because atheists won't have all the perspectives that a religionist assumes are fundamentally illuminating. But IMO the prophetic critiques of atheists are not to be ignored by humble religionists in honest pursuit of loving, respectful, holy living. IMO a religionist's perspectives do well to include: (a) God is not threatened by atheists; (b) God may well be pleased with atheists who are unwilling to accept religion if they perceive it as severely or even inherently flawed, especially as humans have polluted religious experience with our failings over the millenia; (c) atheists may well be prophetic well-springs of God's grace to our religious community.
(4) Is there such a thing as true human love?
I come down affirmatively here. For all those of you who affirm the reality of true human love (how ever flawed our loves are, naturally), I invite you to consider the issue of how science assesses true human love. My point here is that in some ways, IMO significant ways, the rational mind's address of true human love is similar to the rational mind's address of experience of God living or not existing. There are many things we don't grasp, perhaps some of which are beyond science, perhaps some of which are beyond the current intelligence of the human species (maybe in another million years, if we still survive as a species, humans will have IQs that average 200 instead of 100, and maybe then we'll be better able to know true human love; on the other hand, it seems perhaps that, today, persons of exceptionally high IQ might have more (rather than less) difficulty with human love relationships. Regardless, science & logic don't succeed at addressing true human love, so why expect science & logic to succeed at addressing God living or non-existent?
I thought I saw the image of the Virgin Mary this morning on my bacon egg & cheese bagel, but it turned out it was only Lindsey Graham.
Incidentally, if God is all good and all powerful, why can't he cause severed human limbs to regrow? Out of all of the so-called miracles over all of human history, not one of them was that. And out of all of the victims of losing a limb, not one of them was worthy of a miracle?
Sincerely......I don't see any problem with "women priests", as long as they OBSERVE proper RELIGIOUS PROTOCOL.......and DUE RESPECT for matters belonging to GOD. Almighty GOD will judge ALL of US, "not in OUTWARD manifestations of RELIGIOUS worship,".....but what's in our hearts in SINCERITY to HIS WILL and HIS Laws.
In the NEW TESTAMENT.....Jesus Christ warned us against those who say....."Lord, Lord" and who may really be HYPOCRITES of the WORST order.
This has already been proven when in the past.....CATHOLIC DIOCESE had tended to transfer PEDOPHILE priests to other LOCATIONS......and "play down" the seriousness of their transgressions.
The Catholic Church has always been good at "POMP and CIRCUMSTANCE" with a lot of OUTWARD MANIFESTATIONS of SHOW "made to impress".....when in reality......."They are full of DEAD men's bones" ....to use the words of CHRIST.
If you don't believe me.........please read your BIBLE.
Ralph J Monasterio, with all due respect, there is no consensus on the role of women in Christianity. There are as many opinions about women by true Christians as there are Christians.
And each read their bibles thoroughly. Maybe the bible is the problem? Ever consider that?
Atheist: Actually the bible is the basis for men treating women as equals. If you recall, Jesus treated women and children quite well, considering at that time they would be considered second class citizens according to both Roman(secular) and Jewish(religious) law.
The question of teaching however becomes a separate issue. Do these women possess the knowledge to teach? When Paul spoke of women not teaching men in the church, it was always because they had an inferior education. Yet, the bible talks of both Anna( New testament ) and Miriam and Deborah( Old Testament) as being Prophets. So it would make sense that women are capable.
I don't think it would be fair of you to judge the bible strictly from what you hear by other christians. It would be better if you read the bible yourself before making a judgement. The fact that you made such a flippant remark proves you don't know the bible as well as you think you do.
Unhappy, how hard does the Bible command that women slaves be beaten?
Pro-Tip: you really don't want to challenge me on what is holy/moral and use the Bible as your guide.
Atheist: ALL slaves at that time were beaten. So spare me your crap.
Unhappy, what does the rest of that verse say?
Pro-Tip, it will make your attempt to defend the practice of slavery even more despicable.
Shall we next talk about the property that is both women and cattle?
Unhappy, why do you defend this stuff?
Atheist: You are now changing the subject to cattle and property. I thought we were talking about slaves?
I will not defend slavery. I only recognize that it did exist at some point in time. Even in our own country's history and not just in the bible. Yet the bible teaches that one's social standing isn't important .
Who would respond to the speculation that doesn't stand up to real life experience? Once you're brainwashed, you've lost all accountability and all fairness. It's one-sided and rationale is faked or corrupted.
The Church did a good job during WWII to make sure plenty of people died that weren't believers of Nazi Germany. In the end, the Church went with anyone that would keep them in business. The Church is corrupt, and so is the ideology.
We all know the Sun was not created first, Adam did not come from Eve's rib and everything else in the Bible was written before science actually made the claims MUTE! Believe if you want, faith is based in your mind. Facts are different, and Christ and the Bible appear to be man made novels in the hopes of creating a code that people will live by.....
Well, we're living with social responsiblity and that's what the Bible taught basically. But everything else is a bunch of mythology that has impacted believers and followers for over a century.
It's time to hit the 21st century and understand that Science above all, rules the Universe. It's all physics, mathematics and chemistry. Wish, hope or pray... It's all the same.. You're dealing with the real world, not an iconic god so to speak. If god gave the dinosaurs 200 million years, he must be ready to give MAN at least 400 million years. We're in his image, right??!
Don't kid yourself! We're evolution in progress. Man progressed from the sea, not from Eve. It's a fact.
That's why I wonder about all the religious people out there... Haven't you got your education to the point where you make you're own brilliant decisions? Maybe that's why the world is changing and you're in the back seat. Think about it.....
Unhappy, it's just that I'm not too comfortable talking with a person who tries to defend the practice of slavery. Why do you defend it? Don't be coy, you certainly did defend. For Pete's Sake, do you deny that the Bible condones slavery in the Old and New Testaments?
I'm going to have to start charging for my Pro-Tips.
Atheist: You must be really young. Otherwise, it is obvious from your posts that you think I am defending slavery.
Let me repeat. I am not. Just like I recognize the fact that George Washington was the first President of the United States, I recognize the fact that slavery did exist in both our history, that of the Romans, and that of the Jews (who were the slaves).
Another atheist who thinks he knows everything, huh? I guess my engineering degree just doesn't count if I believe in God, right? You people make us all laugh.
Aetheist, I read and reread each of Unhappy's posts. I do not see any defense of slavery by him, only the assertion that male and female slaves were treated in the same manner.
I'm no fan of either the Bible or religion, but your "Pro-Tips", should include a prohibition against twisting another person's words in such an obvious manner.
