Women as bad as pedophiles?

[muses_nightmare]

According to the Catholic church if she wants to be a priest she is as bad as a pedophile or a rapist.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...as-pedophiles/

This is just disgusting, another example of why I'm not christian

[The Shadow]

What a coincidence! I was just about to post this story!

And I agree. This is one among many reasons why I'm no longer a practicing Catholic and except for my sister's wedding, I haven't set foot in a church since I was seventeen.

[Hobbs]

It's not equating women with pedophiles. If you read it, along with the supplied links, what it means is that the act of ordaining a woman as a priest will be categorized in the same level of offense. That's like saying it's become a Class A felony from being a Class B felony. It's not after the woman, but whomever tries to ordain her.

I think this reply sums it up nicely

annacatherine 5 hours ago

There are many things that the church considers reason for excommunication. But taking two seperate and different reasons and concluding that one is as bad as the other is a real leap. No one from the Catholic Church ever made that statement. What a naive way to think. A theif and a murderer are both in jail. One is not as bad as the other. The murderer is worse. The Church is not about to budge on their beliefs and it's better to move on than to attempt to change theyir thinking. Good news out of Austrailia. Last week they threw a 67 year old Catholic priest in jail for 20 years. For child Abouse. It's better to concentrate on that. Women priests and married priests will never happen

[HYHYBT]

This is just disgusting, another example of why I'm not christian

I can certainly see how this would be a reason not to be a *Catholic,* but not why it would dissuade anyone from Christianity as a whole.

[KnitShoni]

It's not after the woman, but whomever tries to ordain her.

Actually, both the person ordaining a woman and the woman being ordained would be excommunicated.

[Exaspera]

Ever since Eve evidently stuffed that apple down Adam's throat, we wimmens has been da evil. :-p

[KnitShoni]

Ever since Eve evidently stuffed that apple down Adam's throat, we wimmens has been da evil. :-p

I know, right?

[Rapscallion]

Yet these days we're told apples are good for you.

How the world turns.

Rapscallion

[muses_nightmare]

Well there's more than this as the reason I've never been Christian.

Also, Hobbs, you don't think it's wrong that they think having women Ordained as priests is up there with rape and pedophilia. It really shouldn't be something that's considered a "crime" or whatever they want to call it. There is a general distaste for women in the Catholic faith, at least from an official standpoint.

[Ree]

First of all, it's not "right up there with rape and pedophilia".
Talk about sensationalism.

The article cited is a blog, and not the actual decree from the church.

Anyone can write a blog, which is basically an opinion piece, and slant the news to form their argument. It is filled with opinions and quotes from an organization of women working to bring female ordination to the Catholic Church.
Of course they are going to equate it with one of the most shameful scandals in the church.
How else does one draw attention to it?

Am I happy that my church does not allow ordination of women? No.
I feel that the doctrine is based on antiquated notions toward women.

There is a crisis of vocations to the priesthood now, and if women are willing to take on this role in the church, then I see no need for the church to block it.

The fact is, though, the church does not allow female ordination at this time, and therefore, they have set a penalty for those who go against the rules of the church and participate in female ordination.

Any society or organization has to have a set of rules and conditions for members to follow to keep order and continuity. It is their right to withhold membership to anyone who goes against these rules, regardless of whether the person feels the rule is ridiculous and needs changing.

Is the church saying that the sins of all who are excommunicated are exactly the same? No.
They are simply saying that the person who is excommunicated has committed a serious act that goes against the doctrines of the church, and therefore, they no longer have the right to membership and access to all the sacraments in that church.

The church, in response to the sex scandals, decreed that priests who are convicted of pedophilia and sexual misconduct are excommunicated.
Celibacy is a major foundation of the Catholic priesthood, and those types of acts are an obvious breach of the vows taken by the priest, and therefore merit excommunication.

Female ordination is not recognized as a valid ordination, so those women who present themselves as ordained Catholic priests are not actually priests in the Roman Catholic Church, and any sacraments ministered are not valid in the church. The church sees these ordinations as a direct disobeying of its doctrines, so, therefore, excommunication is a result for all who participate in them.

