(And they may be glowing for a long, long, long time!!!)
(I hope not!!! I hope they "see the light".)
☺
Posted on 01/03/2013 1:20:24 PM PST by NYer
Marc Barnes says of this women’s ordination video “Ordain a lady: that “This might be the greatest video ever to happen to the Catholic Church.” and goes on in post Why The Catholic Priesthood Is Composed of Dudes
Ordain A Lady YouTube Video
This is certainly the funniest thing I have seen in a while and one of the best defenses for the Church’s teaching. I would have been hard-pressed to make a better parody and the words are genius. Well at least it would be a genius video if it wasn’t real.
Though one thing that really gets my ire up. I am so tired of women’s ordination proponents using Saint Thérèse of Lisieux as if she was also a proponent of women’s ordination. This is pure calumny.
“If only I were a priest! How lovingly I would bear You in my hands, my Jesus, when my voice had brought You down from Heaven. How lovingly I would give. You to souls!” “Yet while wanting to be a priest, I admire St. Francis of Assisi and envy his humility, longing to imitate him in refusing this sublime dignity.”
By the logic they use I guess Therese also wanted to get a sex change operation to be a man since she admired St. Francis’ humility. Funny also how women’s ordination proponents also usually leave out the part about envying humility. But humility does not go hand and hand when you say you are right and the Church guided by the Holy Spirit is wrong.
Abortions, feminism and homosexuality all have the same goal in mind: to destroy all differences between men and women.
(And they may be glowing for a long, long, long time!!!)
(I hope not!!! I hope they "see the light".)
☺
You raise interesting issues.
With regard to women's ordination, of course, the Church teaches that you can say the words of ordination over a woman, and just nothing will happen. You don't have proper matter, you need a baptized man, not a woman.
With regard to permitting the already-ordained to marry, the Church does permit men previously ordained to marry, and they are validly married. It actually happens. Of course, the Church requires laicization first, but even the loss of the clerical state does not undo the ontological effects of ordination. The man, though having rejoined the laity, is still a priest, even if he may not licitly call himself one anymore.
Yet, I think that the mind of the Church is not that this is like the discipline of not permitting married men generally to become priests.
There are others who could better speak to the theology involved with this, but I think that what the Church is saying is that the discipline of ordaining only celibate men is a good one, but not an absolute moral necessity, while the practice of barring clerics from marrying post-ordination is a matter of moral necessity, even if it is not a matter of ontological impossibility.
So, although it might be that a cleric might validly marry, it would be like a man who steals or commits adultery. It's possible, but intrinsically evil.
sitetest
I mean, um, sister.
I mean --- smash the gender binary ---SIBLING!!
You wrote:
“We get too focused on man-made and church-made rules and forget to be like Jesus, do like Jesus.”
Jesus ordained ONLY men. That’s what we do.
Excellent discussion, sitetest. The distinction between what is “allowed or not allowed” and what is “possible or impossible” is often lost.
I looked up the original Youtube video this was based on --- "Call Me Maybe" by Carly Rae Jepsen (Link) --- and OK, this is a spoiler--- after this girl tries so hard to catch this guy, and it looks like he's taking an interest and young lust is a-startin' to heat up nicely, the guy of her dreammmmmssss starts puttin the move on somebody else in Carly Rae's band! ---(sob) --- another GUY!
Oh, Heat-loss and Heartbreak!
And it illustrates just what we've been saying, in an ironic way: there's a difference between male and female. There's supposed to be! And when you kick over the traces and do the gender-erases, all manner of absurdity ensues. Oh, Dang and Heart-Pang!
Poor Carly Rae.
And these poor girls, fed such a line of !@$#@ by the Women's Ordination Conference.
AAAAARGH!!!!
I have a new theory that I think explains some otherwise confusing elements in our society's approach to the relations of the sexes.
Imagine you're a young man. You have a powerful sexual urge. You want a sex-partner who is as eager to engage in sex acts as you are. You want the partner to have a firm, muscular body. You don't want the partner to expect an exclusive sexual relationship, whether temporary or permanent. You don't want the partner to have tiresome emotional complications, or to expect attention when you'd rather watch sports, play video games, or drink beer with your friends. You don't want the partner to produce consequences, such as babies. to put it bluntly, you just want to ejaculate.
Doesn't this sound like "you," our modern young American man, really want ANOTHER GUY, not one of those *shudder* women?
“The church could, in theory, permit priests to marry as in the Eastern Orthodox churches (although I understand why they do not).”
To clarify this somewhat further....
The Eastern Orthodox allow a married man to become a priest. But once he has become a priest he is not allowed to marry. If he becomes a priest as a single man he can never marry. If his wife dies he can never marry again.