Unhappy, I am happy you don't defend slavery. I must have misunderstood you. I apologize. Now I'm confused though, the Bible certainly defends the practice of slavery. In fact, even Jesus does.
Why don't you?
Dave Simpson, right on with your comment. I'm so sick and tired of the HOLY crap that pours out of the mouths of people who believe they have all the answers. What's even sadder is how so many people have died because of these sick beliefs (and still dieing), defending a god that is nothing but a fairy tale.
Atheist: Where is the verse that states that Jesus defends slavery?
Actually, Atheist, The bible is a flawed document, heavily edited in 200 AD to remove women soooo...
Atheist-6939529
Slavery was man institution and "NOT GOD".. God allowed it, but God did not allow killing of their slaves.Remember God said, Thou shall not kill.. God 1 Atheist 0
Apaprently, Unhappy, it is you who doesn't read Scripture.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
This teaching is particularly unholy/immoral because even the slave who does not know what he does is wrong, still should be beaten (just not as hard).
Of course, all this makes sense when you realize that the Bible came from a culture who used to plant living children in postholes under new foundations to superstitiously protect against those structures collapsing.
That is the culture that gave Western Civilization the bible. Just think about that.
Meredith, you are absolutely correct. The Counsel of Mycennae under the direction of Constantine. (the first holy roman emperor), decided what gospels would be included in the bible. Many of the early christian sects believed that women were equal to men. The teachings of the nostics were left out of the bible as well as the teachings of many other sects, because they believed women should be treated equally. I think that religion is a personal choice and should be between you and your chosen deity, not dictated by a book written by other men, who were trying to control the faithful along with wealth that the church acquired. I tend to be more of a believer in science. But if being a believer in God helps one person treat his children or fellow human beings better, then it has been worth it for that individual. If a person decides to believe in God great, if they chose to not believe in God that's ok too. But no one should be denied the right to practice or preach to other believers, based upon their gender.
This is the problem with The Church. They looked the other way when fact does not suit them. They sided with slavery when that was the norm. They refuted or hid claims of: The World was not flat, the Sun and planets and all of the Universe does not revolve around our World, they branded other humans as pagans, witches, crimes vs the Church so they could incarcerate them, torture into submission or just outright murder them in the name of the Almighty Church. Times are changing now and they can not get away with such menacing acts toward others. The ones they do is kept secret, hidden until someone comes forward and then bought off with riches they take from parishioners. They do what is necessary to stay in Power and reap the minds of men. If you wish to be part of this Organization that is your right. I choose to think and gather facts and make my beliefs on those.
So what mad Constantine so all knowing that he could decide what the creator of everything wanted to publish and what It didn't want included? Like the Gospel of Mary!
Atheist: You are assuming from this verse that the slave will be beaten. Is this the only course of action for a slave?
Second, you are assuming this slave knew no better.
Are we reading the same verse? Look again at the bold letters.
By the way,have you ever heard of a parable? Because that is what the story is talking about.
So at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow & every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!
Philippians 2:10-11
If God does not Exist/Live/Love/Be then it is a discussion of human sociology, psychology, ethics, morals, cultures. If God Lives/Exists/Loves/Be and is Infinite Compassion & Love, then God will be compassionate & loving toward all people regardless of what religious or atheistic mindset we were raised in and developed into as we've grown into adulthood. Now to Christianity.
The Church IS the Body of Christ, the community of humans, Christian believers spread around the earth & throughout 2 millenia, people challenged by sin yet immersed in God's grace/love, hopefully generally good-&-decent people, people whose thoughts have been molded by their childhood teachers/parents/peers & by their era of birth & by their local community/communities. The Church IS NOT the priests, Popes, Bishops, Bible, and 2 millenia of judgements/laws/proclamations put forth from various centers of power or influence. As an analogy a Body human is so complex, even modern medicine & modern psychology understand so little. Brain, cardiovascular system, system of nerves, organs, emotions/heart/soul, thoughts/language/intelligence/book-learning/street-smarts/organizational-skills/relational-skills, even the transformation of food into self, and (though a single bacterium is utterly tiny) the presence of roughly 5 pounds of beneficial bacteria in each person without which one couldn't live.
My point: The Church is the Body of all believers. IF some of the proclaimed "leaders" are out of touch with truly important issues of respect of women & men in evolving human cultures, (any of the Rome-based clerics, if humble like Jesus, would surely admit being out of touch with the human realities of marital relationships & family dynamics embodying grace/love; any of the Rome-based clerics, if humble like Jesus, would surely admit --for having been long celibate and perhaps never having seriously dated or engaged in any adult sexual relationship-- to being also out of touch with the realities adult human sexual relationships), THEN it is within the realm of the rest of us believers to audaciously incarnate the graces of our common life experiences and lead our community, Christ's Church, forward with human compassion, authenticity, dogged determination, patience, and bottomless respect of one another, neighbors & aliens, my gender & the other gender, nonChristians & atheists too -- bottomless respect that ascends to the infinite Love that God bears for His/Her Creation.
Some have posted, understandably, the claim that Loving God does not live & is a fiction created by humans for whatever reasons (psychological crutch?, tool of those wish some power to control the mindsets of the masses?) -- that Loving God does not live since history is overburdened with human pain & suffering. And your corollary thought is that all religions are fictions (or fairy tales or hogwash) too. I think such harsh judgements of religion & God are very reasonable. After all, throughout human history (& perhaps pre-history too), many people have justified hate or obscene aggression against or judgemental (perhaps chauvinistic) condemnations to eternal damnation, by their religious perspectives; some have been animated by their religious zealotry or their subconscious mindsets formed by their religious upbringings in their carrying out acts of disrespect or hate or prejudice against some individual "sinner"/"sinners" or against some alien religious culture(s).
Allow me still to offer a couple other perspectives, when considering in our thoughts & hearts whether God lives.
(1) Do you think/feel that your life is worth living? I trust that most all people do.
Even though we face many challenges, widely varying from day to day & from person to person, and many sad times & sorrows & many views of human antagonism or disease or poverty or natural-disaster suffering, somehow most of us still feel that life is worth living. Moreover, I think most of us humans, in our own kind of self-awareness, guess/presume that we appreciate living more than a mosquito or a tree appreciates living. And we feel that we have some freedom of personal decision, not that we are completely pre-determined like a machine in our responses to life situations.
