Should I care what the Pope says about women priests?

[Orangutan]

Ok so first off I'm an atheist.

So this morning I hear that the pope has issued some kind of instruction that women priests and the bishops that ordained them are to be excommunicated.

"Misogynistic bastage" Is my first reaction. But then I think "hang on, all their rules are based in fairy tales anyway. "

If i was to start the Super Sky daddies club for men, and claim to be influenced by the super sky daddy and he's told me no women allowed, who the hell cares? Ok I'd be an ass but what woman would want to join my little club anyway?

So as an atheist, I'm conflicted as to if I even should care what the Pope says, or what the women who want to be priests think.

How do my fellow atheist feel?

 

[JoeEllison]

On some level, I feel like it matters when it affects people who have little choice in the matter, or when the decision cannot be negated by the affected people just walking away. It sucks, it is stupid, it is evil... but as long as people can choose to stop being Catholics, it is hard to see where it is my problem?

 

[Bob Klase]

In general I don't really care what the pope says. But I think this is a good thing- the more steps the RC church takes backward toward the 14th century, the more likely that some of its followers will wake up.

The Church says it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Christ only choose Jewish men as his apostles. So by the church's own reasoning they should also be excommunicating all non Jewish priests.

 

[dglas]

Every time God's Rottweiler says something stupid, we score.

That's what I think.

 

[fuelair]

In general I don't really care what the pope says. But I think this is a good thing- the more steps the RC church takes backward toward the 14th century, the more likely that some of its followers will wake up.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Christ only choose Jewish men as his apostles. So by the church's own reasoning they should also be excommunicating all non Jewish priests.

One of the reasons I am happy when religions keep holding on to the ways of their founders. They lose the more intelligent followers.

 

[pgwenthold]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Christ only choose Jewish men as his apostles. So by the church's own reasoning they should also be excommunicating all non Jewish priests.

Then again, Jesus chose MARRIED men for his apostles. So the RCC shouldn't have a problem with priests getting married, right?

As my adviser used to say, "the explanation to fact ratio is getting too close to 1"

 

[billydkid]

If not for the fact that many millions of people care what the Pope say's, there would not reason at all to care about what the Pope say's or thinks about anything.

 

[skeptical]

I'm ambivalent about it. On the one hand, I agree with others, the crazier the man in the hat gets, the more intelligent people will leave his fiefdom. On the other hand, given that I have resigned myself to the idea that there will likely always be a Catholic church, I would like to see it treating its members with more respect.

So I don't know. My "screw those who choose to live in servitude" meme is battling with my "you need to treat those downtrodden better" meme, and neither has beaten the other into submission yet.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My thinking is that I don't much care. But not just because I'm not Catholic. Surely this had to be some kind of protest or another or some sneaky way to try to circumvent/change the rules. It was painfully obvious before this happened (assuming it did; I'd love to see a link actually) that only men could become priests. Excommunication also doesn't mean they are no longer Catholic or baptized, so this isn't some kind of damnation. (Not that I believe in hell, but they would, and if they believed their goofy protest meant hell, it would be serious psychological trauma they shouldn't have to endure.)

As for the original idea about only men becoming priests in the first place, ultimately one is Catholic by choice. Sure, folks are born, and then guilted, into it (as I was) but given some thought, one can recover. Because of that, they made their bed, lie in it. If a woman really wants to be some kind of preacher or spiritual leader, roll the dice and pick another religion. I hear the Scientologists can do some really cool stuff, if they put their minds to it.

 

[Darat]

Then again, Jesus chose MARRIED men for his apostles. So the RCC shouldn't have a problem with priests getting married, right?

As my adviser used to say, "the explanation to fact ratio is getting too close to 1"

Don't forget the RCC originally didn't, then they did, and when they consider it convenient for the church they still aren't against it. (The RCC would of course hold its position has remained constant...)

 

[Bododio]

I don't even care what women priests say.

 

[jimtron]

I care because he influences a great many people's lives. Forbidding birth control makes me much madder than this issue though. Also, I'm not too fond of his hatin' on gays.

