ORIGINAL: Sophie

Why would you be getting angry and suspicious over the question of infallibility? Did it not come into play in 1870 or have you been taught otherwise?

Dear friend,

There is more information about 'infallibility' in our thread, Women Priests as Viewed from the Authority of the Magisterium  
 
In Catholic belief, infallibility is not something that was created by the Church in 1870.  Having said this, 1870 is a key point in the path of our understanding of infallibility. Though infallibility had never been officially defined prior to 1870, we do believe that it has been part of 'T'radition, ie with us since the time of the Apostles.  And we believe that our understanding of 'infallibility' is continuing to unfold.  Clear evidence of this is seen in the fact that in the early 1960's, the gathering of world bishops at Vatican II delved more deeply into just what 'infallibility' is.  I can't recall whether or not I have shared the definitions from each council.  I'll check our magisterium thread.  You can look for it there.
 
With love and blessings,
~Sophie~

Is everyone playing ostrich on the matter of a female person with a true calling the priesthood? We go back to document on infallibility even when we are being told that it is not in play on the subject of OW.

ORIGINAL: Guest

if you knew anything about infallibility, you wouldn't be pushing this line of discussion.

tryihng to derail the discussion from sexual symbolism?  trying to derail the work of reform for women in the catholic church?

 
Dear Sophie,
 
I have to agree. I think this line of discussion on infallibility should be moved to another thread.
 

Dear Sophie,

I have to agree. I think this line of discussion on infallibility should be moved to another thread.

Dear friend,

Great!  Our friends who wish to discuss infallibility can meet us in that thread for dialogue about that subject there!

Now...moving back to discussion about sexual symbolism -- the following article caught my eye as it crossed my desk earlier today.   Though it is not exactly on point, it has something to offer for our deliberations here.  The article makes mention of Peter Kreeft's colleague, Mary Daly.  (You may recall he went on at some length about his issues with her.)

What do you think?

With love and blessings,
~Sophie~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Feminism's stormy history with religion
Opinion by Sheila Tobias
Special to the Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona 03.25.2007

For Women's History Month Sheila Tobias, author of "Faces of Feminism: An Activist's Reflections on the Women's Movement," offers this essay on women's rights and women's worship.

In October 1971, the Memorial Church at Harvard University invited professor Mary Daly to preach. No woman had ever preached in that church before and, at the time, Daly was a sponsor of "feminist theology," intent on changing the way society thinks about women, the Bible, the church, and religion.

Daly called her sermon "Beyond God the Father," a title she would use often in the ensuing decades. What she said was fiery and irreverent. But what made the event even more memorable is that, at the end of her sermon, she walked out of the church and asked the women in the congregation and sympathetic men to do the same. An assistant minister at the time wrote later. "The few of us who were left behind, sang the final hymn, 'Love Divine, All Loves Excelling,' and wondered what happened."

Well, what did happen? What did that walkout signify? Where did it leave "religion in general" and Judeo-Christianity in particular, for the remainder of the two decades of activism that we now call Feminism's Second Wave?

The celebration of Women's History Month in March gives us an opportunity to explore the sometimes rocky but always intense relationship between feminists and religion.

My conclusion — which may surprise you — is:

• Even though certain churches are hostile to the claim of women's equal value to men in the eyes of God,
  
• And even though others still remain unwilling to ordain women as deacons, ministers and priests,
  
• One thing is certain: Many women continue to want some sort of larger-than-life Godhead or Spirit to whom they can express their needs, their awe and their gratitude.

This is not to imply that the relationship of feminism to religion hasn't been unruly.
When early women's-rights advocates argued for equality in the home, in the workplace and at the ballot box, they were met with the argument that women's subordination was justified in the Bible and was the will of God. No wonder they felt they had to "rewrite" the Bible. Elizabeth Cady Stanton's 1895 "Woman's Bible" did just that. It gives us the flavor of what today we would call a "deconstruction" of the Holy Book from the point of view of the most significant women's-rights advocate of her time.

