"If reality can never correct us, we have no option but arrogance."

That's wonderful. Do you mind if I use that sometime?

Quote away, quote away, nothing trademarked here.

I do think the issue is quite about the difference between the issues which can be meaningfully compared to 'marketing concerns' versus the issues which ought to be considered more serious.

Abuse of power, whether it involves sex or something else, is a more serious concern.  Other concerns don't quite qualify as all that serious.  Somewhere along the line there is much that could be debated, but on the edges/extremes I think some things are pretty clear.

Who is priest is on the one hand so non-serious that it shouldn't matter whether some sect insists that no eunuchs can be rabbi, or anther sect is concerned that no women are priests, or another sect is concerned that no left-handers play guitar on the altar.  Whatever they consider a sacrament and symbolically important and harms no one, is fair game, mostly, though some might argue or feel left out or feel offended in the process.

I mean, it certainly isn't as important as being sure that money from parishioners isn't stolen, that children aren't abused, that heretics aren't burned, that some random Arab in Iraq who winds up in Abu Ghraib isn't threatened by US forces that his wife will be raped, etc.

Oh, but if that's the case, well then what's so wrong about women priests?  Well, again, what harm is done if only men are priests?  There are more important things to be concerned about, but then, if you play seven card stud and you are the dealer, you make the rules, don't you?  And so long as you don't steal or cheat or kill anyone while playing poker, anything else is 'par for the course' if I may mix metaphors...

But again, by this analogy, sacraments would be a game.

Sacraments are not a game to a religious person.  A 'card game' isn't just a card game to a serious gambler either.  Art isn't just art to an artist.  Your partner isn't just some broad or some yokel if it's your partner.

jacknky

"No but it isn't realistic to claim that the Church doesn't change either. It does. Otherwise the Church would still be selling indulgences and burning heretics."

This is what happens when debating non-catholics - no disrespect meant here. The Church can and does CHANGE, and that change is healthy if understood properly. In matters of faith and morals, no "change" happens, however our understanding of faith and morals does undergo a maturity over time - that does NOT overturn previously discerned teachings.

For instance, our concept of human dignity is not what it was in the 1st century when the job description of "household slave" was a perfectly honorable, and indeed desirable job if you were a foreigner or at the bottom of the social ladder.

Your examples of selling indulgences and burning heretics are simply examples of abuses - not examples where the doctrine of the church has changed. Yes the culture of the church changes, yes human consciousness changes over time, but no, the "doctrines" of the church do not change - but they can be articulated in a deeper and more updated way that speaks to people living in the modern world. 

"When I was being taught Christianity I believe I was taught that Jesus was both a human and the Son of God. I was taught that when Jesus was on the cross and said "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" he was expressing human anguish. So according to this teaching Jesus was capable of human emotion and therefore capable of being influenced by his humanity."

And your point is what? Of course Jesus was influenced by his humanity. But unlike any other human who ever lived, Jesus was also fully divine, which means when he spoke and acted - he spoke and acted across time and space. In other words, exactly what did Jesus say or do that today, has become questionable or optional to Christianity? Or perhaps, even downright embarrassing. To Catholics, the answer is exactly nothing. And that is because "God" doesn't do "optional" or "questionable". He may indeed cause us some embarrassment vis-a-vi the modern culture - but that is all part of the deal you sign up for when you "follow" the Lord.

"It is a later human interpretation to say that because Jesus took no female deciples the Church should have no female priests."

That is just wrong. That has been the consistent teaching of the Church even before it was Romanized and all throughout the known world ever since. The two biggest and oldest churches in Christianity - the Catholic and Orthodox churches - have maintained this "doctrine" ever since the apostles. You may not agree with it, but it is a glaring fallacy to call it a "later human interpretation". It was an original apostolic interpretation based on what Jesus did when he selected people for a specific ministry in his embryonic church.

"If we use that logic then none of us should marry and have children because Jesus didn't do that either."

