Duggar family values??

[DanieltheDragon]

http://gawker.com/five-women-sue-duggar ... 1738185507

yet another link to sex abuse and the Quiverfull movement.

Question for debate is there systemic sexual abuse in the Quiverfull movement?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

As opposed to "because Jesus was a human. . . .

According to Scripture and all historical accounts, was Jesus male or female? Simply because you find that detail inconsequential doesn’t mean it is. Does it bother you that Jesus is male?

Quote:
What is amazing is when people automatically equate something with being “sexist� because it doesn’t fit their understanding. 2ndRateMind used words like skill and talent and power to describe the priesthood. To me that shows very little understanding regarding the priesthood. The priesthood isn’t about power. Also, a calling to the priesthood is not based on some skill set. So, claiming women are just as skilled makes no sense, like your attempt at comparing being a priest to being a scientist. You fail to understand Church teaching or the Church’s reasons for her teachings. You apply your worldview to fit quite frankly something that many of us view as other worldly.

All I am hearing is, Church teaching is sexist and we are fine with it because sexism isn't inherently wrong, it's fine to be sexist in this case.

Yes, as I pointed out, that IS all you’re hearing and you’re hearing incorrectly. You are the one suggesting being male is superior to being female – not me. Neither I nor the Church makes this distinction. You are the one suggesting there is no difference between men and women. Neither I, science, or the Church deny this truth.

Is the fact that only women can get pregnant and have babies sexist? Is it sexist to acknowledge men have more testosterone then women? You give certain scientific/biological facts a good/bad/inferior/superior value, where I simply acknowledge these facts for what they are – showing difference.

[2ndRateMind]

2ndRateMind used words like skill and talent and power to describe the priesthood.

Hmmm. Actually, this is not an entirely accurate representation of me.

What I said actually said was, however talented and suited to the vocation, women are disbarred from priesthood for no other reason than their sex. This is a consideration I find irrelevant.

However, do you think priests need no skill? Do you think theological and philosophical and rhetorical skills irrelevant to the vocation? If you do, I challenge you to find an individual, male or female, without them, who can compose and deliver a convincing sermon.

Plenty of talents are required for the priesthood, both in its pastoral and evangelical modes. Again, I challenge you to find an individual devoid of talents who would make a good priest.

As for power, the whole hierarchy of the church is deliberately contrived to ensure the concentration of the power of the clergy over the laity, and of the higher over the lower clergy. So, you may think that to be a good thing, but unless power is accompanied by virtue, which seems accidental and peripheral to the whole Catholic enterprise (it being far more concerned with what people believe than how good they are), I do not.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

However, do you think priests need no skill? Do you think theological and philosophical and rhetorical skills irrelevant to the vocation? If you do, I challenge you to find an individual, male or female, without them, who can deliver a convincing sermon.

No doubt the overwhelming majority of priest are quite skilled and talented with wonderful gifts of compassion, public speaking, educated on matters of theology/history/Scripture, organized, inspiring, nurturing, loving, tolerant, etc. All skills and talents that women equally share. THAT IS THE POINT! The job/role of priest requires no skills/talents/abilities that a woman would not equally be able to meet or surpass! Of course the priesthood is not simply a job/occupation.

Plenty of talents are required for the priesthood, both in its pastoral and evangelical modes.

No kidding.

As for power, the whole hierarchy of the church is deliberately contrived to ensure the concentration of the power of the clergy over the laity, and of the higher over the lower clergy.

Huh? Not quite. Or depends how you see power. Parents have power over their children, but the primary role of parenthood is not their power, rather their service – their job is about loving and taking care of their children – not about power play.

So, you may think that to be a good thing, but unless power is accompanied by virtue, which seems accidental and peripheral to the whole Catholic enterprise, I do not.

Authority might be a better word without the negative connotation. Though, many also mistakenly view authority as an evil word as well. You are a product of a PC culture. It is simply not getting it and like I mentioned in the very first post, if you don’t get that – then you don’t get that. Your worldview prevents you from seeing authority as anything but a bad thing. You are mistaken.

[2ndRateMind]

Huh? Not quite. Or depends how you see power. Parents have power over their children, but the primary role of parenthood is not their power, rather their service – their job is about loving and taking care of their children – not about power play.

Don't tell me, tell your priests and cardinals. They are the ones making up the arbitrary rules about who can and who can't be admitted to the priesthood.

Authority might be a better word without the negative connotation. Though, many also mistakenly view authority as an evil word as well. You are a product of a PC culture. It is simply not getting it and like I mentioned in the very first post, if you don’t get that – then you don’t get that. Your worldview prevents you from seeing authority as anything but a bad thing. You are mistaken.

(Some) power is derived from authority. The reason people want authority is so they can have power, and simultaneously deny it to others. That's nothing to do with my worldview, it's just reality. Whether they want power for good or evil, and whether once they have it they exercise it for good or evil, depends on their levels of vice and virtue. Accordingly, authority and power may be good or bad. I get that perfectly well.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

According to Scripture and all historical accounts, was Jesus male or female?

Male.

Simply because you find that detail inconsequential doesn’t mean it is.

Sure it's consequential, but it shouldn't be. As it certainly isn't consequential for practical reasons, you've already affirmed that women has all the relevant skills to take up priesthood.

Does it bother you that Jesus is male?

Yes, only in the sense that it is used as justification for ruling female out of priesthood.