Stanton began by reinterpreting the Trinity. "Instead of three male personages as generally represented," she wrote, "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Sprit (presumed male) . . . a Heavenly Father, Mother, and Son would seem more rational."

Anger at the "Good Book" (the Bible) extended to anger at the priests, the rabbis, the mullahs and the shamans for excluding women as persons from the texts and as eligible for various priesthoods.

Some second-wave feminists gave up on Judeo-Christianity altogether and threw in their lot with fertility goddesses, who, they argue, had once reigned but were dethroned by a cabal of ancient males who replaced the idols of fertility with the abstraction of Monotheism. The order: "Thou shalt worship no other gods besides ME," they argue, was nothing more or less than a cultural plot to keep women in their place. If God were male, then patriarchy would be (and for a long time has been considered) both "natural" and divinely ordained.

Still, many women's-rights activists have always been unwilling to leave their church and so a large number of feminists have striven to change it from within. The first step has been ordination.

Mark Chaves, professor and chair of sociology at the University of Arizona, lists in his book "Ordaining Women" the many Protestant denominations, beginning with the Universalists in 1863, that have ordained female ministers. Today, a large proportion of American Protestant churches allow women to conduct worship services and, in the case of the Reform Jewish Temple, to handle the Torah.

Embracing modernity
 
So, why was it not always like this? Why have our traditional religions emphasized male/female differences and reflected in the Godhead male superiority?

The reason is that life was short. When men died in their early 40s and women often younger (during childbirth), males and females lived very different lives with few overlapping tasks and responsibilities. Traditional religion served them by providing rules and explanations that reflected their reality.

But with ever-increasing life expectancy (in the developed world), far fewer children to tie a mother down and power tools and "knowledge work" replacing hard labor, sex roles and sex differences — especially after age 50 — are no longer as relevant as they once were.

This combination of birth control and industrialization (and I am adding longevity to the mix) is called "modernity." My view is that feminism and religion are compatible from a feminist perspective so long as religious leaders are willing to modernize their strictures to accommodate modern lives.

Today's great threat to women's continued emancipation, then, comes not from religion per se, but from the anti-modern fundamentalisms, whether Judeo-Christian or Muslim, which, in their determination to stamp out modernity, will restrict women to what they have decided are their "traditional" roles.

"In their sacred enclaves," Karen Armstrong writes about fundamentalism, here and in the Middle East, "fundamentalists overemphasize the traditional role of women because women's emancipation has become a hallmark of modernity." The truth is many Muslim women embrace modernity — for the same reasons Christian women do. To my ears, Asma Barlas, a Muslim thinker and writer, sounds a lot like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Mary Daly when she argues that "patriarchy is contrary to Islam, because it sets up men as rulers when only God should be seen as supreme."

Which is not so different from what I believe:

• Religion, which is supposed to be about the search for eternal truths, should never be used as a means to oppress women.
  
• No man should seek the meaning of life in patriarchy.
  
• And no woman should accept any religion that assigns her a role that is at best secondary to men.

Is everyone playing ostrich on the matter of a female person with a true calling the priesthood? We go back to document on infallibility even when we are being told that it is not in play on the subject of OW.

Dear friend,

I welcome you to our dialogue.  I am Sophie, the moderator here.  If I can be of help, please let me know.  Our womenpriests.org Team certainly does recognise that there have been and there are 'now' women with authentic vocations to priesthood.  They are part of the reason we do the volunteer work that we do here.  The pain a Roman Catholic woman called to priesthood is difficult to bear.  As someone described, we are currently in a time of pruning, testing, and transition in our Church.  Women caught in this struggle and time of transition share their  experiences of frustration, grief and anguish. Some women called to priesthood choose to stay in the Church and contribute to the work for reform from within.  Others  choose to minister in other Christian denominations where their vocations are welcomed and mandated.