Here is a hint - some people should not marry and have children. However according to our faith, everyone (male and female) is called to the priesthood of the believer. But only males are called to the Petrine ministry - a specific ministry in the church for a specific task(s).

"I know of no verse where Jesus specifically said women were incapable of leadership positions in the church."

Of course not. This is a straw man argument. Women then and now, have "leadership positions in the church" - but one of those "positions" is off-limits to them. And the reason is, while we don't have actual verbal passages from Jesus on this, we do have what he actually chose to do recorded. And we have followed that model and we do not feel authorized to change it.

"My guess is that in a male dominated society the issue never came up. Do you want to return to a similar patriarchical society?"

Please. This is not about women getting the vote or enjoying equal civil rights under the secular law. This is about something ordained by Jesus. "The Church" didn't tell him to select only men to be disciples/apostles. He did that all by himself. And we believe  both his words AND actions are binding across time. You already have made my case. You think Jesus was just acting in the way he did in a male dominated society because really, he had no choice. I could agree with that IF he was JUST a man like you or I. But since Catholics believe GOD is not intimidated by any culture in any time...the line of reasoning is completely bogus to us.

"Is it your contention that knowledge and wisdom was frozen 2,000 years ago? Is the Church incapable of receiving any additional insight since then?"

It is "our" contention that Jesus Christ represents God's fullest and most complete revelation of himself to us. And since no human or church or group can ever possibly understand God's revelation in its entirety...our understanding of the revelation continues throughout time. We call that process Sacred Tradition. The Church is indeed capable of receiving "additional insight" across time - see Vatican II. But we're not talking about "additional insight" here. We're talking about overthrowing a previously solemnly declared "doctrine" of the Church that has been "settled" for 20 centuries. Your concept of "additional insight" has to be able to explain WHY all those centuries of Christians all over the world got it sooooooo wrong in speaking and praying to the same Holy Spirit. 

The explanation that - "well they were just all misogynist at heart" is IMO intellectually lazy and doesn't even pretend to understand how Christianity arrives at "doctrine".

"We no longer keep slaves. We no longer treat women as chattel. What you dismiss as "sounding right" is what has slowly and painstakingly learned and fought for by good, honest and wise people constantly striving to improve our world, not remain stuck in a far distant past."

The trick is to discern faith from practical human concerns. No, we no longer keep slaves and we no longer treat women or men as chattel. And what exactly does THAT have to do with the ordination of females in the Church??? We still insist that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Where did that come from?? We say it was ordained by God. We didn't set up the family unit any more than we set up priesthood.

You may think us "stuck" in a far distant past, but modernity without the Christian tradition that existed in the western world for 20 centuries is looking more and more like a "Brave New World" that is looking less inviting by the day.

"The Church has got it wrong many times. It takes a true believer to ignore that fact."

The Church has got it wrong because of what it did at times in history - not because of what it believed and asserted was true. People are always amazed that even the Church believes some things it says "can" be overturned or changed or moderated at a later time in light of history and experience. But when a teaching is elevated to "doctrine", it cannot be changed. It can be re-articulated, restated in a deeper way - but not thrown out as an anachronism of a distant past.
Doctrines do not grow "old" and wither and die. They are timeless expressions of truths NOT up for negotiation with a modern society that doesn't believe in the apostolic faith anyway.

"Did the Church get it right with indulgences?"

Yes - but the charging for services was an error. Not the idea, but the action was wrong. Besides the whole concept of indulgences is NOT a doctrine of the Church - and therefore not applicable to the kind of unchangeability I am referring to.

"Did the Church get it right with the Inquisition?"

Again - totally beside the point. What are you trying to say? That people in the Church SIN?? Well I'm just shocked to hear that - I didn't know. The Church had its Jihadist too in history. Fundamentalism is never pretty, as faith detached from reason also shows. But what does this have to do with female ordination??

"And now the Church is getting it wrong in other areas such as teaching that homosexuals are less worthy in the sight of God and that women are less worthy of Church leadership."

