The Pope Has Let Us Down

Wall Street Journal ^ | August 20, 2002 | ROD DREHER

[gcruse]

There he was on Sunday, the old lion, John Paul II, preaching to a crowd of two million faithful in his native Poland. His words thundered a condemnation of modern man, who embraces "freedom without truth or responsibility." Said the pope: "He claims for himself the Creator's right to interfere in the mystery of human life. Rejecting divine law and moral principles, he openly attacks the family."

[wimpycat]

There's plenty of Catholic argument in print on the subject. Why don't you read some of it? I'm not Catholic, and I'm a woman. My take on it is that it's their club, their rules. I'm not offended by it. It's beyond me why a woman would even want to be a Catholic priest. I personally think all the hubbub about it is because they can't, not because there are thousands of women with a burning ambition to be a priest.

Since you're not Catholic, why do you even care?

[gcruse]

Actually, it came up on another thread and was cross-referenced to here, not by me. Since it
isn't the subject of this thread I won't go
into it.

[Conservative til I die]

" Now you're campaigning for wymyn's rights? " What is it about women that makes them unsuitable for the papacy or the priesthood?

Here's what you don't get. This is not a political or even a philosophical discussion. It's a theological argument hanging on the Word of God.

The reason that women are not eligible for the priesthood (and by extension the papacy) is because Christ's 12 (or 13) apostles were all men. Coupled with the fact the absence of a statement by Christ that women should be priests and the fact that the Catholic Church has never ordained or endorsed the ordination of women as priests in it's 1950 year history bolsters this.

Your problem is that you are looking at this from a different plane with different boundaries and rules. For us Catholics, Christ is God, and thus authoriative. He didn't have to give reasons for His teachings, but we are obliged to follow them. Of course, most of His teachings jibe very well with what works in practice. His Church, the Catholic Church, through the Pope and the Bishops, has been given "official" authorization to preach and continue teaching. Again, in 90% of the cases, Catholics are obliged to follow these teachings. These teachings pretty much are not up for debate. They're strictly take it or leave it.

[elcaudillo]

Due to his long but wasted tenure, he has as much explaining to do when confronted by his Maker as do his predecessors dating back to Pope Pius XII.

Within his power the changes wrought by Vatican II could have been reversed and the tabernacle restored to it's rightful place on a proper altar rather than the portable picnic table.

Instead he wandered about the world sometimes riding in his popemobile and being "entertained" by barebreasted polynesians and visiting mosques and other temples of heathen worship.

We can only pray that his predecessor can again open the windows of the Church and blow this stench forever out, and the historical and beautiful church and mass (instituted by our Savior and guaranteed by Pope Pius X to last until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ) be restored.

[gcruse]

 

The reason that women are not eligible for the priesthood

         You are answering a question I never asked you.
         I didn't say eligible. Eligibility derives from rules
         which can be rooted in anything. We know you have
         your rules.  I said suitable.  Suitable derives from
        capacities, capabilites, appropriateness.
        What is it that makes women unsuitable for the priesthood?

Coupled with the fact the absence of a statement by Christ that women should be priests....

    The absence of evidence is not evidence for absence.
    Neither did he say the head of  'his church' had to be a male.  In that absence of
    that, the only reason for an uninterruped run of male popes is the ancient
    denigration of women by men.

  These teachings [rules] pretty much are not up
for debate. They're strictly take it or leave it.

  Thank you.  They are neither biblical,
  rational, or humane.  Remember how
  Kimball had to go to God and get
  a reversal that would allow blacks to
  participate in the Mormon church?
  He got one, 'teaching' be damned.

[gcruse]

Mercy.

[A. Pole]

Why does such a great and good man seem to care so little about the plight of faithful Catholics, both sex-abuse victims and those who have seen their children raped by evil priests, who were in turn protected by derelict bishops?

The Pope was adressing Poles and they have different set of very urgent problems.

[Conservative til I die]

The reason that women are not eligible for the priesthood You are answering a question I never asked you. I didn't say eligible. Eligibility derives from rules which can be rooted in anything. We know you have your rules. I said suitable. Suitable derives from capacities, capabilites, appropriateness. What is it that makes women unsuitable for the priesthood?

You're mincing words here. You can do either of two things with my post: 1) change "suitable" for "eligible." 2) simplify my answer to this: a women's gender is what makes her unsuitable *and* ineligible for the priesthood.

Coupled with the fact the absence of a statement by Christ that women should be priests....

The absence of evidence is not evidence for absence.

You (intentionally) cut out the rest of my reasons for this, solely to make a point. Sorry, you can't take one reason out of three, pretend the other two were never stated and are not just as vital to the argument, and then proceed to tear about the one, isolated reason which -and I would agree with your point about "absence of evidence" - alone does not prove anything. Thanks for being intellectually dishonest.

The point is that that one point does not stand alone, but in combination to the teachings of the Church for the last 1950 years, only strengthens the argument against women priests. If Christ had said "let women be priests" that would change everything. What I am saying is that there is absolutely no affirmative precedent in any way for women priests. These teachings [rules] pretty much are not up for debate. They're strictly take it or leave it. Thank you. They are neither biblical, rational, or humane.

THose are your words, not mine. If you want to take that from my argument, fine. However, IMO, this is exactly what you felt coming into the debate and have never had any intention of changing anyway. You just chop up another's arguments into bits that are easy to refute and prove the point you've been looking to prove all along, in an attempt to grandstand (with no other positive purpose).