OK, so life is worth living. IF SO, then IMO there is no argument to be made that "There can't possibly be a loving (& omnipotent) God, because the world has too much pain & hate & suffering." Bottom line here: Billions of people throughout human history & pre-history, feel & have felt that life is worth living. With so so many votes that life is worth living, how can anyone argue that God is an utter failure, or even that God is a sadistic engineer, and that therefore there is really no God who lives.
Sure, in my weaker moments, weaker months, weaker years, I might piss out "God, why is life so hard?! so challenging?!" But we buck up and say instead, at least some of the time, "OK, life has rough edges, life is stressed, challenging, tempted toward becoming depressed -- but, whatever, I've got enough of having been raised with parental love or peer love in me, enough of personal successes behind me, that I feel strong enough to face this strange life, this strained life -- heck, in the main, life is good, MY life is good, life is surely worth living. I want to press forward, I do press forward."
So, again IMO --all said-- God (if God truly lives) is not at all a failure. (Though in many ways it sure is a strange 'game' that God/He/She/It/THEY engineered & gifted us with. Strange. Challenging (but who doesn't like a challenging game?). Difficult. Surprisingly wonderful in many regards. Weird. "Thanks.")
(2) Respect for the masses, humility, being slow to judge others as errant. Even if God lives not, let's look at human cultures throughout the eons of human history. Yes, definitely a mixed bag of horrors, aggressions, self-defense, battles, love, peace, kindness & community concern, family, friends. But somehow, throughout it all, human cultures have experienced/developed some spiritual sense, some personal spiritual experiences, as well as some socially shared ("let me tell you what I felt inside my heart yesterday! I felt like there was some strong love hope & courage outside of me! I felt that the life we live, the world of this earth, is good!") spiritual experiences -- and such group sharing of spiritual experiences, at least in part, led to development of community religion. It may have been based solely in imagined "inner heart" experiences, it may have been psychological. And along the way it was surely influenced by some persons who felt somehow threatened and wanted a greater sense of power. But I don't believe that spiritual & religious experiences of different human individuals & cultures/communities throughout many eons were SOLELY the result of negative factors, of some few wanting to control the masses. Perhaps some of the energy to develop religious culture came from a fragile community, threatened with "civil war"-type fracturing while simultaneously threatened either by a foreign community across the desert or by a disease or shortage of resources to live -- and perhaps while under such threat the community found it beneficial to bind more closely together via some relatively common body of ritual & thought/belief.
In any case, I think it's too myopic of me to write off the eons of human cultural experience as totally worthless. IMO I must at least give it (religion and its positive aspects) a chance, I must consider it with respect. Throughout human history, at least some of the billions of humans have been positively guided by, invigorated by, and sustained their love or courage through, religious experience. It's is so impossibly difficult to gauge the statistics of the issue: what percentage of religiously influenced humans have been basically good & decent persons, strengthened in their goodheartedness & their courageousness by their religious experiences?; what percentage of religiously influenced humans throughout history have been corrupted by their religious perspectives? I think that honest assessment of the issue demands consideration of the statistics of the entire human population, not just those in power (whether political or economic or dogmatic). Again, achieving ANY sense of the statistics of this issue is nearly impossible. (In lieu of having any good statistical assessment, for me it comes down to whether I have a general permeating sense that humans, although challenged by many factors and flawed in many ways, are basically in general good & decent people, striving to care for their loved ones and striving to survive with some measure of security/comfort.)
(3) It bears being noted that, IMO, anyone with a humble religious perspective can appreciate blessings brought their way by the challenges that atheists present. In a sense, atheists are prophets. In general, I suspect that atheists might be classifiable (for one who is perhaps overly inclined toward analysis) via 3 driving/initiating factors: (A) some are motivated by sadly negative experiences of their own religious youth; (B) some are motivated by seeing the blasphemous obscenities of prejudice or wars or intolerance, etc., or by the cruel condemnations of a person's sexual life (whether hetero or homo sexual) or condemnations of a person's skin color or ethnicity or religion, or by abominations of the "leaders" of a religious community committing grave acts; (C) some are motivated by logic or science that has difficulty assessing issues of heart or spirit and sees claims of supernaturality or miracles or inexplicable mystery as unjustified & unjustifiable.
If a religionist has deep & abiding faith in God, and security in her/his loved one's faith in God, then the existence of atheists should be no threat. If God lives, and if I & my loved ones believe, there is no threat; surely a human atheist is no threat against God. Only if I suspect that I, or my love ones (including, in an extended way, my religious community), are weak in my faith, or their faith, only then does an atheist become a threat to me or my loved ones -- perhaps that/those atheist(s) will adversely affect my faith, my loved ones' faiths. On the other hand, if a religionist recognizes her/his/our human foibles, our slow path toward more authentic living that embodies courageous love & respect, then s/he can welcome challenges that are voiced by atheists who in some ways have clearer visions of life because they are not trying to falsely justify the failings of persons or dogmas in a religious community. On balance, religious believers can justifiably take critiques of atheists with some grain of salt, because atheists won't have all the perspectives that a religionist assumes are fundamentally illuminating. But IMO the prophetic critiques of atheists are not to be ignored by humble religionists in honest pursuit of loving, respectful, holy living. IMO a religionist's perspectives do well to include: (a) God is not threatened by atheists; (b) God may well be pleased with atheists who are unwilling to accept religion if they perceive it as severely or even inherently flawed, especially as humans have polluted religious experience with our failings over the millenia; (c) atheists may well be prophetic well-springs of God's grace to our religious community.
(4) Is there such a thing as true human love?
I come down affirmatively here. For all those of you who affirm the reality of true human love (how ever flawed our loves are, naturally), I invite you to consider the issue of how science assesses true human love. My point here is that in some ways, IMO significant ways, the rational mind's address of true human love is similar to the rational mind's address of experience of God living or not existing. There are many things we don't grasp, perhaps some of which are beyond science, perhaps some of which are beyond the current intelligence of the human species (maybe in another million years, if we still survive as a species, humans will have IQs that average 200 instead of 100, and maybe then we'll be better able to know true human love; on the other hand, it seems perhaps that, today, persons of exceptionally high IQ might have more (rather than less) difficulty with human love relationships. Regardless, science & logic don't succeed at addressing true human love, so why expect science & logic to succeed at addressing God living or non-existent?
absurd...
so you can pedophile a kid - but heaven help you if you show respect for women
When and IF they deserve it.....YES!
WomenPriests? What infantile game of B******T are these femnazi dames playing now? Since I am overwieght, is there a group; possibly called Fata**Priests that I could go to to get an overweight minister for my church? T I'm glad they tossed this old f**k out on his ear for what he did! Isn't there anything me can do without women being around with ticking off some femnazi dyke?