Oh boy, I was waiting for that. The usual litany of sex and gender issues from the left. About as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. Homosexuals are not "less worthy" in the sight of God than anybody else is. You see, if you really LEARNED anything about Christianity, you would already know NOBODY is "worthy" in the sight of God - all of us are unworthy with no exceptions.

But Marriage is ordained by God and while I have no problems with civil unions, a sacramental marriage is between one man and one women, and yes, THAT is in the bible starting in Genesis and repeated by Jesus - who no doubt according to you, was just wimping out in the face of a patriarchal culture.

"The Church is made up of human beings and as such is capable of getting it wrong. Hiding behind "infallibilty" doesn't avoid that fact."

It would be nice if you are going to debate Catholicism, at least know what you were talking about. Nobody has said or alluded to the idea that "infallibility" means impeccability. They are two different words that mean two different things. And while I don't expect any non-Catholic or any non-Orthodox person to even begin to understand what exactly the Church means by infallibility, it is a concept that applies only to a certain body of teaching in the Church - that the Church believes comes from God and therefore is not amendable.

 

Deacon,
"And your point is what? Of course Jesus was influenced by his humanity. "

My point was that since Jesus was a man he was influenced by the culture of his day. So, for example, it might have made sense then for Jesus to say that eunuch's will have a special place in heaven but now, with the knowledge we have, those kinds of statements are pretty much ignored. And, as Squirley so eloquently pointed out, the Bible was written by men, men who are fallable and make mistakes. So, when these men wrote, for example, that Jesus was returning from heaven during their lifetime they were wrong and those teachings are ignored. The point is that the Church, like all Christian organizations, pick and choose what to emphasize from the Bible. The Church chooses to eliminate women from higher leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is a later human interpretation to say that because Jesus took no female deciples the Church should have no female priests."

That is just wrong."

You're right. I mispoke. Sorry. I don't know what I was thinking unless it was about the injunction that priests shouldn't marry.
----------------------------------------------------------
"I know of no verse where Jesus specifically said women were incapable of leadership positions in the church."

Of course not. This is a straw man argument. Women then and now, have "leadership positions in the church" - but one of those "positions" is off-limits to them."

It's not a strawman argument because if Jesus didn't give an injunction against women as priests then you are merely interpreting  what he wanted, an interpretation based on a couple of thousand years of partriachy. I know the Church assumes the role of interpretor for its members but, and I know you won't agree, sometimes the Church is a little slow in correcting its interpretations.

And it's more than "one position" denied to women. There are no female priests, cardinals, bishops or popes.
----------------------------------------
"It would be nice if you are going to debate Catholicism, at least know what you were talking about. Nobody has said or alluded to the idea that "infallibility" means impeccability. "

I should have taken the time to look up a synonym for "infallable". I wasn't simply thinking of the dogma but the attitude of giving up reason to the Church. It is pretending that some things in this world don't change when in fact everything in the Universe changes. How does one have a discussion when one side claims that what he is saying will never change throughout eternity when all one has to do is look and see that everything changes including the Church and its doctrine?

I know you think I have no right to question the Church since I'm not Catholic. But what the Catholic Church (and others) teach affects our whole society. On a personal note my ex-wife was three months out of the nunnery when we started dating and our children were raised Catholic. I took them to Mass until they were old enough to make up their own minds.

The Church doesn't operate in a vacuum. What it teaches affects us all. We are affected when the Church teaches that women are incapable of higher religious leadership or that homosexual love is inherently sinful. If nothing else such teachings gives the impression that God approves of human discrimination... That affects us all.

jacknky

"And, as Squirley so eloquently pointed out, the Bible was written by men, men who are fallable and make mistakes. So, when these men wrote, for example, that Jesus was returning from heaven during their lifetime they were wrong and those teachings are ignored. The point is that the Church, like all Christian organizations, pick and choose what to emphasize from the Bible. The Church chooses to eliminate women from higher leadership."