Yes, as I pointed out, that IS all you’re hearing and you’re hearing incorrectly. You are the one suggesting being male is superior to being female – not me.

I made no such suggestion, what I did suggest is that very fact priesthood is reserved for one gender for no practical reason is enough to charge the Church with sexism.

Neither I nor the Church makes this distinction. You are the one suggesting there is no difference between men and women. Neither I, science, or the Church deny this truth.

Then let women take leadership roles in the Church.

Is the fact that only women can get pregnant and have babies sexist?

Yes, that is a biological fact, the same does not hold true for priesthood, which is strictly an artificial restriction. You've already acknowledge that there is nothing men can do that women can't skill wise, as far as leading a congregation go - the Church is baring one gender for no practical reasons, and that is sexist.

Is it sexist to acknowledge men have more testosterone then women?

No. Is a certain level of testosterone required to be a priest?

There are many instances of differentiation of men and women that are not sexist, but the Church isn't be accused of sexism for merely pointing out factual differences between men and women. As such, no amount of pointing out legitimate differentiation would defend against the charge.

You give certain scientific/biological facts a good/bad/inferior/superior value...

I don't know why you'd think that. Where have I done such a thing? It is not a scientific nor biological fact that women take the position of priesthood, it's not even a universal restriction that holds true for all Christian sects/denominations.

where I simply acknowledge these facts for what they are – showing difference.

Sure there are differences, but why should that difference bar women from priesthood? As an analogy, there are differences between black and white people, yet (I hope) you wouldn't hesitate to denounce someone as racist if one was to suggest that whites cannot be priests.

[tam]

Peace to you all!

"Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." Revelation 20:6


"They" who share in the first resurrection are both men and women. Both men and women reign as kings and priests with Christ in the Kingdom. And if the RCC (or any other religion) is insisting that the kings and priests here must be male, then perhaps they have forgotten that those who belong to Christ are also called a BRIDE.

Yet I imagine that they would not insist that this BRIDE excludes men.



(Not that I am lending any support whatsoever for the hierarchy of the RCC and other religions. Just showing that both male and female are priests/kings/the bride... so gender itself does not matter; and even Christ is described also as female - aka Wisdom.)


Besides, we who are in Christ are all to act as priests - in that we are to ask forgiveness and mercy even for our enemies.


Peace again, to you and your households,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 16 by tam]

Peace to you, too, Tammy, and best wishes, for Christmas. 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

Don't tell me, tell your priests and cardinals. They are the ones making up the arbitrary rules about who can and who can't be admitted to the priesthood.

Don’t tell you what? And once again, I explained the “rules� aren’t arbitrary. I provided the reason – you just don’t like it or it seems understand it.

(Some) power is derived from authority.

Agree. But again – that doesn’t make it inherently bad.

The reason people want authority is so they can have power

If by power, you mean authority – yes. If by power you mean prestige, superiority, ability to force someone to do something they don’t want to do, then no that isn’t always why people want authority.

That's nothing to do with my worldview, it's just reality.

No, I’m afraid that’s your worldview.

Whether they want power for good or evil, and whether once they have it they exercise it for good or evil, depends on their levels of vice and virtue. Accordingly, authority and power may be good or bad. I get that perfectly well.

Do you? I’m thinking you don’t.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 15 by Bust Nak]

Sure it's consequential, but it shouldn't be.

Thank you for your opinion.

As it certainly isn't consequential for practical reasons, you've already affirmed that women has all the relevant skills to take up priesthood.

Again, not sure what you consider practical reasons. The requirements of being a mother is being a mother. You want to reduce her role to cook, chauffeur, babysitter, etc. and if you do that, then yes, anyone can be a mother – a man, a computer, etc. Like I said, you don’t get it.

Quote:
Does it bother you that Jesus is male?

Yes, only in the sense that it is used as justification for ruling female out of priesthood.

Again, thank you for your opinion. But would be like saying it bothers you that women are mothers because it is used as a justification for preventing men from being mothers.

I made no such suggestion, what I did suggest is that very fact priesthood is reserved for one gender for no practical reason is enough to charge the Church with sexism.

So, is motherhood sexism?

Quote:
Neither I nor the Church makes this distinction. You are the one suggesting there is no difference between men and women. Neither I, science, or the Church deny this truth.

Then let women take leadership roles in the Church.

Ha, ha, ha . . . women have many leadership roles in the Church. Ever been a member of a Catholic parish? What they can’t be is men. Nor should they want/need to be.

Quote:
Is the fact that only women can get pregnant and have babies sexist?

Yes, that is a biological fact, the same does not hold true for priesthood, which is strictly an artificial restriction.

Says you. Who are you to tell the Church what her requirements for the priesthood should include?

You've already acknowledge that there is nothing men can do that women can't skill wise, as far as leading a congregation go - the Church is baring one gender for no practical reasons, and that is sexist.

I feel so oppressed. All my life I will only get to be a sister and an aunt – never a brother or uncle to anyone. The universe is so sexist!!!!!!

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 16 by tam]

if the RCC (or any other religion) is insisting that the kings and priests here must be male

The Church is insisting what Christ says she should.

we who are in Christ are all to act as priests - in that we are to ask forgiveness and mercy even for our enemies.

We are all called to imitate Christ. This does not mean all are called to be ordained priests in His Church.

Peace.