It is easy to know you by your post. you are a very obnoxious person - not because of your opinion - but because of your language.
Ralph, I don't know why you hate one-half of your fellow humans simply because they have a different physical structure than you do, but you need some counseling for your mental state.
Why can't we have a discussion without cursing , insults and name calling? I sense a lot of anger in some of these comments. With age comes wisdom & being able to look at another's viewpoint without animosity. Just be civil. Everyone is entitled to an opinion even if you don't care for it. A little respect goes a long way.
Pattie in MD, I have a feeling Ralphie hates way more than 50%.
Gee, I always thought the whole point of Christianity was the Resurrection of Jesus. The risen Christ presented himself first to the women. Look at Christ's deeds, not at the words written by men.
Thank you bbls for your last sentence. As a child my parish Priest said to me, practice your faith as you feel you should. Do not take it to a literal level, it will only hinder your ability to grow as a person and to live a life with open thinking, understanding and compassion. To this day I practice my faith myself, and do not feel the need to infringe on others choice of or lack of faith. It's up to each of us to make our own choices, but also not to try and sway those that do not agree with us. I do believe that in the Church today, there is a lack of Priests and we should be welcoming women into the priesthood. I also believe that the Church has hurt the faithful because of their inability to admit their gross errors and their continued hiding behind the guidance of their heiarchy.
ginny,
Would that more of your co-religionists would practice faith as gently and unobnoxiously as you do. When people of faith lobby for religious-based laws (DOMA) and anti-science in the classroom (creationism), in what is constitutionally a religiously-neutral government, people of reason get understandably irritated.
Merry Christmas.
The Pope urging the "radicalism of obedience" is not a surprise. 1) He damands a blood oath, when he ordains his Cardinals, saying that the red of their outfits certifies the blood they are willing to spill in total allegiance to HIM (meaning the Pope; not God) and the Catholic Church. The vow is NOT to do God's work, and protect the children of God, as each individual hears that in his heart from God himself. The blood oath to the leader of an outfit, and to the outfit itself, rather than what the outfit was supposedley established for, MAKES THE CHURCH A CULT!! 2) He was a menber of the Nazi Youth, where "radicalism of obedience" was also demanded to the point of being willing to die, not for Germany, but for Hitler and The Nazis. This clown is one of the biggest impediments on the planet to the happiness, and peace of heart, of humanity.
....and. in my opinion, the man (pope) is just one mean, nasty, old bastard.
To be honest, Timm McCain, a cult is just what the "other" person of faith believes in. The charge is never directed at oneself.
Atheist, Yup. God himself killed a human being (his own kid, for Chis' sake) to save humanity. From who you ask? Well. from god himself, who will burn you for eternity if you masturbate. And it was "his only begotten son" that He killed, like he could only have one 'begotten son". He's God, for god sake, he could have had as many begotten sonsa as He wanted to, couldn't He? And why did He set up this perverse model, where he created us humans, put us in peril by HIS OWN HAND, and then had to kill his son to save us from Himself. What a f'n joke!!!
Timm,
Well it sure is nice that there is no evidence for such a monster! lol
Timm: I'm with you! I could never understand the logic of a narative in which an "almighty" diety has a "begotten" son with no mother (the term "begetting" as translated into English seems to imply an activity involving a second party), the "begotten" one then is an only child of the "Father" and thus did not exist until the "Father" "begot" him, the Father then gets pissed off at his other, lesser creations, and then sends his child down to earth to be sacrificed to none other than himself! Couldn't the father-god just have written a memo to himself to forgive these idiots and save his child the trauma?
If the father-god really wanted to get the attention of the human race about something, I'm fairly sure that, as an all-powerful being, he could come up with something quite spectacular. Moreover, there were people all over the world when Jesus was alive and unknown outside of a small area of the Middle East, so why not do something spectacular that could be experienced by the people in China, Japan, India, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and all the other places where people were at the time?
Pattie, Absolutely true, of course. And, as with many statements of truth that illustrate how bizzrare a particlar line of thinking really is, pretty funny too. Here's one for you. Now the only person on the planet that knows for sure if Jesus was "begotten" by an angel of God, or "begotten" by Chaim Steinberg, who lived down the street from the cousin she was visiting when she became pregnant, was Mary herself. So, here's a married woman, who misses her period and thinks she might be pregnant, who tells her husband who has not been "with" her that she is pregnant, not by Chaim, but by God. Now maybe it's just me, but if my wife told me that story, I might have some questions. But here's one question I have right now as an observer. Did she tell Joseph as soon as she got home that she was pregnant....like before she even mssied her period. Or did she wait until she missed to tell him that God impregnated her. Isuppose she could have waited until she kissed and THEN said, "Oh, hey Joe, I forgot to tell you I was impregnanted by God on vacation"
@Timm.. "Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand...."
And I think this is a case of mistranslation, it all makes sense if you change "begotten" to "forgotten".
Jimmy Hendrix, right?
I've wondered about that, too. If god really wants people to live a certain way, why is she relying on ambiguous documents written (and re-written) 20 centuries ago? Why doesn't she just put a new set of commandments in the sky ... or, even better, in space. That way, as you pointed out, the entire globe, could experience it.
The Catholic Church, like the Republican Party, thank God, is IMPLODING and wll be looked at by history as ludicrous! Both being, certainly, Un-Christian!
The Catholic Church is not imploding, it is booming in the economically poorer and superstitious areas of the world.
Dear James,
First, what the hell does the catholic church have to do with the republucan party? And where did you hear about all this implosion stuff. Did an angel whisper it to you? Perhaps you heard it as the wind rushed through your ears. And it seems the only un-cristian in your comment would be you. I personally don't have much use for any religion because they were created by man and come with enough rules to choke a horse. Perhaps though the rule you should take as your first commandment is to stop, pull your head out of your butt, and think before you speak. Think first, speak second. Follow that rule and we just might never hear from you again.
James: Actually most Catholics vote democrat.
Unhappy, I think James was simply drawing a parallel in the two organizations, both run by hide-bound corrupt throwbacks who are interested in using ignorance to maintain power and control anyone who might threaten the status quo (women, gays, poor people, etc.)
While historically this may have been the case, it's now reversed parties because of many social issues that are held by the Democratic party are not favored by the Catholic Church.
Abortion, Gay Rights, Euthanasia, and Birth Control are all hot bed issues!