 

[Kochanski]

Every time God's Rottweiler says something stupid, we score.

That's what I think.

I am with dglas on this one. Ratzi is likely to send more and more people away from the RC church making him less and less important to the world in general. That is a good thing.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I do enjoy it when they show themselves to be the nutjobs that they are.

On the other hand they are actually hurting real people. Not everyone has the mental strength to break away from this type of brainwashing. I'm still on the fence whether I have a responsibility to try and force people out of religion though.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Should I care what the Pope says about women priests?

No, unless you are a woman and a Catholic.

Ok so first off I'm an atheist.

Not your fight.

DR

 

[ceo_esq]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Christ only choose Jewish men as his apostles. So by the church's own reasoning they should also be excommunicating all non Jewish priests.

I think there's a little more to the Church's reasoning than that... Not that I agree with it, but they have had plenty of time to refine and adapt their arguments to the most obvious objections. They assert that Jewishness and maleness are, for various reasons, not assimilable qualities in the context of Jesus' ministry. I don't fully understand it.

 

[ceo_esq]

Deleted double post.

 

[slingblade]

Religion aside, I see this as a women's rights issue, an equality issue, on the larger scale.

Catholicism isn't a "boy's club." It's one of the more powerful world-wide organizations, and it treats women like dung for a variety of reasons. none of them sound or valid.

I care, obviously not for the religious reasons, but for the gender issues. I care for the message this action sends to the rest of the world: that women and men aren't equal, and that men deserve more power and authority than women. The birth-control issue is obviously part and parcel of this attitude.

And on top of it all, like a rancid cherry on a slime sundae, is the notion that it isn't men who say women are lesser, but a GOD.

If one cares about women and women's issues in general, I'd think one would care about this.

 

[Fnord]

Should I care what the Pope says about women priests?

Since you are an Atheist, then no, there is no reason for you to care.

The only people who have any valid reason to care are:

- The pope or a member of the College of Cardinals.
- An ordained female catholic priest.
- Someone who wants to become an ordained female catholic priest.
- Someone who ordained a female catholic priest.
- Someone who wants to ordain a female catholic priest.

 

[ceo_esq]

I'm ambivalent about it. On the one hand, I agree with others, the crazier the man in the hat gets, the more intelligent people will leave his fiefdom.

What's he done crazier or even differently or new here?

 

[slingblade]

Or anyone who's a woman, Fnord.

 

[ceo_esq]

It's one of the more powerful world-wide organizations, and it treats women like dung for a variety of reasons. none of them sound or valid.

I disagree with the no-women-priests idea, from an idle outside observer's standpoint, but I think it's a stretch to say that it generally treats women as dung. One of the fairly innovative notions that Christianity introduced into its milieu was the idea that women were not dung, after all.

I care for the message this action sends to the rest of the world: that women and men aren't equal, and that men deserve more power and authority than women.

On the other hand, the Church does seem to take great care to discourage and condemn that inference.

 

[brodski]

No, unless you are a woman and a Catholic.

I'm sure that Catholic men may be interested too.

Not your fight.

DR

agreed, their club, their rules.

 

[ceo_esq]

Don't forget the RCC originally didn't, then they did, and when they consider it convenient for the church they still aren't against it. (The RCC would of course hold its position has remained constant...)

The difference is that I think the Church would acknowledge it could change the clerical celibacy rule at any time (indeed, it permits a number of exceptions). It's more of an acknowledged man-made administrative policy the Church perceives as useful or beneficial, than a point of religious doctrine. Like any institutional administrative policy, I think the clerical celibacy rule would be happily changed the moment the Church perceived that its benefits/efficiencies outweighed its costs/inefficiencies.

 

[Fnord]

Or anyone who's a woman, Fnord.

A moslem woman? A jewish woman? An atheist woman?

No, only if a woman is a catholic does she have reason to be concerned. As someone else said before, it's their club and their rules.

FYI: The Presbyterian church ordains women as pastors, and they don't have to be Presbyterian. My wife is working on her MDiv degree for just that purpose.

 

[slingblade]

I disagree with the no-women-priests idea, from an idle outside observer's standpoint, but I think it's a stretch to say that it generally treats women as dung. One of the fairly innovative notions that Christianity introduced into its milieu was the idea that women were not dung, after all.

So that's why married women today have to pump out babies their entire fertile lives, or else forego sex with their own husbands?

On the other hand, the Church does seem to take great care to discourage and condemn that inference.

Except for the part where women can't wield any real power in the Church, or determine what rights they have over their own bodies.

 

[-Fran-]

Religion aside, I see this as a women's rights issue, an equality issue, on the larger scale.

Catholicism isn't a "boy's club." It's one of the more powerful world-wide organizations, and it treats women like dung for a variety of reasons. none of them sound or valid.

I care, obviously not for the religious reasons, but for the gender issues. I care for the message this action sends to the rest of the world: that women and men aren't equal, and that men deserve more power and authority than women. The birth-control issue is obviously part and parcel of this attitude.

And on top of it all, like a rancid cherry on a slime sundae, is the notion that it isn't men who say women are lesser, but a GOD.

If one cares about women and women's issues in general, I'd think one would care about this.

I agree! It might be 'their club, their rules' but personally I do think the influence is wider than that.

 

[slingblade]

A moslem woman? A jewish woman? An atheist woman?

No, only if a woman is a catholic does she have reason to be concerned. As someone else said before, it's their club and their rules.

FYI: The Presbyterian church ordains women as pastors, and they don't have to be Presbyterian. My wife is working on her MDiv degree for just that purpose.

You don't get it. It's not the religion, it's the women.

It's the message that one of the more powerful religions sends to and about all women. Memes aren't cast in stone.

So yes, Moslem women, Jewish women, and even atheist women have been, and will continue to be, affected by the misogyny of the Catholic church.

But please keep ignoring the part where I said "religion aside." It meant nothing and had no connection to my point.

 

[skeptical]

What's he done crazier or even differently or new here?

Crazier than the line of past Popes? Nothing. I suppose I was thinking that the last Pope had started moving more in a direction of reasonableness, and that the new Pope seems to be moving away from the little amount of reasonableness that that last Pope had moved towards. But, I will freely admit that is based purely on my subjective feelings and I don't have any objective list of criteria to back that up.

 

[Kochanski]

Religion aside, I see this as a women's rights issue, an equality issue, on the larger scale.

Catholicism isn't a "boy's club." It's one of the more powerful world-wide organizations, and it treats women like dung for a variety of reasons. none of them sound or valid.

I care, obviously not for the religious reasons, but for the gender issues. I care for the message this action sends to the rest of the world: that women and men aren't equal, and that men deserve more power and authority than women. The birth-control issue is obviously part and parcel of this attitude.

And on top of it all, like a rancid cherry on a slime sundae, is the notion that it isn't men who say women are lesser, but a GOD.

If one cares about women and women's issues in general, I'd think one would care about this.

It definitely is a women's issue, but as far as I am concerned the more the RCC pushes the issue, the more they will push women out of the church and probably their children as well (women tend to be the enforcers of religion in the home in the RCC for the most part).

I questioned religion (raised RC) early in life but continued religious instruction because my family wanted me to go, I was a good kid, so I went. I did not completely question god until later when reason kicked in further. However, I certainly had issues with the RCC for its treatment of women for all of the reasons you stated. It made my separation from the church far easier and if it does the same for other women, I am all for it.

The crazier Ratzi gets the more I like it. I don't know why he seems to have this fundy push going on, whether he somehow sees the fundy groups as more powerful than the more moderate ones or he likes to get attention for speaking (and doesn't care what he says to get it) or is completely out of touch with the world around him, I have no idea. He is entertaining though.

 

[Wowbagger]

I, for one, do seem to care, a little bit. If the church wants to go around claiming there's a god and all, that's their business.

But, if they are going to claim to be a moral authority, they should do more to be morally innovative.

If discrimination against women is allowed seep into our culture, through the church, it could reverberate into discrimination in other areas of humanity.

