FEMALE PRIESTS & PRIEST MARRIAGE

[reality101]

I pose to you all 2 questions today:

1) Should women be allowed to serve the priesthood?

My personel thought is no for one personel experience.
I went to the Holy Thursday mass at the Basillica of St.Peter and Paul in Phily, Note in the Roman Catholic church the Holy thursday Mass is one of the most highly sacred in the liturgical year. During the Eucarist, the most sacred part of any mass, a woman stood up and started chanting and yelling that woman should be priests. She was not alone she was part of a organization for that cause. it doesnt make sense to me how you can want o be a priest to worship God but can have such disrespec as to interupt the most sacred part of a mass on a sacred day. It seemds like its more self obsorbed in motive than anything

and the second question:
2) Should priests be allowed to marry?

I also believe the answer to this is no. A priest is supposed to be entirly devoted to the priesthood, to God, and to the people he serves. Having a relationship would cause a conflict in interest cause a man is supposed to be devoed entirly to his wife and family and as i said these could easily come into conflict.

[Alamanach]

This thread raises an interesting question. In our countries, discrimination based on gender, marital status and color is against the law. Yet churches are allowed to hire or not hire based on gender and marital status. Why not race or ethnicity? What other laws should churches be exempt from?

One could also ask whether gender, color, and marital status discrimination ought to be illegal in the first place. I would argue they should not be. My views on this come primarily from considerations of racial discrimination. Suppose, for example, that McDonald's announced that it would no longer allow blacks to work in management positions. While we're at it, let's pretend Burger King was no longer going to serve black customers. I say under those conditions, Wendy's would overtake both of them in less than a year; Wendy's would have a larger customer base, and a more talented managerial pool. Engaging in arbitrary discrimination puts a company at a competitive disadvantage, so there's little need to pass laws against it.

And there are definite disadvantages to having anti-discrimination laws. Most notably, they make bigots invisible. An outside observer can't distinguish between a racist business owner who is forced to hire across races, and an enlightened business owner who freely chooses to do so. This inability to tell a racist from a regular guy is what keeps people like Jesse Jackson in business. The reckless charges of racism that he and his type fire off are damaging not only to the people he accuses, but to the people he's supposedly defending; they are encouraged to believe that their problems come from illusory sources.

So, I say let companies be free to hire, fire, and serve whom they choose. Let us see people for what they are, and let people be exposed to the natural consequences of their beliefs. There is nothing to fear. We may even find there are a lot fewer bigots out there than we think.

[graphicsguy]

...and a more talented managerial pool.

Hey! Are you saying that whites aren't as talented as blacks?!






Sorry, I had to pick on it...

[McCulloch]

...and a more talented managerial pool.

Hey! Are you saying that whites aren't as talented as blacks?!

Actually it is that an unrestricted managerial pool will likely yield better results than one that is restricted based on irrelevant criteria, such as race, ethnicity or marital status.

And yet, even with the apparent free market advantages to the removal of discrimination, employers have been reluctant to remove discriminatory practices without being legislated.

Should churches be exempt from the laws which apply to the rest of us?

[graphicsguy]

Should churches be exempt from the laws which apply to the rest of us?

No, and neither should Hollywood celebrities...

All kidding aside, I do see the points being brought up. It seems to be a sticky situation to be in though. You start telling churches to change their beliefs and they start screaming about persecution. You let them believe what they want and someone will start screaming they're being discrimnated against.

Hmm...I kind of like the idea of removing anti-discriminatory laws...

[reality101]

This thread raises an interesting question. In our countries, discrimination based on gender, marital status and color is against the law. Yet churches are allowed to hire or not hire based on gender and marital status. Why not race or ethnicity? What other laws should churches be exempt from?

the church is technically exempt from almost all laws exept its own
just like if someone is on you property , you tell them to leave and they dont you have the rite to shoot them (this is all in america) whether you want them to leave because of race creed religion gender age etc
a church can claim sanctuary and not allow police etc in to capture a fugitive without any risk of punishment under law if the pastor chooses too
one thing i would like to point out is that the church does not "hire" priests
the church has not reason to no ordain based on race or ethnicity but it gender and marital status on the other hand, has good reason too example:
marraige takes away from the total commitment to god and the priesthood
and Jesus chose 12 men to be the first priests i think if he wanted women to be ordained he would have chosen atleast one