Unhappy-1583758 & Disabled Voter According to Reuters, 51% voted for Obama compared to 48% for Romney. However, there were big differences between how white and Hispanic Catholics voted. So, it's really more like 50/50 (at least in terms of the recent presidential election).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/us-usa-campaign-religion-idUSBRE8A71M420121108
OMG, OMG. He presided over Mass with a woman priest. He should be flogged, place of worship closed down, defrocked or excommunication and sent a message that "The Lake of Fire" in Hades could be awaiting him. That's right let the World hear about this and while your at it sweep ALL the Church's crimes under rug or hide them in your Dungeon Archives for the rest of the World to NEVER see. This man who has given his life to this Organization only to have their doors slammed in his face because of their inane so called Laws.
No common sense whatsoever within the realms of Catholic Church regarding this 92 year old Priest whom I assume had done his duties for years upon the road, and they do what? Where is the love and non-judgment that Jesus himself preached as he walked along the dusty roads wherein he preached and lived among all kinds of people. Once upon time I was what one called a Catholic, yet because of so many unloving, judgmental actions I opted out. I am now one who considers herself a Spiritual person believing God exists everywhere and I do not need a religion or church to be a Spiritual christian person. I have nothing against assembling with other spiritual or christian people, yet only for the fact that they can help one another in their own spiritual journey, as do retreats, books, tapes, cd's etc. The powers to be in the Catholic church should hold their heads in shame over this one to be sure and ask for forgiveness from this 92 year old priest. Shame, shame!
I hear you J. Stevens. Right there with you on that.
If God does not Exist/Live/Love/Be then it is a discussion of human sociology, psychology, ethics, morals, cultures. If God Lives/Exists/Loves/Be and is Infinite Compassion & Love, then God will be compassionate & loving toward all people regardless of what religious or atheistic mindset we were raised in and developed into as we've grown into adulthood. Now to Christianity.
The Church IS the Body of Christ, the community of humans, Christian believers spread around the earth & throughout 2 millenia, people challenged by sin yet immersed in God's grace/love, hopefully generally good-&-decent people, people whose thoughts have been molded by their childhood teachers/parents/peers & by their era of birth & by their local community/communities. The Church IS NOT the priests, Popes, Bishops, Bible, and 2 millenia of judgements/laws/proclamations put forth from various centers of power or influence. As an analogy a Body human is so complex, even modern medicine & modern psychology understand so little. Brain, cardiovascular system, system of nerves, organs, emotions/heart/soul, thoughts/language/intelligence/book-learning/street-smarts/organizational-skills/relational-skills, even the transformation of food into self, and (though a single bacterium is utterly tiny) the presence of roughly 5 pounds of beneficial bacteria in each person without which one couldn't live.
My point: The Church is the Body of all believers. IF some of the proclaimed "leaders" are out of touch with truly important issues of respect of women & men in evolving human cultures, (any of the Rome-based clerics, if humble like Jesus, would surely admit being out of touch with the human realities of marital relationships & family dynamics embodying grace/love; any of the Rome-based clerics, if humble like Jesus, would surely admit --for having been long celibate and perhaps never having seriously dated or engaged in any adult sexual relationship-- to being also out of touch with the realities adult human sexual relationships), THEN it is within the realm of the rest of us believers to audaciously incarnate the graces of our common life experiences and lead our community, Christ's Church, forward with human compassion, authenticity, dogged determination, patience, and bottomless respect of one another, neighbors & aliens, my gender & the other gender, nonChristians & atheists too -- bottomless respect that ascends to the infinite Love that God bears for His/Her Creation.
Another law that needs to be changed.
Indeed. Traditions change.
Well, he's in good company. They stripped Jesus too for, among other things, associating with women.
Good point. This priest seems like a humanitarian first, and possibly just a priest because of his generational expectations. I bet he's an atheist. He's too kind to be religious. :-)
which one of the 12 were women? I have no dog in this fight so... If women want to be priests let them form up a religion where woman are, what another religion.
"another law that needs changed"? This is religion, keep your government out of it.
The question that begs here is how many in this opinion forum have ever actually read the bible as you would any book you'd feel qualified to speak on? It's not needed here to know your butt from a hole in the ground, but still the question does beg an answer.
For grins I wonder how many know what sin started it all? It was presumption. Everything has it's place and all are players. Got that from the book.
Today's catholic church would've sacked Jesus.
Atheist-6939529
Since when is whining and bitching about things that you openly admit you don't even believe in equate to "kindness"?? Sorry but the idea that atheists, generally speaking, are any "kinder" than religeous nuts is ridiculous. Frankly, some of the biggest d-bags out there are atheists; in fact I'm starting to think that it may be a requirement. What other sort of person spends so much time and effort to bring down the beliefs of others even when they are unaffected by those beliefs in any way themselves?
I will admit that many atheists are d-bags, as are many people from all beliefs. Regarding why we should care what people believe: I suppose I don't care what an individual believes, but I do care who is put in office and what laws are passed, etc. People, of course, often vote for people who believe the same things they do, so it may be of some concern to me if people believe in things that have the potential to limit my personal rights.
I find that many of the actions religious people want the government to take would limit the rights of people who are not like them. Sure, it is not as oppressive as it once was, but those who against gay marriage, birth control, marijuana, etc. often try to make it a religious case, even though no one is requiring them to use birth control or marry a person of their own sex themselves. They are trying to limit someone else's rights, not preserve their own (not being grossed out is not a right :) ). The more moderate ones may say something like "Well, I just don't want to see them kissing." Well that is fine, but nobody want to see you kiss your wife or husband either, but no one is suggesting it should be illegal. The counterarguments made by gay people, for example, are mostly about increasing personal freedoms.
I can understand the religious argument against abortion, but I still disagree with it - I don't think the fetus has soul or will suffer if humanely aborted in the first 6 months or so (queue the arguments about how it never humane...). So, if I were a woman (I'm not) who decides it would be best not to carry a baby to term, but I find that religious people have voted enough people into office to overturn the law or amend the Constitution, your beliefs have certainly affected my life. You may believe that I shouldn't have that right because the fetus is a human life potentially with a soul. I do not - that is my belief, based largely on the complete lack of evidence for the existence of a soul, and the fact that fetuses are miscarried all the time without any Christians saying that the baby is in Hell because it wasn't baptized or had a chance to be reborn. This leads me to believe that even if I were religious I would not think that fetuses have souls or should be valued at the same level of a born human.
Sorry for the long rant. I meant that to be shorter. Anyway, my point is that your beliefs can affect me, and mine can affect you, so we do have the right to be concerned what our fellow citizens believe.
