No I do not consider myself a hypocrite for staying in the church because that is what I feel is the place for me to be to help it.  My husband and family refuse to go due to the abuse record of the church.  I have to respect their consciences and what they and others must do .  I speak out when I can to try to help promote the need for change in allowing women to be ordained.  I do not slam my family or my friends who refuse to attend mass because of the intransigence of the church in the women ordination issue.  Jesus does tell us it is good too, like someone mentioned to pray in private too, not be a public show-off .  My family and friends who do not go to church can not be condemned as "non religious' because they do not go to church.  So no, I do not see church goers or church non-goers, either, as hypocrites.

ORIGINAL: Guest

No I do not consider myself a hypocrite for staying in the church because that is what I feel is the place for me to be to help it.  My husband and family refuse to go due to the abuse record of the church.  I have to respect their consciences and what they and others must do .  I speak out when I can to try to help promote the need for change in allowing women to be ordained.  I do not slam my family or my friends who refuse to attend mass because of the intransigence of the church in the women ordination issue.  Jesus does tell us it is good too, like someone mentioned to pray in private too, not be a public show-off .  My family and friends who do not go to church can not be condemned as "non religious' because they do not go to church.  So no, I do not see church goers or church non-goers, either, as hypocrites.

 
Good. I agree with you. Do you think "Woman who votes with feet" agrees with you, that is do you think she does not see you as a hypocrite for staying in a Church that keeps women in a subordinate status?

I'm terribly flattered that you apparently regard discussing me as far more interesting than offering examples from your own life of observed effects of the spiritual subordination of women on motherhood in support (or opposition) of the ordination of women, but I really don't think that discussing woman-who-votes-with-feet is going to particularly captivate internetland on behalf of women's ordination, do you?
 
I see the banning of discussion of women's ordination and the excommunication of women involved with women's ordination as quite possibly a test put forth by the Vatican to determine just how serious women really are about the women's ordination issue.  If women aren't very serious about women's ordination, they'll complain and put their prayers in the prayer basket, but it won't seriously change any business as usual at all.  If women are extremely serious about women's ordination, women will start noticing that there are other sincere devout Christian churches that ordain women and that those churches look increasingly appealing and/or they'll follow and support those excommunicated Catholic women involved with women's ordination and seriously threaten to diminish the Church's market share.  I'm sure the Vatican is watching closely, and that the Vatican is far more concerned with what people actually do than with what people say.
 
As for my motives for being here, I came here to discuss women's ordination and to inspire others to do likewise because I see discussing the issue of women's ordination as vitally important to the community of all of Christianity (and every other faith on the block) and extending way beyond the issue of membership in the Catholic Chuch.  If my own opinions happen to irritate anybody, surely that irritation will inspire them (or perhaps even enrage them sufficiently) and motivate them to speak out themselves and brilliantly demonstrate their own personal thoughts to internetland, which will in turn surely attract more interest from internetland on the subject of women's ordination.  It's all good, and all for a good cause, and if anybody believes that I'm a rude pain in the rear who needs to lose 20 lbs, that's just fine with me, because I came here to discuss women's ordination and to inspire others to do likewise (and if tying women's ordination to weight loss issues is what it takes to evoke greater public interest in the subject of women's ordination, that's fine with me too.) 
 
As for my discouraging anybody from staying in the Church?  The first thing anybody on the street says to women complaining about being mistreated in their church (or in their marriage) is exactly: "Well, ok, you're being mistreated.... so why don't you leave?"
It's a legitimate question.  It is vitally important that anybody intent on challenging the Church from within the Church be well prepared to deliver a stunningly brilliant answer to that question on a moment's notice.  If one cannot deliver a brilliant answer to that question on a moment's notice, one will be written off by one's audience (no matter one's great arguments) faster than one's audience can say: "If someone is imprisoning you and forcing you to endure mistreatment, we'll phone the police for you.  If you voluntarily commit yourself to continually endure what you perceive as mistreatment, there is truly nothing that anyone other than you can do to remedy your situation."
Anybody intent on remaining within the Church and challenging the Church from within needs to look in a mirror and ask themselves at least 20 times a day "so why don't you leave?" and come up with a brilliant response in 10 seconds or less every time.  That practice is what it takes to gain and hold an audience.
 