 

[pgwenthold]

I disagree with the no-women-priests idea, from an idle outside observer's standpoint, but I think it's a stretch to say that it generally treats women as dung. One of the fairly innovative notions that Christianity introduced into its milieu was the idea that women were not dung, after all.

That's why when my mom went to be a lector in church, she was only allowed to read at the mic in the front pew because Paul said that "women are not to preach in front of men" or something stupid like that, right? But she could do it if she read with her back to the congregation.

It certainly made my mom feel like schmitt.

Granted, this was like 25 years ago, and they have improved since then. However, "15 years behind the curve of society" isn't all that innovative IMO

 

[AkuManiMani]

Ok so first off I'm an atheist.

Why would you even ask if you're not a catholic? Its their problem /shrug

 

[bobcarp]

Maybe the Pope doesn't want women priests since most young boys would rather have sex with women, so most of the men priests would be faced with more competition.

 

[kerikiwi]

Why would you even ask if you're not a catholic? Its their problem /shrug

There are cases of religious pharmacists refusing to dispense drugs which go against their beliefs.
Extreme muslim women who claim the right to cover their faces when giving evidence in court.
Catholic teachings restrict the freedom of women.
People's beliefs influence their actions, in public and private life.
Not only catholics are affected by catholic teachings, though they are affected more.

 

[CapelDodger]

Maybe the Pope doesn't want women priests since most young boys would rather have sex with women, so most of the men priests would be faced with more competition.

Uncharitable, but all the same .

So anyway, who are these Catholics that have been creating female priests and so should be deprived of a Heaven visa? That sounds very modern. Catholics using contraception is an old story, but this sounds new.

 

[porch]

No, unless you are a woman and a Catholic.

Not your fight.

DR

Since you are an Atheist, then no, there is no reason for you to care.

The only people who have any valid reason to care are:

- The pope or a member of the College of Cardinals.
- An ordained female catholic priest.
- Someone who wants to become an ordained female catholic priest.
- Someone who ordained a female catholic priest.
- Someone who wants to ordain a female catholic priest.

Jeesh, and here I thought that secular folks were supposed to be the moral and cultural relativists.

The Catholics that I've had a chance to talk to around here about religion and ethics have tended to be very liberal and intellectual Christians. Haven't met one who really thought that the pope was infallible. A couple took the stance of disagreeing with the pope on many issues, but staying in the church partly as a means to liberalize it. I would say that these types of Catholics have the freedom to choose. They could leave their religion with little social consequence.

I'm certain, however, that there are other cultures where Catholicism is the dominant religion, the official church policy is taken much more seriously, and the ramifications for going against the grain are much higher. "Freedom of choice" starts to lose it's meaning, the higher the penalties are for exercising that freedom.

I don't think the ordainment of women is, in itself, such a big deal. But I think it's part of a larger cultural message propagated by the church that women are second class citizens. When such a message has strong cultural reinforcement, it directly effects people's well being. I think I have as much right to care about that as I do to care about how another country's government treats its citizens, and the extent to which their government holds power over them.

From another perspective, I wish that whatever the pope said had no sway at all. Whenever there's a news story about the great hat's latest decree, I think, who cares? Quit wasting my time.

In short, I have opinions and stuff, but I already gave at the office. I swear.

 

[ceo_esq]

So that's why married women today have to pump out babies their entire fertile lives, or else forego sex with their own husbands?

That strikes me as a tendentious and inaccurate way of characterizing the Catholic teaching. Moreover, it's not clear whether you were actually disputing my suggestion regarding the introduction of Christianity being a progressive social force for women.

Except for the part where women can't wield any real power in the Church, or determine what rights they have over their own bodies.

I don't think for the Church this is really a power analysis. As for bodies, the Church believes that there's a sense in which people's bodies are not exactly their own. But of course, the Church's position on abortion is more a statement about what people may do to someone else's body than about what people may do to their own bodies. One can certainly fault the Church's underlying views here - I do - but not really on grounds of sexism, I think.

 

[Fiona]

Can't agree, I am afraid. So far as I can see the abrahamic religions exist for the oppression of women and that is all they exist for

 

[Fiona]

Oops! double post for some reason