The Church should have a new Jingle. Remember the "Let's All Go to the Lobby, and Get Ourselves A Treat?" Instead it should be "Let's All Go to the Archives" instead, but treats of corruption, tyranny, murder and crimes against Humanity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDrw5ZuZL1I
One, reading most of the messages written here can almost taste the protestant/jew inspired hatred towards catholicism. that permeates the US....is a given there are mistakes done and being done....and more t come.....but in the end...they are mostly the voice of ignorance which is the same as hatred....the church is too strong....and will ride this storm the way it has rode the others in the past....over 2000 yrs ....in the meantime the little chihuahuas will still balk at it desperately by the side of the road.....but that is what chihuahuas do.....jejejejejeje ....
That's a funny thing to glom onto. Interesting that you say the Church is strong but you NEVER say the Church is true!
I only care about what is true and obviously faith is an unreliable method to ascertain what is true about the universe.
Deckie, how many people have you killed defending your ideas of a god? You sound like you have put down the sword and now are ready to throw bombs.
Women can enter holy service - there are dozens of sisterhoods for that purpose. Ordaination is NOT an option for wmen. Rome speaks with the authority given to it by GOD - to dispute with Rome is to dispute with GOD to dispute with GOD is to play with heavenly fire that can only lead to eternal destruction. For Catholic readers, it's clear to hear and obey. For non Catholic readers, the issue is not of YOUR concern, and you should have the courtesy to refrain from offering your unsolicted opinions.
Born and raised a Catholic here. TG I have been able remove the scourge of the church from my being. Sorry for the unsolicited response.
alwell,
You're kidding right? You can't actually believe all that crap you wrote. Or perhaps you do. Either way, It WAS funny.
Alwell, Let me see if I got this right. There is absolutely nothing written anywhere, by anyone, that says that only men can be priests, correct? The SINGLE, SOLITARY, SLIVER OF SUPPORT for that position is that all of Jesus' apostles were men, correct? If I follow his absurd "logic", and go to buy a car from General Motors, they will tell me I am prohibited from making a purchase from them because my father only bought Fords??? You folks have your head so far up your azz, it's unfathomable.
Which begs the question: Is it possible for one to have one's head so far up one's azz, that it is coming back up out of one's mouth? And, if so, wouldn't one, in never-ending pursuit of the state of "head up my azzness", be forced to again stick one's head back up one's azz, thus creating a perpetual circle of insersions? Just wondering.
Let it be known that Atwell The Great shall decide who shall solicit or not. Others shall NOT "free think" but just bow to the whims of The Church. I guess everyone else that does not agree with you is heading for that Eternal Damnation in "The Lake of Fire" deep down in Hades. Seriously you have some serious chronic mental problems.
An organization that systemically supports the abuse of children is the responsibility of all citizens of our country to attempt to remove from our social structure in order to protect our children. Their discrimination against women is a lesser issue but still shows their un-American nature. Let the Romans return to Rome to do as they please and take the women haters and child molesters with them. There are plenty of other religions that people in this country can follow that do not support child molesters and realize the contributions that women can make to their flocks.
There are also many who do not support organized religion and choose to live better lives based on equal acceptance of all and taking care of those less fortunate These people do not spend their week doing bad things with the knowledge that on Sunday all is forgiven. They believe that doing right by your fellow humans is the most important part of being human. They answer to their individual conscience and not some man in Rome who hears voices and condemns others based on the current Roman mythology.
The early church destroyed and repressed any reality about the "role of women" with Jesus (as if he would really be against half the world) and then say, "Look, he only ordained men." All of this is proof that the real purpose of the RCC is to perpetuate the patriarchy and control society and its resources.
alwell-1273462 is a prime example of how this works: tell them that God said so and they will believe anything in order to maintain their sense of order in a complex and fearful world.
In reply to Alwell, since this thing messed up when I tried to comment on Alwell's post:
I agree with you about one thing, alwell. As a non-Catholic, it's really none of my concern what the Catholic church does or says.
What I don't agree with, however, is your use of the word "unsolicited." I live in the U.S. The first amendment of the U.S. constitution regards freedom of press, religion, and speech, among other things. This is a public news story posted by a public news source. Comments are always solicited, and since this story comes out of the U.S., as an American citizen, I have the right to comment on this post, regardless of if you like what I say offends you. Just because the comments here are unsolicited in your mind doesn't mean that they're unsolicited overall. You should have the courtesy to refrain from trying to silence those who disagree with you since it is our right to speak freely.
That being said, I disagree with the church. Not because I'm an atheist -- I could care less who believes what. It's no concern of mine. Yet, as a human being, I disagree with the sexist, authoritarian nature in which this case was handled. I disagree with one person being able to tell someone -- anyone -- else how they should choose to practice their religious beliefs. If this priest believes that females should be allowed to be ordained, and chooses to act on that, it's his right as a human being to express how he feels about his religion. I honestly cannot, nor will I ever, understand why people choose to follow a religion that has complete control over its followers in such a blatant disrespectful, segregated way.
@Kasey-May Parker,
Well said! It's almost like The Church discourages free thinking and "They" are the ones who will decide the differences between right and wrong. The Good Book says....but they refuse to look back at their History of tyranny of such matters of Human Rights or what they hide (sweep under the rug) deep down in the Archives. The Earth is no longer flat and The Universe does not revolve around it. You need look no further other then to just live your lives and NOT trod on others.
What is really sad is that this man who devoted his life to this Religion was shown the door because of this. Below is a statement from a post above that demonstrates the real problem of this Organization and some of it's followers.
Quote from a posting above "this priest was stripped of his faculties meaning he can no longer perform Sacraments. A pedophille is excommunicated, big difference. All of you knocking the Catholic Church seem to know very little about it. With all that said, this Jesuit KNEW the repercussions and still opted to celebrate Mass with her. He got exactly what he was asking for, in my opinion.
The biggest problem with the statement above is that this Church hid these pedophiles from everyone until they were discovered by others. Moved them around from place to place. That is criminal in itself Throw out a 92 year old for letting a woman work with him and hide criminal behavior of others that is against anyone's Law. If that alone does not disturb you I have no idea what would. Think!
No one, of whatever body type or color or shape, has a monopology on what is called the Creator, or God, or the Great Spirit, or the Goddess.
This sorry mistreatment of a man who apparently has spent his entire long life walking the high road of justice, compassion, and love for his fellow humans shows to what length the penis-worshippers who run the Catholic Church will go to preserve their infantile ways and their hatred of the female body.