The main purpose of our work at womenpriests.org is to support the work of internal reform so that women's vocations to Catholic priesthood will be affirmed, welcomed and mandated within the Church.  As part of this, we also offer support to women encountering pain on their journeys in the situation you describe.  If you would like more information about this, please let me know.

On to your comment about infallibility.  This current thread is focused on a dialogue about Peter Kreeft and his theories about sexual symbolism.  The concept of infallibility is not key to this discussion. Several other threads are now in progress with discussion dedicated to the issue of infallibility. Having future visitors in mind, and their ease of navigation in our community of dialogue, I encourage you to share your thoughts about infallibity in those dedicated threads.  Discussions about infallibility have been ongoing in:

• Beat this: 'No women priests' not infallible teaching  (this thread has an extensive discussion about the nature of infallibility in the context of Vatican statements about women's ordination. The position of our website is that there have been no infallible statements made about women's ordination to date.)
  
• Women Priests as Viewed from the Authority of the Magisterium  

The first thread would be the best place to engage in dialogue about infallibility. It is a thread that already contains focused and lively debate about the issue! 
 
Because the issue of sexual symbolism is a key concept in itself, you may find that people intent on exploration of it are not interested in extensive discussion about infallibility in the context of a symbolism thread.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~

God is the creator of all things and both father and mother to us.
 
In our human existence both parents (male and female) contribute DNA from their bodies to initiate new life. DNA from the father alone is not sufficient to initiate a new life. Jesus never likened his sacrifice on the cross to a man depositing his sperm in a woman. He said I am the bread of life. He likened his sacrifice to a meal, nourishment, the living bread from heaven. He feeds us with spiritual life. Jesus does not use a sexual intercourse analogy, because it would not make sense. It would imply that Jesus is only half of the living bread and we are the other half.
 
Man is not the head of woman. They are equal partners in marriage. They give each other love, support, comfort, nourishment, and encouragement. When two people marry, both the bride and the groom are equal ministers in the sacrament. The groom doesn’t perform the marriage while the bride is the recipient of the marriage. They are equal in the eyes of God and the two become as one and produce new life together. The relationship does not begin and end with a man depositing sperm in a woman. Any husband who truly loved his wife would know that she has given him more than he could ever repay.
 
 
When Jesus cured a blind man on the Sabbath he violated one of the ten commandments, From the standpoint of the Jews, the man had been blind all his life, why should one more day matter? Better to observe the commandment and cure the man the following day, than to cure him on the Sabbath and break the commandment. What kind of example was Jesus setting for us?
 
What Jesus taught us was that the commandments were made to help us, we were not made for the commandments. A man’s spiritual and physical life was more important to God than strict adherence to a law. So if a man’s physical and spiritual life was in jeopardy and no water was available for a baptism, would an alternate liquid suffice? Would Jesus, our God who turned water into wine, be restricted by a mere physical substance? It is not the water that cleanses our sins, it is God. Yes we have symbols, but these symbols are made for us, we are not made for them.
 
Now consider Holy Orders. This sacrament was made for humanity, for all of humanity. This includes women as well as men. Jesus never said a woman should be restricted from his ministry. When a woman symbolizes Christ, it is Christ telling us that he transcends male and female, that we are all one in him. It is God saying you are my beloved daughter and, like your brother, you are welcome in all parts of my Church. This is the nature of God. This is the nature of Love.
 
 
Jesus used terminology such as “Father and he” to be inclusive of male and female. He spoke in the language that the Jews understood to help them learn.
 
When Jesus says – he who believes in me, believes in the one who sent me— is he speaking only to men? In the Ten Commandments, when it says -- thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife – does that mean it is OK to covet thy neighbor’s husband? When Jesus speaks of God as Father, does he mean God is male or masculine?
 
Of course not. It is simply the use of culturally accepted terms and expressions from the time.
 
