Post Reply
Page 1 of 12  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Does catholicism - or even christianity as a whole - consider women as second class?
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 12:13PM #1
Sparky_Spotty
Posts: 794
I kinda think it does but may stand to be corrected.

A few reasons that pop to mind are:
Women cannot become priests.
Eve was the one who tempted Adam.
Eve came second, from Adam's rib of all things.



Discuss!     
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 12:38PM #2
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

I'm a woman and a former Catholic, and here's my view. The RCC doesn't treat women and men equally. It is backward in its views of women, as evidenced by Pope John Paul II's 1988 Apostolic Letter on women (Mulieris Dignitatem, or "On the dignity of women"). It doesn't treat ordained and non-ordained men equally either. It's a hierarchical system, so you're going to have different classes of people treated differently. Of course that doesn't make it right. Its views rregarding the role of women and human sexuality in general, are examples of areas in which the RCC is out of step with current knowledge.


I don't think you'll find many on this board who defend the RCC's attitudes and actions regarding women. The "defenders of the faith" who used to participate in discussions here have left, I hope for greener pastures. Other than the occasional drive-by post, they don't participate anymore.


Regarding Christianity in general, I think Christianity today is all over the place regarding its views and even many of its core beliefs. You'll find Christian churches with progressive views and many that are very conservative. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 1:04PM #3
cherubino
Posts: 7,277

Apr 8, 2012 -- 12:13PM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

I kinda think it does but may stand to be corrected.

A few reasons that pop to mind are:
Women cannot become priests.
Eve was the one who tempted Adam.
Eve came second, from Adam's rib of all things.



Discuss!     



Oh, it varies parish by parish.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 2:57PM #4
ted08721
Posts: 3,757

If it were not for Mary Magdalene, we never would have heard about the Resurrection. The men would still be in the Upper Room, trying to figure how to get out of town.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 4:11PM #5
Sparky_Spotty
Posts: 794

Apr 8, 2012 -- 2:57PM, ted08721 wrote:


If it were not for Mary Magdalene, we never would have heard about the Resurrection. The men would still be in the Upper Room, trying to figure how to get out of town.




Well, messenger is a pretty minor role.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 5:56PM #6
cove52
Posts: 999

Apr 8, 2012 -- 2:57PM, ted08721 wrote:


If it were not for Mary Magdalene, we never would have heard about the Resurrection. The men would still be in the Upper Room, trying to figure how to get out of town.





If it weren't for the VM, there wouldn't be no Christianity.  ;)

"I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam / And I got a lotta muscle and I only gots one eye / And I'll never hurt nobodys and I'll never tell a lie / Top to me bottom and me bottom to me top / That's the way it is 'til the day that I drop, what am I? / I yam what I yam."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 7:06PM #7
IDBC
Posts: 4,561

Howdy Sparky


 


 


Apr 8, 2012 -- 12:13PM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:


I kinda think it does but may stand to be corrected.

A few reasons that pop to mind are:
Women cannot become priests.



Well I am going to be the Devil's Advocate. 


While it is true that women can't become preists it is also true that men can't become nuns. 


The esplanation is that the reason that women cannot become priests is because Jesus was "the priests".  Jesus was a man and priest so therefore priests must be men.  Also none of the tweleve apostles were women.   I cannot be denied that some women played an important role when Jesus was alive and in early chrisitianity but Jesus and the tweleve apostles were men. 


Women are different from men, but that does not mean that they are inferior to men. 


As far as the true Church is concerned the reason why it is "impossible" for women to become preists is not because they are in anyway "inferior"  but The Tradition Established by Christ Himself.


For further details:


community.beliefnet.com/go/post/reply/43...


Apr 8, 2012 -- 12:13PM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:


Eve was the one who tempted Adam.



That doesn't change the fact that according to the story God told Adam not to eat fruit from the tree.  He knew he shouldn't have done it.  Wether he was tempted by Eve or the snake he had freewill, he knew he was defying God. 


 


Apr 8, 2012 -- 12:13PM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:


Eve came second, from Adam's rib of all things.



Discuss!     



But this is not a reason given by the true Church for women not being priests. 


I once asked in the Jewish Forum about this story.   The answer I got was they do not take the story "literally".   Nor do they believe that "the snake-serpent" was Satan. 


The reason they gave is that is to to remind Jews that women are equal.  If YHVH had created women from the feet of Adam then that would imply that Eve was lower than Adam, and that women were therefore lower than men.  If YHVH had created Eve from the head of Adam that would imply that women were "higher" than men and therefore women were superior to men. 


YHVH created Eve from the rib of Adam, the middle part of the body to remind Jewish men that women are equal to men. 




 

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 10:43PM #8
JGL57
Posts: 524

The bible clearly states that the husband is the head of the family, with the wife second and the children last.  The wife and the children are to obey the head of the family - the man.


Also, the bible clearly states women are not to preach or to rule over men in any way.


However, in heaven all will be equal.  So all women have to do to be equal to men is to die.


So says the bible.


All this doesn't insult me, since I am a man.  It is something that women need to come to grips with.


LOL. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 9:49AM #9
jlb32168
Posts: 13,398

Apr 8, 2012 -- 12:13PM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:

I kinda think it does but may stand to be corrected.  A few reasons that pop to mind are:  Women cannot become priests.  Eve was the one who tempted Adam.  Eve came second, from Adam's rib of all things.  Discuss!


I’m Eastern Orthodox, but our hierarchy is the same – male only and you did address the question to all Christians. 


I have no problem with female Prime Ministers, Presidents, University Chancellors, University Presidents, Governors of States, Mayors, VPs, Board Chairs, CEOs, Principals, Professors, Senators, Representatives, SCOTUS Justice, MPs, Police Officers, Cabinet Members, Caucus Chair, Monarch, Empress, etc.  I know of no hierarch or priest who thinks differently.  If she does the job better, then she should have at it.


We just want our patriarchs, bishops and priests to be men.


Does that mean that women are considered second class?  If one answers “Yes” then s/he makes no distinctions between the above scenario and the treatment of women in the Muslim world.  That evinces an asinine mindset, IMO, and diminishes the appaling conditions of women around the world.


Such idiocy would also hold that having separate “Men’s” and “Women’s” restrooms represents a plaster ceiling – or wall in this case – to obstruct women from being full members of society.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 11:36AM #10
Sparky_Spotty
Posts: 794

Apr 9, 2012 -- 9:49AM, jlb32168 wrote:


...


We just want our patriarchs, bishops and priests to be men.


...




Why?


 



Does that mean that women are considered second class?  If one answers “Yes” then s/he makes no distinctions between the above scenario and the treatment of women in the Muslim world.  That evinces an asinine mindset, IMO, and diminishes the appaling conditions of women around the world.




Come now, that's pretty inflamatory.


No where am I implying that denying women the right to be priests is equal to enforcing some sort of laws that make it ok to beat your wife.  No where did I attempt to draw parallels with other faiths or religions that treat women relatively poorly.



Such idiocy would also hold that having separate “Men’s” and “Women’s” restrooms represents a plaster ceiling – or wall in this case – to obstruct women from being full members of society.




Again, easy on the language and straw man construction.


I'm simply asking a question specifically about how catholicism and christianity look upon women.


They may very well look upon them as 'slightly less worthy' than men. However, no one (except yourself perhaps) is suggesting that means women should be treated like chattel or dogs.


The priest holds a higher position in the heirarchy of the church than a nun does. Women cannot become priests. I understand the church may believe it is respecting the rules and beliefs set down by God or Jesus. But that would then suggest that God or Jesus thinks of women as less worthy or important than men.


I'm just asking the question.




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 12  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook