Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?

[Drake Tungsten]

would you happily go about slaughtering Canaanites

Yes.

[loinburger]

That second quote is Apostle Paul.

Just sayin'. If you are bringing Paul into it then all of Ephesians is in too.

I don't see what purpose that could serve, as obviously Paul would not have said anything in the least bit contradictory - otherwise we might be forced to consider sexual discrimination on its merits or lack thereof rather than justifying it using the words of a two thousand year old non-deity writing in a patriarchal society.

[aneeshm]

The argument that the men are celibate by choice and this somehow impacts the results of them having issues with it is demonstrably false.

It may be. But as that wasn't what I was saying to begin with, that's fine, though admittedly irrelevant.

The men had the best of intentions when they joined the church, I'm sure. It's the Church's unrealistic demands that can't be met by some, and they do act out.

Again, if the demands were unrealistic, why did they join and not later quit? They could always have left the church when they realised that they could not live up to the standards required of them. Instead, they chose to diddle little boys. The moral failing is theirs, without doubt.

Secondly, I think that calling the demands "unrealistic" is not correct. Any demand is "unrealistic" if you decide to apply it as a universal standard, as something which everyone on this planet should be able to live up to. If celibacy were expected of every man, it would be unrealistic. But the entire point of those restrictions is that they are not universal, that they are meant to apply to a specific subset of people who, knowing what they are, choose to let those restrictions apply to them.

The church's policies are a major factor in it (but not the only one), there's really no doubt about it. They're not RESPONSIBLE for it, especially not legally, but to deny it had any role because these men chose to be priests is pretty retarded.

Well, sure.

But don't forget that by this standard, a girl's wearing of provocative clothing would be included as among the causes of her being raped, and she would be held partially responsible for it (as you seem to want to do imply with respect to the Church) because of her "clothing policies".

[aneeshm]

I love the excuses. Other people may not like a minority in power over them, therefore we can't let the minority have power... for their own good!! Sounds familiar...

I frankly don't get all the Ben-hate flying around here.


First of all, this isn't about governmental or coercive power, so this whole "power" discussion is, in my opinion, misguided. Authority and power are two very, very different things.

Secondly, there is no "right" to Catholicism. If you don't want to be a Catholic, you're free to quit any damn time. So it's not as if the CC is taking women, forcing them to become Catholic, then laughing in their face as it tells them they cannot be priests. All of these women choose to attend.

Thirdly, some of his arguments do have merit when considered statistically instead of universally. A statistically significant number of women do appreciate male authority more than female authority. The number could be small or large, but that makes no difference. Why this is so (genetics versus socialisation), whether this is "politically correct", whether this fits in with our modern view of the world, all of these are academic questions given that fact that this is, in fact, the case. Note here that this does not say anything about individual women, or state a predicate applicable to "women" as a group. If this subset of women find solace in the Church (while others, understandably, do not - and they have many other places to go which agree with them), I see nothing wrong with it.

Fourthly, though I am no defender of Christianity, as far as I have come to understand it, the Christian view of men and women is one of complementarity, not of power or dominance relationships. Treating it as such within this context shows either ignorance or wilful malice.

Finally, if a group of men and women decide that they don't want women to have ABC authority in their structure, buy it's fine if they have XYZ authority, why is it necessary to vilify that group? Of course, I'd rather that Ben would come out and say it right out that he thinks this way for aesthetic reasons, rather than trying to provide utilitarian justifications for his way of thinking (which, by the way, may well in some cases be valid if we take his aesthetics as a starting point), but in any case, I find this atmosphere of general intolerance to his views and specific resentment bordering on hatred towards him quite astounding and, frankly, disgusting.

Is civil discussion so difficult?

[DaShi]

This one brought out all the nutjobs.

[notyoueither]

Don't be so hard on yourself, Dashi.

[Asher]

Is civil discussion so difficult?

To be completely blunt, you don't know anything. If you actually tried to have a serious discussion with Ben, you'd know exactly why everyone treats him like we do.

[DaShi]

Don't be so hard on yourself, Dashi.