Both men and women are created in the image and likeness of God. Both created together with equal love and dignity. Both men and women are members of the body of Christ.
 
A woman can be a priest. She can be called mother and in doing so she can equally represent Christ for we are all one in Christ and she can equally represent God who is both father and mother to us all.

Dear Sophie,

I have to agree. I think this line of discussion on infallibility should be moved to another thread.

That's it. As soon as the subject comes around to infallibility, masking the original point, the topic gets cut off and moved in the hope that it will go away.

Well, what did happen? What did that walkout signify? Where did it leave "religion in general" and Judeo-Christianity in particular, for the remainder of the two decades of activism that we now call Feminism's Second Wave?

OK, it makes better sense. This is about feminist activism rather than anyone actually being called by the Holy Spirit to be a priest.

Some second-wave feminists gave up on Judeo-Christianity altogether and threw in their lot with fertility goddesses, who, they argue, had once reigned but were dethroned by a cabal of ancient males who replaced the idols of fertility with the abstraction of Monotheism. The order: "Thou shalt worship no other gods besides ME," they argue, was nothing more or less than a cultural plot to keep women in their place. If God were male, then patriarchy would be (and for a long time has been considered) both "natural" and divinely ordained.

There are other options, aren't there?

In our human existence both parents (male and female) contribute DNA from their bodies to initiate new life. DNA from the father alone is not sufficient to initiate a new life. Jesus never likened his sacrifice on the cross to a man depositing his sperm in a woman. He said I am the bread of life. He likened his sacrifice to a meal, nourishment, the living bread from heaven. He feeds us with spiritual life. Jesus does not use a sexual intercourse analogy, because it would not make sense. It would imply that Jesus is only half of the living bread and we are the other half.

 
You are right about this.  The Eucharist is about many things:  nourishment, being fed, banquet, thanksgiving, community, being one in the Body of Christ, each of us being part of the Body of Christ. It is about sacrifice and self sacrifice.  The way Jesus walked straightforward into his death also tells us something about His principle.
 
The idea that the mass is about an 'organ' and that I am the woman waiting to receive from that 'organ' does not resonate with me.  To me, these ideas sound like the fixation of a man -- celibate? -- trying to manage his urges.  ADIDAS = all day I dream about sex.
 
This theory is a perversion of who Christ is about and what He means to the world.
 

Now consider Holy Orders. This sacrament was made for humanity, for all of humanity. This includes women as well as men. Jesus never said a woman should be restricted from his ministry. When a woman symbolizes Christ, it is Christ telling us that he transcends male and female, that we are all one in him. It is God saying you are my beloved daughter and, like your brother, you are welcome in all parts of my Church. This is the nature of God. This is the nature of Love.

 
It would make more sense to me if we had both male and female priests.  You are right.  This is the nature of God.  This is the nature of Christ.  Christ came to take on our humanity.  Both women and men have the capacity to symbolize Christ.  This is the nature of God's love for us.

ORIGINAL: Guest

Since they claim that life begins as a person with a soul at the moment of fertilization and earliest development for everyone, as embryos, begin as female, only to be changed by hormones at a later stage,, there is no one qualified to become a priest.

 
Actually the genetic code is set for a male or female sex long before the appearance of the male sexual organs begins. You are either an XY or an XX. Sorry, but your argument and the subsequent ones based on this argument is flawed at its origin (no pun intended).
 

  Jesus shows us the validity of equality and both men and women should both be allowed to be ordained as Catholic priests.
 
   There are MORE than 12 Apostles, MORE than the 12 tribes of Israel---Jesus called Paul and Women Apostles: Mary Magdalene, Junia and Joanna and Susanna----and Jesus ministered to GENTILES and SAMARIA not just Israel. More than just  12 men apostles---- more than just Israel.  Let's get real here.  
 
    Why does Rome IGNORE this reality? Simply to falsely prop up men only priest entitlement and women exclusion.
 