Remember how Kimball had to go to God and get a reversal that would allow blacks to participate in the Mormon church? He got one, 'teaching' be damned.

Um, I'm not a Mormon and the Mormon Church has never been a part of this thread. Is this how you prove points? What does Mormonism, the system of rules making and changing, the hierarchy, the Holy Books, or the beliefs on color have to do with Catholicism and women priests? They aren't just apples and oranges, they're fruits in completely different baskets on two different continents.

[Conservative til I die]

Instead he wandered about the world sometimes riding in his popemobile and being "entertained" by barebreasted polynesians

Your immaturity about nudity is concerning. Are boobies that offensive to you, regardless of context? Do you call CNBC when they show nekkid Africans dancing around on National Geographic?? I would think you're either 5 years old or the Rev. Donald Wildmon. Grow up.

[gcruse]

 

You're mincing words here.

  No, I am not.  The discussion has to do with suitability, an intrinsic quality,
  not eligibility, which is a slave to petty rulermakers.

 a women's gender is what makes her unsuitable

  And that's been my point.  The silliness of it is staggering.
  That's like restricting half the American workforce to
  never being allowed to go above first line supervisor
  because of their sex, thereby denying the economy
  the benefit of their high-level input and leadership
  qualities.

If you have justification for the debilitating
demeaning rules of a patriarchal society,
please lay them out.

Um, I'm not a Mormon and the Mormon Church
has never been a part of this thread. Is this how you prove points?

Can't you see the point?  Don't you see how
the Mormon rules were written in stone (or
gold plate or whatever) yet in the face
enlightened reality, they had to be and
were changed?  It's been done.  You
needn't treat half your congregants
as second-tier citizens forever.

[mo]

Please bear in mind the majority of American "Catholics" voted thrice for a platform built on infant butchery...IMHO the American church is reaping what it has sown. JPII will not come riding to rescue it from the consequences of failing to assume responsibility for its conduct.

[Conservative til I die]

a women's gender is what makes her unsuitable

And that's been my point. The silliness of it is staggering. That's like restricting half the American workforce to never being allowed to go above first line supervisor because of their sex, thereby denying the economy the benefit of their high-level input and leadership qualities

No, it's not, because again, you're talking about apples and oranges. You say, "That's like ...the American workforce," and that's your problem. This isn't America, this isn't Congress, and it isn't the American workforce. It's a Church. The Catholic Church.

I'm not gonna bother with the Mormon part of the post because I'm not going to dignify an argument about a totally different religion with total different rules on how they write, change, and propogate their teachings, much less which ones are fallible and infallible. All I'll say is if the Mormons want to do that, bully for them. It has absolutely sub-zero to do with Catholicism. What next, using a change in Scientology's rules as a means of really applying the pressure on the Cahtolics?

[gcruse]

Well, that's about the end of the road, I think. As you say, it's take it or leave it. I think it's wrong for the reasons specified and if women are willing to continue subjugating themselves it's their business to do so. But you won't catch me and mine in there. Thanks for the discussion, mate.

[heyheyhey]

QE has every qualification to be a pope

I respect your atheistic beliefs.
Please, respect my Catholic beliefs.

[gcruse]

Treat your women any way you want. I reserve the right to criticize.

[heyheyhey]

Anything beyond the Constitution of the United States should be none of your business really, unless you are a member of the Catholic Church. If you have complaints about constitutional rights being infringed -- bring them before the court of law; that's your citizen's duty.

Wait… you may be interested in Church affairs because you are an enemy of Christianity. Not smart to be the enemy of Christ's Church -- it makes you lose automatically and instantly.

[gcruse]

 

Anything beyond the Constitution of the United
States should be none of your business really

If not for the separation of church and state
so roundly criticized by religionists,  organizations
such as the RCC would have been taken to
court on the grounds of gender discrimation
decades ago and made to move from the
Middle Ages to now.

How you can call yourself enlightened
while embracing such arrogant beliefs
in male superiority is risible.

[heyheyhey]

The main reason I try to discourage you from posting about the Catholic Church is that YOU HAVE NO CLUE whatsoever. You are not a "religionist." You speak a different language. You hate anything Catholic, including women while pretending to patronize them.

I feel sorry for you. If you are still searching the light of faith I can pray for you, and if not -- may Queen Elizabeth have mercy on your soul.

[elcaudillo]

my words were: "...being entertained by bare-breasted polynesians."

It is disdainful to me to see a pope sit in front of group of bare-titted atheists swaying in a trance-like pagan ritual dance. His presence adds validity to this scene and detracts from his redoubtable role as the successor to Peter.

Now as to your impertinence in your weak attempt to degrade me, I would say that you need to read and study more and play with children of your own age and intellect.

[Admin Moderator]

Sorry I pulled your remarks. My mistake.

Restored:

To: duckln

Duckln, Conservative til I die: Dreher is a hard-core, deep-in-his-heart Roman Catholic. If I'm not mistaken, unlike some of us, he was a convert - which requires some real heavy-duty philosohical & emotional lifting on the part of the person switching sides.In other words, the guy has huevos. Dreher has been dead on the money about EVERYTHING when it comes to sexual predators hiding behind the roman collar.He wants these freaks OUT of his church & so do I. As an "orthodox" Roman Catholic, I thank GOD he is on our side.

39 posted on 08/24/2002 4:19 PM PDT by leilani
[