Just because excommunication is the result in both situations, that does not mean the church is saying that a female priest is equal to a pedophilic man.

They are saying that, in both situations, the people involved have gone against the doctrines of the church, and as a result, are no longer allowed to participate as a member in that church.

[KitterCat]

Celibacy is a major foundation of the Catholic priesthood, and those types of acts are an obvious breach of the vows taken by the priest, and therefore merit excommunication.

Ree, just to give you a heads up, celibacy hasn’t always been disallowed by the RCC. Until the 1100’s when the Second Lateran council imposed celibacy on priests it was fine to be married - with out a vow of celibacy. Strange that once the church figured out they wanted the priests land and money the easiest way to get it was remove his family.

Currently there are married priests in the RCC, but they have to have been ordained by another denomination and then apply for an application to be brought into the RCC. They have to take a vow of celibacy should they become divorced or their wife dies, but not until after either incident happens. Or they can choose to not take the vow and leave.

This page goes into it a bit better than I can,
http://atheism.about.com/od/romancat...celibacy_2.htm

As for the problems of equating women who want to be ordained with pedophiles. There are times when I have to shake my head with wonder at how the upper escalons of RCC come about making announcements to the rest of the world when their dogma changes or when they just want to clarify things. They’d already decreed the attempt to ordain a woman was a “crime” to the church. What was going on in these guys heads to think they needed to clear things up and reaffirm that they still found it to be a crime while going over rules regarding pedophiles? Are they trying to get bad press? If it was such a big deal to reconfirm that they don’t want woman priest all they had to do was wait a while and issue a second decree later.

[Hobbs]

As for the problems of equating women who want to be ordained with pedophiles. There are times when I have to shake my head with wonder at how the upper escalons of RCC come about making announcements to the rest of the world when their dogma changes or when they just want to clarify things. They’d already decreed the attempt to ordain a woman was a “crime” to the church. What was going on in these guys heads to think they needed to clear things up and reaffirm that they still found it to be a crime while going over rules regarding pedophiles? Are they trying to get bad press? If it was such a big deal to reconfirm that they don’t want woman priest all they had to do was wait a while and issue a second decree later.

If you read at all what Ree said, you would know that that is not at all what the Roman Catholic Church is doing. Like I said in my own analogy, the practice of ordaining women (which never was part of the Church) is now punishable by excommunication. That the crime of molesting a child is also punishable by excommunication is inconsequential. Again, as Ree said, the article is taken from an overly-biased blog against the Church. Their analogy of equating women with pedophiles is the real sensationalist rhetoric.

[Exaspera]

And all because the women were stuck in the kitchen at the so-called Last Supper. :-p

[Hyena Dandy]

I hope you don't mind if I use an extended metaphor (or analogy. Or simile. I forget) to explain.

A priest is a representative of the Catholic faith. He is, if you will, an ambassador to the world for Catholicism. A woman who claims to be a priest, but is not, would be excommunicated, because she is claiming she can represent the church, and perform the rites of the church, when she cannot, because she has not actually been ordained. If I were to present myself as a priest, I too would be excommunicated (kicked out of the church), because I have not been ordained. A priest who commits pedophilia has broken his vows to the church, and will also be kicked out.

Similarly, if a White House aid travels to Israel and claims to be the new US Ambassador to Israel he would be fired. He too is acting in a capacity he is not approved for. However wonderful an ambassador he might have been. An aide who committed rape and murder would also be fired.

But that would not mean that the President of the United States considers rape and murder to be as bad as homicide.

And honestly, as wonderful as blogs are, if you want the Catholic word on the doctrine, you can ask a Catholic. Try AskACatholic.com. They have real genuine Catholics who can tell you what the Catholic teaching on a matter is. Or, if your city has a Catholic church, ask the priest. As opposed to getting your word about Catholic teaching from an Atheist. Atheists can be wonderful people. But I do not expect them to teach me what a religion believes, any more than I trust a biologist to tell me whether global warming exists.

[muses_nightmare]

See how I see it is, they are giving the same punishment for something that isn't nearly on the same level, and therefore it must be on the same level in their view of things. If it wasn't why the same punishment? It's not really a huge leap in thinking.