    Ordain WOMEN too!

ORIGINAL: Guest

ORIGINAL: Guest

if you knew anything about infallibility, you wouldn't be pushing this line of discussion.

tryihng to derail the discussion from sexual symbolism?  trying to derail the work of reform for women in the catholic church?

Dear Sophie,

I have to agree. I think this line of discussion on infallibility should be moved to another thread.

Now, speaking of obtuse, the point was about a woman with a true calling of the Holy Spirit, which the members of this list are carefully avoiding considering. I wonder why that is.

ORIGINAL: Guest

Actually the genetic code is set for a male or female sex long before the appearance of the male sexual organs begins. You are either an XY or an XX. Sorry, but your argument and the subsequent ones based on this argument is flawed at its origin (no pun intended).

Oh dear! Not the multi-delusional continuum!

ORIGINAL: Sophie

Is everyone playing ostrich on the matter of a female person with a true calling the priesthood? We go back to document on infallibility even when we are being told that it is not in play on the subject of OW.

Dear friend,

I welcome you to our dialogue.  I am Sophie, the moderator here.  If I can be of help, please let me know.  Our womenpriests.org Team certainly does recognise that there have been and there are 'now' women with authentic vocations to priesthood.  They are part of the reason we do the volunteer work that we do here.  The pain a Roman Catholic woman called to priesthood is difficult to bear.  As someone described, we are currently in a time of pruning, testing, and transition in our Church.  Women caught in this struggle and time of transition share their  experiences of frustration, grief and anguish. Some women called to priesthood choose to stay in the Church and contribute to the work for reform from within.  Others  choose to minister in other Christian denominations where their vocations are welcomed and mandated.

The main purpose of our work at womenpriests.org is to support the work of internal reform so that women's vocations to Catholic priesthood will be affirmed, welcomed and mandated within the Church.  As part of this, we also offer support to women encountering pain on their journeys in the situation you describe.  If you would like more information about this, please let me know.

It is understandable that some should be supporters of the idea while some are actually called. I'm interesting to hear whether anyone is supportive of those who are actually called. If they were to answer that call its seems that the group here shuns then.

On to your comment about infallibility.  This current thread is focused on a dialogue about Peter Kreeft and his theories about sexual symbolism. 

It seems pretty clear that the thread has reached its half life and people are going into the cheerleading mode with their "Ordain women now" slogans. Obviously, to dwell on this theologians material is not a very mentally healthy endeavor. What does this do for the women here? Pardon me for asking, but is there some intrinsic value in dwelling on bad theology?

Because the issue of sexual symbolism is a key concept in itself, you may find that people intent on exploration of it are not interested in extensive discussion about infallibility in the context of a symbolism thread.

There seems to be selective reading on your part. The issue was not infallibility, per se, but about women who are called. There might be some sexual symbolism in your reverting it back to infallibility. Perhaps there is a fixation on that issue with regard to men having certain power that women can't seem to have? I don't know, but it keeps cycling back to the infallibility issue in some odd way rather than the point that was made, so I assume that it must be connected to penis envy or some such notion.

As far as sexual symbolism is concerned, the woman and the serpent were taken over by nomadic patriarchs to their own ends. Then, we find that Moses holds up the serpent as the woman previously did. Actually, we can see the symbols reversed and perverted throughout the OT. It's rather OT-101, isn't it?

It might be a good idea to create some symbolism that is meaningful today other than taking male symbols of power and clutching them close.

   Ordain women now is not a slogan.
    It is exactly what this web site is devoted to.
    What is odd is that you seem to fail to recognize that is what this web site is all about.
     Examining faulty theology that misleads our Roman Catholic Church like the patriarchial drivel of Mr. K, Bouyer and Balthasar and how to deal with its continuing very damaging influence in being used to exclude women from ordination is very IMPORTANT.  It is exactly what must be corrected.
 
