Tweet
Are, imran, but my point is that even given the freedom to select similar missions, we see differences in the roles between the monasteries and the nunneries. Certainly there are similarities, but the fact that there are differences, seems to me evidence that given freedom, men and women will choose to do different things.
How is this proof of any such thing? True 'freedom' would be allow women to join either a nunnery or monestary. And the relative missions of the nunneries and monestaries are more dictated by tradition than by any freedom these orders have to do whatever they desire.
We can see the error in your words by looking in the secular world where women are given FAR more freedom and they choose mostly to do similar things that men do.
Actually, that's a prohibition, regulating the dress of men also. I'm sure they would have treated the men who dressed like women in the same way.
Any proof of that? Furthermore, the bigger crime was doing things that men were supposed to do (being a solider).
Secondly, regarding the charge of misogyny of the church, was it the Catholic church who burned their St. Joan, or the English soldiers? The blame for her death cannot be laid at the foot of the Catholic church.
I'm quite sure Peter Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, was a Catholic Bishop. Though to deny the mysogyny of the Church is so surreal as to be ridiculous.
you are assuming that because they have different roles, that they are not considered equally important in the body of christ
Ben, you are a CATHOLIC now! The Pope is far more important than any lay person, even in the body of Christ. On the Day of Judgement, your Pope was supposed to be up there as your lawyer when Christ judged. He was given a priviledged position. It is why for generations before Vatican II, the priests were required to preach in Latin, even though a vast majority of the people listening had no idea what was being said. The priests would face away from the laity. The priest was considered more important, spiritually as well as heirarchically.
You know that kind of was one of the reasons for the Reformation. Luther didn't like the fact that priests were seen as more important to Christ and believed everyone was equal in front of God.
The fact that a woman cannot become a priest indicates that she cannot be in the privileged position. The Pope, for instance is the Vicar of Christ. He has a direct pipeline, so to speak, and by denying women the chance to occupy the role, the assertion is that they cannot have the pipeline.
Such utter and blatent mysogyny, no wonder the Catholic Church is losing followers in the West.
Once again, you are assuming that for people to be equal in value, they must be equal in function, which is diametrically opposed to what the church teaches.
Bull****. You can't be equal in value unless you have a chance to be equal in function. Some people may go around saying everyone is all equal, but the reality is that women are not. Because they cannot be equal in function.
If everyone is equal in value and you are saying that women gravitate to the functions they are in then WHY NOT allow them to choose the functions men have? If you are right, they'll choose not to take those functions.
Ah, where are the Christian untouchables then? Why then are the priests anointed based on their own decision and vows, and not upon the status of their birth? There are no brahmins in Christianity, nor are there untouchables.
Yes there are. You'll find the 'untouchables' to be women. They should know their role and they equal in that subserviance.
Our friends at the catholic Church may have been conned by the perfidious Albion into endorsing it at the time, but they were manipulated victims, and since then have more than made up for it, as they sanctified our national hero 
Comment