I came here to discuss women's ordination. That is why I am here.  What are you here for?
 
woman who votes with feet

Are you the one that commented "what dope are you smoking?" and "you let your kids out to wolves in sheep clothing".  If you are, that is hostile, angry, disrespectful way to talk to anyone in this forum and just discredits you.  If I disagree with you ,  if I see the value in posts made by others, like the woman who votes with her feet, and you do not then make sensible arguments not ridiculous shallow comments and hostile , unfounded attacks like that.
Other people have shown respect and thoughtfulness in their points and then the dialogue is productive and effective.  Shallow, ugly, mindless insults have no value in this debate.  Do you really think you persuade or do any thing of value when you toss out such nasty remarks?  Not effective at all to respond to differences like that.

ORIGINAL: Guest

I'm terribly flattered that you apparently regard discussing me as far more interesting than offering examples from your own life of observed effects of the spiritual subordination of women on motherhood in support (or opposition) of the ordination of women, but I really don't think that discussing woman-who-votes-with-feet is going to particularly captivate internetland on behalf of women's ordination, do you?

I see the banning of discussion of women's ordination and the excommunication of women involved with women's ordination as quite possibly a test put forth by the Vatican to determine just how serious women really are about the women's ordination issue.  If women aren't very serious about women's ordination, they'll complain and put their prayers in the prayer basket, but it won't seriously change any business as usual at all.  If women are extremely serious about women's ordination, women will start noticing that there are other sincere devout Christian churches that ordain women and that those churches look increasingly appealing and/or they'll follow and support those excommunicated Catholic women involved with women's ordination and seriously threaten to diminish the Church's market share.  I'm sure the Vatican is watching closely, and that the Vatican is far more concerned with what people actually do than with what people say.

As for my motives for being here, I came here to discuss women's ordination and to inspire others to do likewise because I see discussing the issue of women's ordination as vitally important to the community of all of Christianity (and every other faith on the block) and extending way beyond the issue of membership in the Catholic Chuch.  If my own opinions happen to irritate anybody, surely that irritation will inspire them (or perhaps even enrage them sufficiently) and motivate them to speak out themselves and brilliantly demonstrate their own personal thoughts to internetland, which will in turn surely attract more interest from internetland on the subject of women's ordination.  It's all good, and all for a good cause, and if anybody believes that I'm a rude pain in the rear who needs to lose 20 lbs, that's just fine with me, because I came here to discuss women's ordination and to inspire others to do likewise (and if tying women's ordination to weight loss issues is what it takes to evoke greater public interest in the subject of women's ordination, that's fine with me too.) 

As for my discouraging anybody from staying in the Church?  The first thing anybody on the street says to women complaining about being mistreated in their church (or in their marriage) is exactly: "Well, ok, you're being mistreated.... so why don't you leave?"
It's a legitimate question.  It is vitally important that anybody intent on challenging the Church from within the Church be well prepared to deliver a stunningly brilliant answer to that question on a moment's notice.  If one cannot deliver a brilliant answer to that question on a moment's notice, one will be written off by one's audience (no matter one's great arguments) faster than one's audience can say: "If someone is imprisoning you and forcing you to endure mistreatment, we'll phone the police for you.  If you voluntarily commit yourself to continually endure what you perceive as mistreatment, there is truly nothing that anyone other than you can do to remedy your situation."
Anybody intent on remaining within the Church and challenging the Church from within needs to look in a mirror and ask themselves at least 20 times a day "so why don't you leave?" and come up with a brilliant response in 10 seconds or less every time.  That practice is what it takes to gain and hold an audience.

I came here to discuss women's ordination. That is why I am here.  What are you here for?

woman who votes with feet

 
Do you consider women who support the ordination of women and stay in the Church to be hypocrites?
 
 

Woman who votes with her feet, I agree with you. The subordination of women and girls spiritually is destructive.  It impovershes the church, the family, society, community, the world.  My family refuses to prop up the church and will not attend it.  That is legitimate and that is fine as far as I am concerned.  Challenging the hierarchy is difficult and can be done in many different ways, not just from inside the church. 