The Church has never said the bible was a precise account of history or the biography of Jesus or a science book. It said the bible is inerrant - in matters of faith and morals - fully aware of the chronological, historical, and textual inconsistencies in the four gospels.

Yes fallible men wrote the gospels under the inspiration of an infallible Holy Spirit. The Catholic church is not Protestantism. It matters to us HOW and WHAT the people of God did with those gospels across time. We are not a bible-only faith. We are a bible AND sacred tradition faith. They are both equal components at arriving at what we believe to be "the deposit of faith".

And part of that "deposit" is how we understand priesthood. To people outside the faith and many feminist, it's all simply about power and privledge. There is nothing we can say to dissuade some people from that POV. I do not tell you how to be a good Buddhist, why do you feel it necessary to tell us how to be good Catholics?
 

Deacon,

"What we have here is a profound disconnect. What we do in civil society is governable by Caesar and his laws. What we believe and practice IN the Church is protected by the constitution. It seems the idea of separation of Church from state is only applicable to liberals when it applies to the Church in the public square. It doesn't seem germane to them when they attempt to try to impose their value system on the Church from the outside."

I don't believe I have ever said anything that should be construed as advocating the disintegration of the separation of church and state. What I am advocating though, is that churches don't operate in vacuums and that members of the societies where they function not be afraid to question what churches do because we all are affected by their teaching.  

"I do not tell you how to be a good Buddhist, why do you feel it necessary to tell us how to be good Catholics?"

Good question. Ordinarily I wouldn't presume to have this discussion with a stranger but I thought it is the nature of these boards to have discussions. I didn't see where it was a requirement to be a Catholic to be on the Catholic debate board. If it is a requirement I wish they would highlight it more so we would know to stay away.

If you felt that Buddhist teachings were harmful to people I would expect you to speak up. It is a Buddhist teaching that Buddhist teachings should be questioned and held to the light of reason. Again, I believe these are issues that affect us all when dogmas that many hold to be from God teach discrimination against minority groups. If you can promise that women and homosexuals are not affected by the Church's teaching I'll shut up.

Acumen,
"First, part of the problem is the presupposition that the Church's stance on homosexuality is harmful to people.  I've seen no solid points, no evidence, or no arguments showing this to be the case."

I've given arguments. Now that you mention it I haven't heard arguments otherwise except the assumption that Catholic theology is sacrosanct and not subject to human reason.
----------------------------------------------------------  
"Second, this is an issue of morality, not a democratic process that is subject to the vote of popular custom or culture.  The Catholic Church has always stood united in the criticisms of the homosexual lifestyle precisely because they understand the scriptures' true intent on this issue."

Yes, the Catholic Church has been consistent. Whether that teaching is based on the scripture's true intent is a matter of interpretation. Whether the Church's interpretation is what's best for today's world is also a matter of interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"And third, I have yet to see a good argument why the compass of morality should be calibrated based upon how a minority group feels emotionally or perceives to be unfair when there are other minority groups that do not get the same sort of attention or concern.  This issue, I'm sure you're quite familiar with, is the hypocrisy of this liberal generation."

You won't see that argument because that isn't the argument. And I'm certainly not going to get into your "other minority groups" issue again. Fool me once shame on...  

One can try to compare and contrast all sorts of things, one can point out one or more attribute of ANYTHING and then use that as a basis for such evaluation, but our minds are just creative that way.

If one has an ideology (religious or political), one can easily find many ways to associate ideas and argue from deductions based upon ideologically-correct assumptions.

That's why I try to direct the subject to where I feel the pressing concerns are, and that's why I try to challenge the associations people are focusing upon, the comparisons and contrasts, so that we are focused on what may be more reflective of the reality, more accurate, more based in what we are practically dealing with in reality.  It's one way I try to pare away ideological intrusions/distractions in a discussion.  Otherwise it's just one ideology/talking heads/pundits/party lines/speculative system versus it's well-painted enemy.