      Shunning ordained women priests in  faiths other than Roman Catholic I am sure is no one's intent. You simply have to spend only a minute here to see us praising Jewish female rabbi women and Muslim women leaders and any faith women who work at trying to help women follow their faith callings.  Why are you not happily serving your  own faith community?. Why do you come to this web site to bitterly condemn your Roman Catholic counterpart women who seek what you in your faith have all ready gained: valid ordination?  It seems odd you do not seem to support other women when you have attained this all ready.
      The point here for us  is to work at our situation where we as Roman Catholic women are presently stopped from such ordination that you currently enjoy.  If you are so upset at being ordained in your own faith, maybe you do not have a calling and may wish to pursue something else. I do not get why you keep coming here complaining about your own situation when your own faith allows you to be a validly ordained women priest.  Roman Catholic currently does not allow its faithful women to be ordained and that is why this web site exists.  Is this what you do not understand?  I realize this exclusion of women from priesthood does indeed seem bizarre and cruel to you who are validly ordained in your own faith.
        Please understand such equality does not happen yet here in the Roman Catholic faith and such cruel and wrong institutional organizations still exclude women from ordination, , but please do not condemn us for trying to improve the RC church to respect women and allow their ordination because this is exacly what this web site is all about.  Your tone in the above post seems to be very condemning of us as if we seek to be excluded.  You try to blame the excluded for being excluded!  That is like blaming the beaten up person instead of the bully who beats them.  That is a ludicrous accusation to say we ask for such bad treatment as we are trying to work at changing this invalid exclusion of women from priesthood.  Do you realize how strange and hypocritical your post appear to be?  Do you want RC church to not ordain women?  Is that what you are saying? What are you saying? Your posts do not appear to make any sense.

ORIGINAL: Guest

   Ordain women now is not a slogan.
   It is exactly what this web site is devoted to.
   What is odd is that you seem to fail to recognize that is what this web site is all about.
    Examining faulty theology that misleads our Roman Catholic Church like the patriarchial drivel of Mr. K, Bouyer and Balthasar and how to deal with its continuing very damaging influence in being used to exclude women from ordination is very IMPORTANT.  It is exactly what must be corrected.

So, after reading the document, you make a career at it?

     Shunning ordained women priests in  faiths other than Roman Catholic I am sure is no one's intent. You simply have to spend only a minute here to see us praising Jewish female rabbi women and Muslim women leaders and any faith women who work at trying to help women follow their faith callings.  Why are you not happily serving your  own faith community?.

You are my faith community. You are just too clanish to know it. It's typical of RC women to shun anyone who does not decide to stay and do the same as they are doing. Actually following the calling of the Spirit, now that's grounds for some pretty rough treatment among you. You talk a good talk in theory, but look what you ACTUALLY do! It is more important among you to be Catholic in name than to be Christian in practice.

Why do you come to this web site to bitterly condemn your Roman Catholic counterpart women who seek what you in your faith have all ready gained: valid ordination?  It seems odd you do not seem to support other women when you have attained this all ready.

Bitterly condemn? Not one of you could come to the conclusion that a woman with a true calling needed to answer that calling. How sick is that! You are working for women's ordination, but call someone who answers the call an outsider. That is truly amazing!

     The point here for us  is to work at our situation where we as Roman Catholic women are presently stopped from such ordination that you currently enjoy.

See how you phrase it? "Our situation"... well it is "Our" situation, but you treat those who do the work they are called to as lepers.

  If you are so upset at being ordained in your own faith, maybe you do not have a calling and may wish to pursue something else. I do not get why you keep coming here complaining about your own situation when your own faith allows you to be a validly ordained women priest. 

Look at the nasty way you twist things. Complaining at my own situation? You are simply spouting out any sort of diatribe you can come up with.