It is the immortal soul that is supposed to be the center of spiritual activity and the body a mere temporary vessel that will turn to dust. There is no reason why the presence or absence of any particular physical organ should have any bearing on the performance of rituals considered sacred or designed to access devine power or solicit the interest of a universal creator.
While I can understand that Rev. Brennan and Rev. Sevre-Duszynska and their supporters have a great love for the Catholic faith and the institution they have done so much to preserve, I think it time to split and build a vibrant church in the Catholic tradition elsewhere and leave the little boys to their toys.
Generally agree. But IMO there's no real need to "split" & start "elsewhere" -- rather, let the faithful like Rev. Brennan & Rev. Sevre-Duszynska persist and purify the Church. The legalistic & out-of-touch hierarchical Rome-based structure guys can reform their spirits and follow the prophetic leadership of Sevre-Duszynska & others, or those blind, insensitive, & unhumble guys can just become irrelevant. Hopefully more & more of the faithful members of the Body of Christ will have courage to be authentic, heartfelt, & respectful of all sisters & brothers in Christ. A significant portion of the clerical clique of the Church has become disoriented, removed from the heart & soul of people's daily lives, caught up in legalisms or elitism, and errantly insensitive & judgemental towards the bulk of the Church and others outside of the Christian community.
Anyone with sense knows you can't have broads preaching about God that's a mans job. Women have their place.
Good point sdc. Since women are smarter than men, they should not be putting fairy tales out there as some kind of reality. Women should retain their place of honor as ones above the death and destruction caused by these religions who fighting to say they are right and killing those who do not agree with them is the proper end. Women are intelligent enough to discuss and negotiate their differences and to know that fighting over a fairy tales is pointless.
Teaching
in the Congregation
Nowhere in the Bible, however, are women told to stand before the congregation to teach. Rather, the apostle Paul instructed them to “keep quiet in the meetings.” Why? One reason, he wrote, is so that things would be done “in a proper and orderly way.” (1 Corinthians 14:34, 40, Today’s English Version) For the congregation to run smoothly, God has assigned the role of teaching to one group. Note, though, that a person is not granted the privilege of oversight in the congregation simply because he is a male; it is granted only to those men who truly qualify.—1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9.
Is the role that God has assigned to women demeaning? No. Remember, God ordains them to a high calling—that of publicly bearing witness about him. (Psalm 68:11)
The arrangement for men and women promotes peace while showing honor to both genders. To illustrate: The eyes and ears perform complementary tasks to help a pedestrian cross a busy street. Similarly, when men and women accomplish God’s will according to the roles they have each been assigned, God blesses the congregation with peace.—1 Corinthians 14:33; Philippians 4:9.
Do you think that Jesus lived with the sense that men had opportunity for a more direct experience of God's love & grace than did women? or that women's discernments about love of neighbor & love of God were less authentic than similar discernments made by men? Do you think that Jesus developed His religious, psychological, ethical & moral perspectives more from Joseph and male relatives or other men than He did from Mary & female relatives and other women? If women are inherently less endowed with spiritual depth than men, why wasn't Jesus born from the body of a man, receiving his paternal nurturing, rather than born from the body of a woman, receiving her maternal nurturing? Do you think that the Bible implies that women are sub-intelligent, or --infinitely more importantly-- sub-par in their spiritual lives, their prayer lives, and their experiences of God's revelation throughout the eons of human existence? How do you sort out what aspects of the Biblical record are peculiar to the times & Middle Eastern cultures, the non-industrial existence, agrarian society, Roman dominance, Jesus's Jewish religion, societal levels of poverty and injustice, etc., and what aspects of the Biblical record are core essentials of God loving humanity? How can you interpret the meanings of all that is written in today's Bible translations while knowing that different languages capture significantly different nuances of reality?-- surely the Semitic cultures of that time are rather foreign to the European-dominated mold that Christianity has taken on over the last thousand years. Besides, we no longer have any copies of original Christian Testament writings. Do you feel that women should keep their heads covered during worship services? & that women should be submissive to their husbands? Should the Sabbath be celebrated from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, or from Saturday sunset to Sunday sunset? Should Christians attend synagogues and/or celebrate Jewish religious customs as the followers of Jesus did during Jesus's time-- or do you think that things (at least SOME things) change as history moves along?
Elite all male heirarchy coddles those who abuse male & FEMALE children, but they punish a true man of God who knows in Christ there is NO east or west....male or female. Other messiahs had been proclaimed, but the most radical aspect of Jesus of Nazareth's ministry was he treated women the same as men. That's why they suppressed the gospels which demonstrate this. Peter was threatened by the respect and trust Jesus had for Mary Magdelene. Is it any wonder the branch of christianity that exaggerated Peter's status, should be the most sexist and backward? I do love the current pope's flare for fashion. He reminds me of my gay friends, very much. Hypocrisy at the highest level. The overwhelming majority of pedaphiles are heterosexual in preference and many abuse both genders. It's about abuse of power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely was a quote about the papacy, ironically. Not many know it's origin. He should use his power to ordain women, not suppress them.
The pope indeed does have a "flair for fashion" what with his ruby red leather shoes. But did you also know that he commmisioned one of the major perfume manufacturers to make a special "pope perfume"? Did you also know that regular people cannot clean his apartment, or clean his azz hairs off his toilets? No Sir! He has 4 "consecrated" women who do that (you see, he really is pro-woman. I understand they consider it a lucky day when one of the pope's sacred azz hairs lands on their apron.) He now, I also understand, zooms around the Vatican on on of those Segways. So here you have a man, in beautiful white flowing robes, and a beautiful white, ornate pointed hat, zooming around on his machine, wearing his perfume and red ruby slippers, and who just bestowed on women the right to clean his toilet. Yes sir!!!
The law they fall back on was written by the Pope at the same time that it wrote that sexual crimes against children was a grave breach of the law. And we see how hard they worked to fix that, right? I'm not Catholic, but isn't that statue in front of the church a woman? If they have no right to be a preaching member of the church, how can they be the CENTER of the church? Thats a woman, recognize it, or go away.
The catholic church needs to pull its head out of its middle aged butt.
Rape a young man, get transferef to a new parish, celebrate a mass
With a woman, and your out.... Jesus Christ....if he were around would
Say, use some common sense.
This 92 year old Jesuit wanted to make a statement about women as priests in the Catholic Church. He knew what he did was against the Vatican's position so now he has to pay for this actions. Does his age play a part in this?? Apparently his superiors didn't think so.