ORIGINAL: Guest

Are you the one that commented "what dope are you smoking?" and "you let your kids out to wolves in sheep clothing".  If you are, that is hostile, angry, disrespectful way to talk to anyone in this forum and just discredits you.  If I disagree with you ,  if I see the value in posts made by others, like the woman who votes with her feet, and you do not then make sensible arguments not ridiculous shallow comments and hostile , unfounded attacks like that.
Other people have shown respect and thoughtfulness in their points and then the dialogue is productive and effective.  Shallow, ugly, mindless insults have no value in this debate.  Do you really think you persuade or do any thing of value when you toss out such nasty remarks?  Not effective at all to respond to differences like that.

 
No. I wrote post 197, 187 and a few others but not those.

ORIGINAL: Guest

I'm terribly flattered that you apparently regard discussing me as far more interesting than offering examples from your own life of observed effects of the spiritual subordination of women on motherhood in support (or opposition) of the ordination of women, but I really don't think that discussing woman-who-votes-with-feet is going to particularly captivate internetland on behalf of women's ordination, do you?

 
Don't worry you are not that interesting. Probably none of us are. The underlying issue is respectful dialogue.

ORIGINAL: Guest

As for my discouraging anybody from staying in the Church?  The first thing anybody on the street says to women complaining about being mistreated in their church (or in their marriage) is exactly: "Well, ok, you're being mistreated.... so why don't you leave?"

 
Bride and bridegroom imagery not withstanding, I am not married to the Church. The Church is a community of believers of which I am a member. There are antiquated laws which need reform but the Church is not beyond changing its ways.
 
For the good of humanity it needs to change, and it is my personal opinion that it can be most effectively accomplished from within.
 
Look at it this way, a drug can’t help the body heal if it sits on the shelf. It must enter the body.
 

Do you consider women who support the ordination of women and stay in the Church to be hypocrites?

If you had read my writing on this site, you'd know that I have a sister who supports the ordination of women and has stayed in the Church, which makes perfect sense for her.   It is only when one has children that one worries about growing children getting mixed messages, daughters developing a poor concept of self and of God due to a small-minded-exclusively-male-concept-of-God, and what sort of lifetime effect modeling something less than partnership and negotiation between men and women as the will of God might have on their future.  If you had read my writing on this site, you would also know that I also have friends in the Church who are vehemently against women's ordination and that we get along just fine, because they see me as protesting the Vatican but not disrespectful of them nor of the Vatican's authority within the Church.  Conversely, I have heard complaints about the "women's ordination people" confronting them after mass because they see them as being disrespectful/intimidating/(nosey?) of other Church members and see them as some sort of attempt to undermine legitimate authority within the Church in favor of something unproven/undemonstrated.  I don't see anybody as hypocrites.  I see all of it as growth for everybody, no matter which way one looks at any of it.
I also make it plain to people that I am not a member of the Church, nor am I a member of this site, and that my views reflect only my own opinions and experiences and are not those of the Church, nor of this site, nor of members of the Church who speak as members of the Church on behalf of women's ordination.  I think that any member of the Church who speaks on behalf of women's ordination within the Church truly needs to seriously practice up on discussing this issue so as to be far above having any of their buttons pushed by anybody or anything, in order not to lose poise nor focus, in order not to discredit the issue within the Church.
 
woman who votes with feet

ORIGINAL: Guest

If you had read my writing on this site, you'd know that I have a sister who supports the ordination of women and has stayed in the Church, which makes perfect sense for her.  
 

 
Yes I have read your posts and having a sister who is in favor of ordination of women but remains a member of the Church does not mean you would necessarily think she is not a hypocrite. Based upon your answer I assume that you do not think of those who work for change within the Church as hypocrites. Thank you for clarifying that.
 
I have a sister who recognizes discrimination in the workplace but remains blind to it in the Church. I am sure if the Church suddenly changed its position regarding ordination of women, her opinion would change also. I have had some very heated discussions with her. My words are much stronger with her than any I have used here. But she is my sister. I love her and will always be there for her. Lately she seems to be softening a bit in her opposition.
 
I have not encountered any friends who oppose ordination, but I would not be afraid to tell them why it is wrong. If someone believes in something that you know to be wrong, you have a moral obligation to tell them. I can respect the dignity of individual but not the harmful belief.
 