Clever.

[loinburger]

Secondly, there is no "right" to Catholicism.

There's no "right" to at least 99.99% of everything that exists, so I guess we shouldn't criticize that stuff either.

Thirdly, some of his arguments do have merit when considered statistically instead of universally.

He's making universal arguments, not statistical arguments. All women are unfit to hold authority over men. The top X% of women can't hold a candle to the top X% of men.

A statistically significant number of women do appreciate male authority more than female authority.

If it makes them more comfortable then they can go to a church with a male priest, along with people like Ben who believe that women are unfit to hold authority. Nobody is suggesting that women be forced to go to male gynecologists and female priests or whatever. (Well, I'll amend that, people are suggesting that women only be allowed to go to male priests, but that's rather become the whole point of this thread.)

Fourthly, though I am no defender of Christianity, as far as I have come to understand it, the Christian view of men and women is one of complementarity, not of power or dominance relationships. Treating it as such within this context shows either ignorance or wilful malice.

Giving all males authority and making all females subservient is certainly complementary (it would certainly be inconvenient if everybody had all of the authority), but that kind of misses the whole point.

Finally, if a group of men and women decide that they don't want women to have ABC authority in their structure, buy it's fine if they have XYZ authority, why is it necessary to vilify that group?

It all looks so reasonable when you substitute variables for the reality. "Why is it so bad for Q to do X to Z???"

I find this atmosphere of general intolerance to his views and specific resentment bordering on hatred towards him quite astounding and, frankly, disgusting.

Have you been hiding in the CTP subforums since 2001???

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see what purpose that could serve, as obviously Paul would not have said anything in the least bit contradictory - otherwise we might be forced to consider sexual discrimination on its merits or lack thereof rather than justifying it using the words of a two thousand year old non-deity writing in a patriarchal society.

Who says it's contradictory? All are one in Christ. Yet we bear our differences among each other.

What I find amusing is that those who would automatically assume that we know everything today. In many ways we are more ignorant than people several thousand years ago.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fourthly, though I am no defender of Christianity, as far as I have come to understand it, the Christian view of men and women is one of complementarity, not of power or dominance relationships. Treating it as such within this context shows either ignorance or wilful malice.

Pretty much spot on. Some of the more controversial questions arise over headship in a marital relationship. Christianity bears different burdens on wives and husbands, in accordance to their complementarity, and assigns men the role of headship and final decisionmaking.

[loinburger]

In many ways we are more ignorant than people several thousand years ago.

Speak for yourself.

[Ming]

What I find amusing is that I assume that I know everything today. In many ways I am more ignorant than people several thousand years ago.

FIXED

[loinburger]

@Ben: I'm genuinely curious to know which religion you'll convert to when Catholicism starts to treat men and women as possessing equal value and ability. It's become apparent why you fled the Anglican church...

[Ben Kenobi]

He's making universal arguments, not statistical arguments. All women are unfit to hold authority over men.

If you are going to quote me, get it right. I never said that all women are unfit to hold all forms of authority over men. This applies only to 'teaching authority' within the church. Get it right, please.

If it makes them more comfortable then they can go to a church with a male priest, along with people like Ben who believe that women are unfit to hold authority. Nobody is suggesting that women be forced to go to male gynecologists and female priests or whatever. (Well, I'll amend that, people are suggesting that women only be allowed to go to male priests, but that's rather become the whole point of this thread.)

Again, as aneeshm said, no one is forced to attend mass. Nowhere have I argued that anyone to the contrary should be subject to rules that apply only within the church and among the body of believers. Unbelievers are free to carry on as they wish, but we ask that they respect our beliefs.

Giving all males authority and making all females subservient is certainly complementary (it would certainly be inconvenient if everybody had all of the authority).

You've hit on the why. Things work better if someone is in charge. Someone has to make the final decision. I suppose Loin is one of those who either defers, or how does it work, on alternate days? Please. I would love to hear your theories on what works best. Why is it a sexist preposition to say that men should make that decision? Nobody likes being the heavy.