The Western Catholic church, in general, does not allow a married man to become a priest, though it could and indeed does in some cases, and without scandal. Most noteably when it receives a man into the priesthood that is a priest in another faith. This is most prominently happening with the influx of Anglican/Episcopal priests and parishes into the Catholic church via the new Ordinariate.
So the upshot is, in neither east or west can a priest marry but both allow a married man to become a priest, in the east this is the norm, in the west it is the rare exception.
You need to study Scripture, all of it, carefully.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a WINNAH!!
You are exactly right. For a man (a certain kind of man, for convenience we'll call him a triflin' Leftist man, but hey, could be secular white Right or even Libertarian!) the ideal lust object being another MAN (or boy, they're smoother and tauter) --- and any lingering repugnance over unseemly contact with the solid waste system is quickly overcome by the consideration that no surprise offspring will ensue, and no intricate emotional entanglements. In short, no baby and no baggage.
And here's an ever sadder thing: Germain Greer was saying something LIKE this 40+ years ago in "The Female Eunuch"--- oddly, though: forever getting it smack-right, and then instantly reversing and upending herself.
She used to say that the hellacious thing about gender stereotyping is, not that gay men are expected to be feminized like women, but that women are expected to be eunuchs like gay men.
Greer used to say that men (here again, she means trifling Leftist men, the only kind she knew) hate women, though the (Leftist) women do not realize this and are taught to hate themselves.
At one point she yells, "I’m sick of being a transvestite. I refuse to be a female impersonator. I am a woman, not a castrate!
Then she goes on to idiotically recommend that all women become female nullos anyway, no functional attachment-feelings, no really functional attachment-parts, all their fertility and feelings disabled---
I mean, how is a contracepting or sterilized woman so much different from a F2M Trannie? Basically your systems have been knocked out, hormonally and/or surgically doctored, neutered, "fixed."
All that's left is artifice. You may was well be an android.
[I-hate-contraception-and-female-nullification-rant-mode-OFF]
I think you're exactly right, it's ultimately a push to destroy "male and female created He them." To erode the idea that we have created natures; that anything or anybody has a created nature. You might like the following:
Somebody else has always thought of things before I did! Not that that’s bad or anything ...
A lot of data fit this paradigm. There’s the idea that all women, even married ones innocently shopping at Walmart, are on a sexual display like men in a San Francisco “pride” parade. There’s the lack of criticism of a sexually immoral woman, UNTIL she’s pregnant or has a child: she goes from “hottie” to “slut” if she steps out of the role of no-consequences sexual outlet. There’s the ever-more-open favoring of sodomitic sex acts, even among men who consider themselves heterosexual, along with the disparagement of natural women’s bodies of all descriptions. There’s the expectation that women, even casual acquaintances, should comfortably, with men, view lewd pictures or participate in lewd conversation.
Random point: We were listening to a rock station on satellite radio last night while I was driving some kids to a Scout meeting, and the announcer starting talking about his penis! After quickly changing the station (”Not BLUEGRASS!”) I observed that the speaker was either homosexual or at the maturity level of a newly potty-trained 3-year-old.
I know some sane and loving, lovable, intelligent, intelligible men and women. I do. I have to say that right now.
The vulgarity and rutty-nuttiness isn't everywhere, all the time. I know that for a fact.
“Doesn't this sound like ‘you,’ our modern young American man, really want ANOTHER GUY, not one of those *shudder* women?”
That's one of the themes of Updike's The Rumor.
I used to have a photograph of two devices sitting next to each other. One had an on-off switch. It was labeled, “man.” The other had many switches, dials and controls. It was labeled, “woman.”
Men ARE easier.
But this man thinks the ladies are infinitely more fun.
sitetest
So do I. In fact, in my real life, such as it is, practically everyone seems to be an actual human being, and treats others the same way.
However, the observations behind my posts are drawn largely from comments on Free Republic, so it's not as if this phenomenon is limited to liberal twerps. I often retreat to the kitchen shaking my head, saying, "Who ARE these people?" and then I wonder if the people in real life are really like this, too, and I'm just too ditzy to realize it!
Everything I think of, someone already did ...
I've seen that picture. It's always seemed to me to imply that the "Man" version is right and the "Woman" version is wrong, but that could just be my midlife crisis speaking. (That's also why I'm listening to the hard rock station on the radio ... some weird hormonal thing that makes me like the same music as a 16-year-old boy.)
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.The role of the priest is to teach and to have authority over those of his parish.
Indeed. It seems like something done by the Zucker Brothers(Airplane!, Top Secret!, etc.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.