[quote}
Roman Catholic currently does not allow its faithful women to be ordained and that is why this web site exists.  Is this what you do not understand?  I realize this exclusion of women from priesthood does indeed seem bizarre and cruel to you who are validly ordained in your own faith.
       Please understand such equality does not happen yet here in the Roman Catholic faith and such cruel and wrong institutional organizations still exclude women from ordination, , but please do not condemn us for trying to improve the RC church to respect women and allow their ordination because this is exacly what this web site is all about.  Your tone in the above post seems to be very condemning of us as if we seek to be excluded.  You try to blame the excluded for being excluded!  That is like blaming the beaten up person instead of the bully who beats them.  That is a ludicrous accusation to say we ask for such bad treatment as we are trying to work at changing this invalid exclusion of women from priesthood.  Do you realize how strange and hypocritical your post appear to be?  Do you want RC church to not ordain women?  Is that what you are saying? What are you saying? Your posts do not appear to make any sense.


You are more concerned about being "Roman" than about being Catholic. It is more about getting that particular brand than about women as priests or anything close to "Catholic". That is the real problem. You want women priests in theory, but beat up on them if they become priests. This is a political game to you. I'm very sorry you can't see any good in posts that I or others have written.

ORIGINAL: Guest

ORIGINAL: Guest

Since they claim that life begins as a person with a soul at the moment of fertilization and earliest development for everyone, as embryos, begin as female, only to be changed by hormones at a later stage,, there is no one qualified to become a priest.

Actually the genetic code is set for a male or female sex long before the appearance of the male sexual organs begins. You are either an XY or an XX. Sorry, but your argument and the subsequent ones based on this argument is flawed at its origin (no pun intended).

 
 
This is true. The YX codes for males while the XX codes for females. But hormones affect the development of the sex organs. A male (YX) fetus that does not have the correct hormonal environment can develop partial genitals of both sexes. Usually when such an event occurs, some surgery is performed and the child is raised as female, even though they had the Y chromosome.
 
Which raises an interesting question, does the genotype (chromosomes) of an individual have to match the phenotype (physical appearance) to qualify as a priest. My hunch is that it would. Even though an individual was preprogrammed to be a man, but because of hormone deficiencies ended up looking like a woman, the initial Y chromosome would not be enough to allow ordination.
 
I guess this has not been an issue the church has had to deal with yet.
 

ORIGINAL: Guest

   I realize this exclusion of women from priesthood does indeed seem bizarre and cruel to you who are validly ordained in your own faith.

Who is this turnip that thinks that women who answer the call to be ordained are in a different faith?

There is a special mentality among women that, with no place left to go in the pecking order, pecks at other women and especially those who are answering God's call. It is hard to see anything resembling Christianity in this, but easy to see the illness caused by subjugation. This person is doing the magisterium's bidding by shunning women who act upon the call of the Holy Spirit.

ORIGINAL: Guest

ORIGINAL: Guest

   I realize this exclusion of women from priesthood does indeed seem bizarre and cruel to you who are validly ordained in your own faith.

Who is this turnip that thinks that women who answer the call to be ordained are in a different faith?

There is a special mentality among women that, with no place left to go in the pecking order, pecks at other women and especially those who are answering God's call. It is hard to see anything resembling Christianity in this, but easy to see the illness caused by subjugation. This person is doing the magisterium's bidding by shunning women who act upon the call of the Holy Spirit.

You are right. The faith being presented on this site is evidently the one that excludes women. That must be the part that makes one "outside of the faith". It doubles back upon itself by being able to vehenently defending the subjugators with a special sort of zeal.

ORIGINAL: Guest


You are right. The faith being presented on this site is evidently the one that excludes women. That must be the part that makes one "outside of the faith". It doubles back upon itself by being able to be vehenently defending the subjugators with a special sort of zeal.

Evidently, the participants don't know that they are doing just that. They are inadvertently working to maintain the status quo.

Has anyone here read "Erotica Judaica"? It is an interesting read on the sexual symbols embedded in Judaism.