I think at 92, Father Brennan knows that he will soon be departing for a better place and what better thing to do than culminate a long life's work for justice with an action that strips bear the conceits and foibles of the institution he has served for all the world to see.
The picture of him and Rev. Sevre-Duszynska concelebrating the Mass says it all: two of the Universal Creator's creations performing a sacred ritual together in honor of the Creator with all of those present and participating doing so of their own free will, an act for which they are being vilified. Why does anyone think that female humans are unqualified to handle what is sacred in the community?
Faith, by definition, is belief without proof, and hope beyond reason. Religions are the man-made rules of conduct within the mindset of faith. Bibles (of any religion) are the amalgamated thoughts and opinions of those in charge of the church in question at the time. (We know for a FACT that the testaments were written at least 100 years after the crucifiction.) Those thoughts and opinions are conveyed via literary devices such as parables. Those writings have been "tweaked" over time by the successors of those religious leaders. Taking any bible as "fact" is indeed an act of faith.
There are many different rules of the church, and there is nothing wrong with that. As a practicing catholic I find great solace and strength in the 2000 year traditions of the church. It is definitely a flawed entity, and has been many times over the centuries - as any human institution is. Corruption has/does exists because of the inherent pride, greed, or lust some choose to embrace. But the church continues to grow and thrive in every country on earth, because the truth can be found in its writings and teachings.
The issue of women priests is so ridiculous, so banal, so truly prideful it is almost laughable. A person's own belief in self (above all else) and need for attention is what drives this issue. If it was a true desire to serve God or others, there are many outlets and opportunities within the Holy Church for that.
Get over yourselves and your own strange protests. NO ONE is forcing you to become Catholic. It is not a civil rights issue, it is a rule of a church that you have a choice to be a part of. Or not.
Well said!
The beauty of the Catholic church is that it doesn't give in to popular opinion. Its standards have been the same for the past 2000 years. Amazing how many of those commenting on how the Catholic church needs to "get with it" are obviously made by people who are not Catholic, or else are Catholic but very ignorant about their own faith. C'mon folks, learn Catholicism before you spout off about things of which you obviously know very little.
"NO ONE is forcing you to become Catholic." -- Well, don't most Catholic parents force their children to be Catholic, first via infant Baptism, and later by upbringing in a community setting that gives children their First Holy Communion at an age when one wouldn't expect them to have free choice in the face of the expectations placed upon them by their loving parents; even the Sacrament of Confirmation often happens at a childhood age with strong expectation or even presumption that the child will do what the parents and/or priests expect of her/him.
"The issue of women priests is so ridiculous, so banal, so truly prideful it is almost laughable." -- How about let's go back to the life of the early Christian community?-- but, of course, perfect records are not available. Surely at one point in the history of Christianity, the Popes became highly powerful politically & societally -- and there were changes in the norms of the "ordained" ones & the power-wielding ones. I suspect that a reasonable case can be made that at times in the history of Christianity, "prideful" men instituted "rule" changes & policy changes & even dogma changes that altered how much women could be part of the religious core leadership of the Christian communities of various towns and/or nations.
"The beauty of the Catholic church is that it doesn't give in to popular opinion. Its standards have been the same for the past 2000 years. Amazing how many of those commenting on how the Catholic church needs to "get with it" are..." --
WRONG: The standards of the Christian Church HAVE changed over the past 2000 years.
"...doesn't give in to popular opinion..."-- On the other hand, it can be argued that in too much of the history of the Christian Church, a lack of humility on the part of the power-wielding Rome-based clerical hierarchy precipitated pronouncements that disrespected the spiritual lives of the everyday person, sometimes with messages to the effect that "You lay persons are religiously stupid or impure (because you engage in procreation, or for what ever reasons)-- we priests & Bishops & Cardinals are God's elite, and we will tell you what to think and how to feel the spirit of God in your hearts" OR "the masses are basically to be mistrusted as morally weak, and only the priestly clique is morally elite -- God made the masses lower than us clerics, even making them morally impure or deficient". Popular opinion and popular spiritual depth have been denigrated by the self-absorbed unhumble "elite" priestly class, a sad commentary on the spiritual depth and human respectfulness of too many of those priests, Bishops, Cardinals.
"Amazing how many of those commenting on how the Catholic church needs to 'get with it' are..."-- There have certainly been Christian leaders throughout the millennia who have advocated 'getting with it': The Second Vatican Council, convened by the beloved Pope John XXIII is one example. Another example (though further examples can additionally be found), is that of Father William Joseph Chaminade of Bordeaux France [founder of the "Society of Mary" (brothers/priests) & co-founder of the "Daughters of Mary Immaculate" (nuns) & lay "sodality" associations], who promoted a spirituality that Christians do well to be "responsive to the signs of the times". I doubt that someone today who disdains 'getting with it' really wants to advocate reverting to following the customs & practices & language of Jesus & His parents & His contemporary society -- though it would be curious if all Christians would undertake efforts to learn Hebrew & Aramaic languages.
Christ intended His Church to be One, Holy, Catholic meaning Universal and Apostolic. Christ intended His Church to be propagated by His Apostles; therefore the True Church must be Apostolic. Its rulers must derive their office and authority by lawful succession from the Apostles. It must hold intact the doctrine and traditions of the Apostles, to whom Christ gave authority to teach.
It was Christ Himself, and no one else, who chose His Apostles and disciples, and commanded them to teach His doctrines to all the world. To Simeon He said: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it" Matt. 16:18.
All the sees founded by the Apostles perished or were interrupted, except the See of Peter alone. Where Peter is, there is the True Church founded by Our Lord.
Those denominations that broke away from the Church thus lost their connection with the Apostles. They were all begun by individuals who could never have had any authority from either Christ or the Apostles. Most of them came some 1500 years too late.
Clearly, it did not mention that women can be a priest. Just read the old and new testament.
You say To Simeon He said: "And I tell you, you are Peter..." Do we know why He told Simeon he was Peter? Was Simeon at all distressed to hear that after going through his life thinking he was Simeon?
Jesus was responding to Peter's confession the He was the Christ. There is a very good reason why Jesus addressed Peter by name.
When people aren't concerned with investigating the truth, but only winning an argument, they have prejudiced their minds with an inability to learn.
Disabled Voter , you are wrong and are speaking in Heretical fashion. Jesus built His first Church upon Simon Bar-Jona. Jesus actually changed Simon's name from Simon Bar-Jona to Simon Peter. HE changed Peter's name in order that no one would question "Peter's" authority.
Jesus was referring to himself as the ROCK
Peter just a pebble in the scheme of things and not the leader of a universal church theory