[McCulloch]

This thread raises an interesting question. In our countries, discrimination based on gender, marital status and color is against the law. Yet churches are allowed to hire or not hire based on gender and marital status. Why not race or ethnicity? What other laws should churches be exempt from?

the church is technically exempt from almost all laws exept its own

This is not true. The church is subject to the criminal code and the building code.

just like if someone is on you property , you tell them to leave and they dont you have the rite to shoot them (this is all in america) whether you want them to leave because of race creed religion gender age etc

That's not allowed in civilized countries.

a church can claim sanctuary and not allow police etc in to capture a fugitive without any risk of punishment under law if the pastor chooses too

That raises the question. Should religion work like diplomatic immunity? I believe not.

one thing i would like to point out is that the church does not "hire" priests

Strangely they are on the payroll, they pay into retirement plans, they have deductions, churches must provide workers' compensation for priests injured while performing their duties. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, perhaps it is a duck. Priests are hired and employed by churches.

the church has not reason to no ordain based on race or ethnicity but it gender and marital status on the other hand, has good reason too example:
marraige takes away from the total commitment to god and the priesthood
and Jesus chose 12 men to be the first priests i think if he wanted women to be ordained he would have chosen atleast one

Apparently, he did choose at least one married man. However, all that your example proves is that Jesus was sexist. Just because Jesus did a wrong thing should not exempt it. Why should religions be exempt from our societies' human rights rules? Should bigamy be allowed because Mohammad practiced it?

[MagusYanam]

I might note while here that we already have a topic which covers most of these issues, and many points that were brought up here were also brought up over there. However, there are some finer points which I think this includes that the other doesn't.

Personally, I'm philosophically opposed to the idea of a 'priesthood' (at least as the Roman Catholic Church and some Protestant churches practise 'priesthood' - it's one of the reasons why I effectively left the Anglican Communion), because nature is not bureaucratic and Jesus was not hierarchical. He dined with the poorest and most rejected members of his society and broke all the traditional taboos against doing so; he spoke to multitudes without taking into consideration gender or race or economic situation. As Jesus is the only way a Christian can approach the Father in his or her understanding, I must believe that God is not a bureaucrat either. Therefore, I don't think the structure of the Church in its relationship to God should be so heavily focussed on bureaucracy and hierarchy - as in 'only priests can talk directly to God; you have to talk to God through a priest'. That's not the way Jesus did things.

Now that I've toed the Low-Church Protestant line and come down hard against the 'priesthood', let's move on to women.

The internal logic used by the Catholic Church holds up, in my opinion, because they see and judge things in terms not of community (as earlier Christian groups did) or of individual souls (as later Protestant groups still do), but of hierarchy: the Pope is the manifestation of the will of God on earth, or some such, and his inferiors are the cardinals, and their inferiors are the bishops, then the priests, then the deacons, then the monastics and finally the laity. This kind of hierarchy shows up in the apostolic succession and the priesthood. If there is no formal tradition of ordaining women in the apostolic succession, then logically women should not be allowed positions of power within the Church. And of course, the Catholic Church will in its apologetics employ all other manner of rationalisation to reinforce this, just as with clerical celibacy.

Problem is, for their vaunted apostolic succession the Catholic Church has only selectively demonstrated conceptual succession. Concepts and doctrines have changed radically in the winds of time and politics, such that theories of universal salvation (Origen, Clement and Gregory of Nyssa) and pacifism (practically all the early Church Fathers until Augustine) were lost, while others in favour of eternal damnation and just war have taken deep root in the Catholic Church, though their conceptual origins (especially that of just war doctrine) can be traced easily back to the so-called 'conversion' of Constantine, though not much further back than that. End of Low-Church Protestant rant #2.

