You cannot compare social system to biological function, it does not work. Men can't give birth. Unless they undergo sex change. With assited procreation.
Social systems exist because of inherent biology- for example, women were items because they were physically weaker and men loved to sex them.
decksies said:
I'll repeat this again because it's not over the actual functionality of a woman's would-be performance. Holy Orders is the equivalent to marriage, meaning it does have gender-specific requirements. "The Church" much like a ship is considered female, and the priesthood is exclusively a vow to The Church like marriage is a vow to a spouse.
I would like to see some references on this because honestly that just sounds blatantly made up. In what world is working for the church the same as a marriage? He isn't fucking the church, in this case he'd be much more likely to fuck a small child (it is the catholic church we are talking about). I just don't see how it can even remotely be compared. Not all vows are the same deck.
No one in the Church makes the argument that women would be bad or inferior priests
Too bad, that's the only real leg you may have to stand on, assuming it was correct.
Jesus could have selected anyone to be apostles. He routinely beggared the Jews and Pagans of the time by purposefully choosing parables alien to their cultural understanding. If Jesus wanted to select female priests he very well could have done so, yet he did not. Apostolic succession was determined through Christ's selections, and he left the keys to the Church in the hands of Peter. What would the Jews have done if Jesus had selected women among his Apostles? Crucify him?
I believe I covered this in my other posts. Does deck have me on ignore? That's a very christian thing to do, actually :P. There are very good sociological reasons for why Jesus did not choose females at that time to be his apostles.
I propose a simple challenge to Brain: should climate science be involved with government with any means, be it funding, scientific-government joint research institutions, or otherwise? I submit that by his own standard any governmental research or funding of Global Warming is morally irresponsible and cannot do what it is "supposed" to, which is deliver objective scientific research on the climate. Too much money and power could be amassed through skewing the research to ends that benefit a select few. There is too much power involved and scientists are no less human than clergy. To suggest otherwise is to reveal prejudices that have nothing to do with moral responsibility, rather it just reveals a very clever posturing.
This is called a straw man argument and is therefore fallacious.
All I know is that the Pope is by and large a truthful and moral person with the same human failings as everyone else, and whatever slime in the depths of the Vatican hidden away from public view, orchestrating whatever dastardly schemes Brain has imagined (Cardinal Law, no doubt), will not escape the judgment of God. Meanwhile I've never had reason to suspect my local priest and bishop despite their own human failings. I imagine X-Act has similar experiences despite being half a world away, but he can speak for himself.
Since when is it acceptable in reasonable debate, aside from American politics, to slam the opposition like this and vilify them in inappropriate ways? Many times, by the way, the communities were shocked by the priest diddling his underage pals. You might find yourself shocked, don't be so black and white.
What's all this jazz about the judgement of God? I'd like to think that he'd be a better being than saying "Love me in the prescribed way or burn in hell forever. Oh an by the way: you have to love me because you WANT to not because I'll flame broil you if you don't".
Taken from the Catholic perspective, female ordination just doesn't make sense, and undermines the nature of the vocation.
Sudo said:
Like Deck Knight said, the priest is supposed to serve and guide his local community in matters of faith and morality. Through his duties the priest also actively emulates the life of Jesus; in consecrating the bread and wine during Mass he acts out one of Jesus' most significant moments, and pays tribute to his memory. During Mass the priest also delivers a homily (sermon) explaining the day's Bible readings in layman's terms to the laity; this reflects Jesus' practice of telling parables to the crowds that flocked to him throughout his ministry. The privilege of administering sacraments derives itself from Jesus' public acts as well.
Provide scenarios where women couldn't guide a community in matters of faith an morality, how a woman can't emulate Jesus's life (as if a male priest does it all that way anyways nowadays). In fact, please provide explicit scenarios where a woman would fail in any of these tasks. I'm especially keen to learn how a modern priest emulates Jesus so precisely that a woman couldn't do it.
Barring females from performing this role is just as sexist as rejecting females from auditioning for the roles of male characters in the movies. How archaic and backward!
Actually, that's a pretty ignorant viewpoint to have.
It's also a non sequitur. Characters cast in movies have nothing to do with being a priest. There are great sociological reasons to cast a woman as a woman or even a negro as a negro. It's all cosmetic and meant to appear how it is in real life (well, sans explosions and hot alien babes etc). Also, it makes sense for a woman to play the mother because a man literally can not bear a child under normal circumstance. To have a man play the mother and then perhaps talk about how awful labor was makes the story less believable; meanwhile, having a woman be a priest doesn't take away from it at all as far as I can see (hence why I ask for explicit examples, like the one I just provided). Your example is kind of like saying a woman can't be a crane operator because a man can lift more, when in fact the amount the person can lift is irrelevant.
