May 12, 2012 -- 9:37AM, SeraphimR wrote:

If having an open mind requires showing respect for the views of others, I am not sure you qualify.  Or is it necessary to show respect only to those who show respect to ones self?

Don't take that as an insult because I am not sure having an open mind is always a laudable quality.

And you would be surprised, I think, at how many Traditionalists are reformed Progressives.

Many Progressives become Traditionalists after they see the social pathologies spawned by Progressive policies.

I really think the terms "Traditionalst," "Conservative" and "Progressive" are woefully inadequate when used to label adherents of various doctrinal and political factions within the Catholic Church, simply because these are so unstable over time. Within my own lifetime I've seen these labels applied to a spectrum of ideologues, from Leonard Feeney and Clare Booth Luce for the TradCons, to Cardinal Cushing and Pope John XXIII for the Progressives. When you factor in people like these, the idea of old versus new becomes much less reliable, especially when we try to apply it to the recent historical record, and that in reality it's an ongoing polarization of one old tradition versus some other old tradition. As Harry Truman put it, the only thing new here is the history you haven't read yet. And, of course, there's St. Francis of New York of happy memory...

May 12, 2012 -- 10:42AM, happygardener wrote:

"If having an open mind requires showing respect for the views of others, I am not sure you qualify.  Or is it necessary to show respect only to those who show respect to ones self?"

 

Insults and bullying don't deserve respect from an open mind, they deserve to be challenged. And respect for another's views doesn't  imply agreement to those views.

So the answer is yes.

 I don't apologize for challenging insults or for not agreeing with your religious opinions. Other than that, if you want to list examples of my having maligned your views you will have my apology. 

You called jlb a misogynist and a bigot in post 67.

-----------------

"Don't take that as an insult because I am not sure having an open mind is always a laudable quality."

I kinda guessed as much.

May 11, 2012 -- 2:36PM, JeanneD wrote:

LOL! Avoid the factual issue (nothing about women priests in the creed), make angry . . .

Had I thought it was of much import, I’d have mentioned it, JeanneD.  Why address the issue of female clergy, why they are needed, and link it to the Creeds which don't even mention clergy, much less the male-only variety?

May 11, 2012 -- 2:36PM, JeanneD wrote:

A tad sensitive in being called out too.

Um . . . okay [??]  In any case, I tried to summon up the energy to address your post which was essentially one verbose, drone of an attempt at insult but . . . why?

This thread is about a negotiation of power, misidentified as “dialogue”.  Start a thread on my alleged neuroses if you want to discuss them.

Personally, I think your need to “get personal” is indicative of lack of confidence in one’s ability to defend his/her position, but that is just an amateur diagnosis borne out of 20+ years of forensic debating competition.

May 12, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Buggsy wrote:

May 12, 2012 -- 10:34AM, cherubino wrote:

I really think the terms "Traditionalst," "Conservative" and "Progressive" are woefully inadequate when used to label adherents of various doctrinal and political factions within the Catholic Church....

What are these factions anyway?  What do they stand for - liturgical or moral matters?

"C" - All of the Above [?]

If they do not force females to be in subservient rolls, they feel threatened. They feel their manhood is threatened. They must feel they are on the top of the pecking order, or they are not real men. It is silly, but it is how it appears, and how it is played out.

We’re actually already on top of the pecking order since . . . well . . . we’re primates and that’s how primates “work”.

The cultural anthropologist would have to conclude that the Christian religion, or any religion for that matter, serves to down-regulate H. sapiens’ tendency to kill one another (The Well-Dressed Ape: A Natural History of Myself, Hannah Holmes) and this feeling of being threatened is actually a fear that natural tendency (to . . . well . . . rule/kill other males, and take their females, or be ruled/killed and have his females taken from him) will overcome more civilized (albeit unnatural) acculturation through the medium of religion.

Worshipping the alpha male is natural and probably preferable since it will keep the other males in line.

The author of your quote (I apologize for not naming him/her since I can't remember your citation of this person) is an idiot, MECap.  S/he clearly doesn't know a thing about science or anthropology.  Instead, s/he concentrates on artificially contructed, politically-correct rot, fancies him/herself brilliant, and then passess this crapola off as modern psychology.  The stuff that passes for science these days is frightening.

If religion is irrevocably changed to be more egalitarian, the mechanism that down-regulated H. sapiens behavior will have been destroyed and  . . . well . . . he will revert back to its native state – like it was before the Bronze Age.  I doubt many women would prefer that.

Don’t shoot the messenger.  Shoot evolution.

BTW, I don't actually believe the above crap since I believe we're creatures created in God's Image and Likeness and that we worship Christ because He is God and moves us to do so.  I'm just able to play both sides of the fence since I've been on both sides.