I have not encountered any friends who oppose ordination, but I would not be afraid to tell them why it is wrong. If someone believes in something that you know to be wrong, you have a moral obligation to tell them. I can respect the dignity of individual but not the harmful belief.

I have observed in life that personal belief is largely a matter of personal experience, and that it therefore makes no sense whatsoever to go judging the validity or "right-or-wrongness" of another's beliefs any more than it would make sense to go judging the validity or "right-or-wrongness" of another's personal life experiences. 
Christ did not say that people have a moral obligation to judge other people's beliefs and tell them they are wrong.  Christ stressed one's duty to choose for oneself and only oneself and not impose our will on others (it's God's will, not ours, that is to be honored), commanded us not to judge one another, and spoke about not resisting evil (because it only creates more evil in the world: live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword-everybody-is-dead-without-anybody-having-learned-anything-nor-grown-or-developed-in-the-least).
One has a moral obligation to offer others alternative experiences for their consideration and growth and no more.  
 
woman who votes with feet

ORIGINAL: Guest

I have not encountered any friends who oppose ordination, but I would not be afraid to tell them why it is wrong. If someone believes in something that you know to be wrong, you have a moral obligation to tell them. I can respect the dignity of individual but not the harmful belief.

I have observed in life that personal belief is largely a matter of personal experience, and that it therefore makes no sense whatsoever to go judging the validity or "right-or-wrongness" of another's beliefs any more than it would make sense to go judging the validity or "right-or-wrongness" of another's personal life experiences. 
Christ did not say that people have a moral obligation to judge other people's beliefs and tell them they are wrong.  Christ stressed one's duty to choose for oneself and only oneself and not impose our will on others (it's God's will, not ours, that is to be honored), commanded us not to judge one another, and spoke about not resisting evil (because it only creates more evil in the world: live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword-everybody-is-dead-without-anybody-having-learned-anything-nor-grown-or-developed-in-the-least).
One has a moral obligation to offer others alternative experiences for their consideration and growth and no more.  

woman who votes with feet

 
Sorry but we disagree here. If everything is right then nothing is wrong.
 
If I harm someone or take their life is that right as long as I believe it is right?
 
Discrimination against women is wrong, pure and simple. If you think it is just a matter of personal opinion, then you do not understand the harm is causes.
 
And Christ did say that people should tell their neighbors when they have done wrong. It is not to hurt them, punish them, or condemn them but to help them.
 
We (none of us ..........including the Church) have the power to impose any belief on anyone. We all have free will. But we also have a moral obligation to express our beliefs when they may prevent someone from harming another.

 
 
 

Sorry but we disagree here. If everything is right then nothing is wrong.
If I harm someone or take their life is that right as long as I believe it is right?

If you harm someone or take their life you are undertaking an action.  Society has a right and a duty to judge, control, and curtail such actions in order to keep you from harming others in the community.
Belief, however, does not constitute taking any action.  If you believe something, society does not have a right and duty to judge, control, and curtail your beliefs, because your beliefs exist only in your own mind.
 
If you happen to believe something, you simply have a certain viewpoint, based mostly on your own life experience.   People's beliefs are their viewpoints.  Everyone is entitled to their own unique viewpoint in life.  Unless you personally have walked-a-mile-in-another's-moccasins, you are not morally obligated nor entitled to judge his particular viewpoint as being wrong just because you don't happen to share that viewpoint.  Depending on where you yourself happen to be standing, odds are you're not going to be able to see the mountain through the trees either.
 
There are plenty of people who happen to view God as male.  For whatever reason, it's their training, their belief, their comfort, their viewpoint.  You can confront them from here to doomsday with your argument that discrimination against women is wrong, but so what?  They don't view an all-male priesthood as discrimination against women at all, because they view God as male.  If one happens to view God as male, there is no discrimination going on at all.  Ideally, one would hope to help expand these people's viewpoint of God to include both male and female aspects of God, but judging and confronting these people as "wrong" is not going to expand their view of God.
 
One can only help expand anyone else's viewpoint by calmly, non-confrontationally sharing one's own experiences in the world and so allow them the opportunity to vicariously expand their own realm of experience to encompass a larger world view than what would be possible from their own limited experience.  It is a growth process, not a judgment/argument process.  Growth is a natural process that cannot be forced.
 
woman who votes with feet
 

Jesus used such a growth process through invitation and action and non-judgmental acceptance and communion with others.  He did not condemn Zaccheus, he invted him down from the tree and ate a meal with him at his home.  He transformed Zaccheus through communion.  He accepted the Samaritan woman, saw the good in her, spoke with her, listened to her, and then empowered her to spread his Gospel to Samaria.  He told stories of real life experiences to people, accepted them for what they were and invited them to transformation.  He started at where they were and gave them dignity and value in themselves.  Transforming belief was certainly done by Jesus, through respecting where the people were at in the first place.  This is a tough thing to figure out for sure, how to "convert" people from harmful practices and mindsets that end up harming and excluding people, whether racially or gender wise .

ORIGINAL: Guest

Belief, however, does not constitute taking any action.  If you believe something, society does not have a right and duty to judge, control, and curtail your beliefs, because your beliefs exist only in your own mind.

 
When you deny women ordination to the priesthood you are taking action.
 
It is wrong. It is discrimination on the basis of sex.
 
As a Catholic I was never taught that God is male. If some people wish to believe that God is male, a green giant or even Jim Jones, no one can stop them but this is not my understanding of Judeo-Christian belief. What you describe would be more likely classified as heresy.
 
 

ORIGINAL: Guest

Jesus used such a growth process through invitation and action and non-judgmental acceptance and communion with others.  He did not condemn Zaccheus, he invted him down from the tree and ate a meal with him at his home.  He transformed Zaccheus through communion.  He accepted the Samaritan woman, saw the good in her, spoke with her, listened to her, and then empowered her to spread his Gospel to Samaria.  He told stories of real life experiences to people, accepted them for what they were and invited them to transformation.  He started at where they were and gave them dignity and value in themselves.  Transforming belief was certainly done by Jesus, through respecting where the people were at in the first place.  This is a tough thing to figure out for sure, how to "convert" people from harmful practices and mindsets that end up harming and excluding people, whether racially or gender wise .

 
The passage below from Matthew is an example of what I meant. When the Church leaders or members discriminate against women it is wrong and they need to be told.
 
That does not mean I advocate harming them in any way. It does mean that I will tell them when they are engaging in wrongful acts or instituting unjust policies. If they accept it fine. If they do not, I can forgive them for their ignorance.
 
 
Matthew
Chapter 18
 
 
 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
 
 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
 
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
 
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
 
Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.
 
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
 
Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?"
 
Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.
 
 
 

Excellent. Thanks for posting that Matthew 18 passage with what Jesus tells us in regards to faith, action, conversion, forgiveness.  When one reads the words of Jesus it is truly transformational .  I keep on finding out more and more  what it really says in the bible,  only by keeping on reading it more and more.  Thanks again, and God bless.

As a Catholic I was never taught that God is male. If some people wish to believe that God is male, a green giant or even Jim Jones, no one can stop them but this is not my understanding of Judeo-Christian belief. What you describe would be more likely classified as heresy.

What I describe is simply a long term effect of reciting "Our Father who art in heaven" rather than "Our Creator who art in heaven.  I wouldn't classify that as heresy.
 
woman who votes with feet

ORIGINAL: Guest


What I describe is simply a long term effect of reciting "Our Father who art in heaven" rather than "Our Creator who art in heaven.  I wouldn't classify that as heresy.

woman who votes with feet

 
Or it could be the long term effects of sexism which cause some to refuse to recognize the limitations of language. Male nouns and pronouns have historically been used in the generic sense to include both male and female. It has been my understanding as a Catholic that this is always the case when referring to God.
 
Calling God “Father or Dad” is an endearing salutation. Those who have had loving fathers know the wonderful relationship that Jesus was expressing in his prayer.
 
God is also our Mother and I have no problem with our Creator either. As I see it, in calling God “Father” Jesus is expressing his relationship with God (our Creator) that can be understood in human terms.
 
Ultimately though for me St John expressed it beautifully when he wrote “God is Love” and we know that Love has no gender or gender affectations.