But if you're taking cues from Scripture, you should note that there were indeed women among the disciples, including (most famously) Mary Magdalene, and that they were heavily involved in the ministry of Jesus, teaching, casting out demons and so forth. Indeed, they were the ones who informed the other disciples of Jesus' return, though the men were too scared to listen to them. So the foundations of a female 'priesthood' (if you must use the filthy noun) are there. There are also references to various female figures of influence in the Church (if not ministers outright) who are referenced and even commended in the letters of St. Paul. So is there a foundation for the anti-women policies of the Roman Catholic Church other than the internal logic of the Roman Catholic Church itself? I have yet to be convinced of it.

[reality101]

This thread raises an interesting question. In our countries, discrimination based on gender, marital status and color is against the law. Yet churches are allowed to hire or not hire based on gender and marital status. Why not race or ethnicity? What other laws should churches be exempt from?

the church is technically exempt from almost all laws exept its own

This is not true. The church is subject to the criminal code and the building code

.

just like if someone is on you property , you tell them to leave and they dont you have the rite to shoot them (this is all in america) whether you want them to leave because of race creed religion gender age etc

That's not allowed in civilized countries.

a church can claim sanctuary and not allow police etc in to capture a fugitive without any risk of punishment under law if the pastor chooses too

That raises the question. Should religion work like diplomatic immunity? I believe not.

one thing i would like to point out is that the church does not "hire" priests

Strangely they are on the payroll, they pay into retirement plans, they have deductions, churches must provide workers' compensation for priests injured while performing their duties. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, perhaps it is a duck. Priests are hired and employed by churches.

the church has not reason to no ordain based on race or ethnicity but it gender and marital status on the other hand, has good reason too example:
marraige takes away from the total commitment to god and the priesthood
and Jesus chose 12 men to be the first priests i think if he wanted women to be ordained he would have chosen atleast one

Apparently, he did choose at least one married man. However, all that your example proves is that Jesus was sexist. Just because Jesus did a wrong thing should not exempt it. Why should religions be exempt from our societies' human rights rules? Should bigamy be allowed because Mohammad practiced it?

1) i said almost all laws

2) Not at all, America is a VERY civilized country, your property is your property and no one is allowed to touch or use it if you tell them not too, and you have the FREEDOM to protect that property and yourself. Now of course in the spirit of the law you should have been in fear for you life or for the well being of yourself or your property, without that there is not much of a chance that you wont go to jail for it

3)the term is actually religious immunity

4) Jesus does not make mistakes

5) muhammad was a profit not Allah "there is no god but allah and muhammed is his profit" that is one of the 6 fundemental beliefs of islam i cant remember what it is called

[Alamanach]

A brief aside:

5) muhammad was a profit not Allah "there is no god but allah and muhammed is his profit" that is one of the 6 fundemental beliefs of islam i cant remember what it is called

They are called pillar and there are five of them:

1) The belief that "there is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet".
2) Salat; prayer towards Mecca at the five prescribed times a day.
3) Observance of Ramadan (An entire month during which muslims take no food or drink during daylight hours. Daylight ends when one can no longer distinguish a black thread from a white thread.)
4) Performance of the Hajj at least once in a muslim's life. This is the pilgrimage to Mecca, and a holdover from Arabia's pagan days. In Mecca is the Ka'ba, a square building that houses the Black Stone, which is possibly a piece of meteorite. This is what muslims are pilgrimaging to and orienting their salat towards.
5) Giving alms to the poor.

[reality101]

A brief aside:

5) muhammad was a profit not Allah "there is no god but allah and muhammed is his profit" that is one of the 6 fundemental beliefs of islam i cant remember what it is called

They are called pillar and there are five of them:

1) The belief that "there is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet".
2) Salat; prayer towards Mecca at the five prescribed times a day.
3) Observance of Ramadan (An entire month during which muslims take no food or drink during daylight hours. Daylight ends when one can no longer distinguish a black thread from a white thread.)
4) Performance of the Hajj at least once in a muslim's life. This is the pilgrimage to Mecca, and a holdover from Arabia's pagan days. In Mecca is the Ka'ba, a square building that houses the Black Stone, which is possibly a piece of meteorite. This is what muslims are pilgrimaging to and orienting their salat towards.
5) Giving alms to the poor.

i know what they are i just couldnt think of the names for them