Michele 1
Recommended Posts
sinker 0
thanks girl, for saying so well what I can't... and thanks for having me back. miss ya! haven't been able to call but hope to be on the west coast some time this summer... i'll let ya know...
-the artist formerly known as sinker
-the artist formerly known as sinker
kallend 2,175
QuoteI don't know whatever happened to you, kallend, that made you so angry and hateful towards the Catholic Church. Hopefully some day you'll get past it. You are certainly not hurting the Church by your attacks. She'll be here long after you're gone, that's for sure. But it would be nice if you let some peace into your soul about the whole matter
Please be more precise. I'm not against the Catholic church. I'm against the Roman Catholic church, an institution that over the centuries has caused untold suffering.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
sinker 0
i won't argue semantics w/ you... it's pattenly obvious I'm talking about THE Catholic Church, which is the Roman Catholic Church. After all, the conversation began w/ the discussion about the new Pontiff of said church. Other churches that incorporate the word catholic do so w/ the understanding of the word meaning "universal."
and again, forgiveness is a wonderful thing. Pope Benedict XVI, as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did NOT burn anyone at the stake, apply thumb screws, put folks into the iron maiden, etc. It's time to get over it, kallend.
just how many mea culpas would the Church need to make before you were satisfied? something tells me it would NEVER be enough for you.
although the church HAS, w/o a doubt, caused "untold suffering," she has also caused untold healing, reconciliation, and joy.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
and again, forgiveness is a wonderful thing. Pope Benedict XVI, as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did NOT burn anyone at the stake, apply thumb screws, put folks into the iron maiden, etc. It's time to get over it, kallend.
just how many mea culpas would the Church need to make before you were satisfied? something tells me it would NEVER be enough for you.
although the church HAS, w/o a doubt, caused "untold suffering," she has also caused untold healing, reconciliation, and joy.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
sinker 0
an interesting piece I found on-line...
-----------------
Shock! New Pope a Catholic
Gerard Baker
Pinning a conservative label on Benedict XVI is absurd. His mission transcends Left and Right
WHAT HAS been most enjoyable about the stunned reaction of the bulk of the media to the election of Pope Benedict XVI has been the simple incredulousness at the very idea that a man such as Joseph Ratzinger could possibly have become leader of the universal Church.
Journalists and pundits for whom the Catholic Church has long been an object of anthropological curiosity fringed with patronising ridicule have really let themselves go since the new pontiff emerged. Indeed most of the coverage I have seen or read could be neatly summarised as: “Cardinals elect Catholic Pope. World in Shock.”
As headlines, I’ll grant you, it’s hard to beat God’s Rottweiler, The Enforcer, or Cardinal No. They all play beautifully into the anti-Catholic sentiment in intellectual European and American circles that is, in this politically correct era, the only form of religious bigotry legitimised and sanctioned in public life. But I ask you, in all honesty, what were they expecting?
Did the likes of The Guardian, the BBC or The New York Times think there was someone in the Church’s leadership who was going to pop up out on the balcony of St Peter’s and with a cheery wave, tell the faithful that everything they’d heard for the past 26 — no, make that 726 — years was rubbish and that they should all rush out and load up with condoms and abortifacients like teenagers off for a smutty weekend? Or did they think the conclave would go the whole hog and elect Sir Bob Geldof (with Peaches, perhaps, as a co-pope) in an effort to bring back the masses?
It has been fun (and revealing) to watch as the cardinals’ deliberations have been portrayed, with so little imagination or understanding, as a classic left-right battle between conservatives (bad, of course) and progressives (good). But it bears little reality to the way the Church’s leadership really thinks about its future.
The “conservative” label immediately pinned on Pope Benedict is for a start, hardly helpful. He, like the last one, defies easy characterisation in political terms. He was one of the intellectual driving forces behind the reforming Second Vatican Council. He has, like his predecessor, spoken out strongly against the war in Iraq, and indeed against the use of military force in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. He is in the broad church of prelates who, as William Rees-Mogg pointed out in these pages last week, essentially regard modern capitalism with moral disdain.
Sure, he is doctrinally a traditionalist, but this is misunderstood too. If you, as the papacy does, claim direct authority, through your 264 predecessors from the ministry of St Peter, who, the Gospels tell us was inaugurated into that ministry by the Son of God while he was present on earth, is it really possible to take anything other than a bit of a traditionalist view when it comes to doctrinal matters?
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting, at this sensitive moment, that God is a Tory. But the Church’s mission is to bear witness to the truth. The truth is not something that needs redefining each time a pope dies.
And it’s not really evident that churches that have made the kind of accommodations with modernity that are urged on the Vatican have fared all that well. The Church of England is a mostly genial institution led, in Rowan Williams, by a good and holy man, but I don’t get the sense that the post hoc validation of modern social mores that the C of E has been practising for some time has led to a religious awakening among the British.
Of course I’m being slightly unfair. There were choices on offer to the cardinals. They could have chosen a less challenging, less insistent voice for unwavering orthodoxy. But the idea that there was some radical alternative on offer who would have shifted the direction of the Church is way off the mark.
Two clues tell us what this papal selection truly represents. The first is the speed with which Cardinal Ratzinger was chosen. Four ballots, in less than 24 hours, was all it took for at least two-thirds of the cardinals (and probably many more) to establish a consensus in favour of this man. Why?
The answer lies in the nature of this succession. Though they loved and revered John Paul II, many cardinals still found themselves surprised at their own and the world’s reaction to the late Pope’s death. Only in the mourning did they fully grasp the significance of the historic phenomenon that he represented.
In the days leading up to the conclave the buzzword, if the Holy Spirit can be said to have such a thing, was Continuator. The cardinals wanted to anoint someone who would represent continuity with the dead Pope’s firm restatement of the church’s doctrines and values. There was no one who better offered the prospect of a reaffirmation of that papacy.
The other clue lies in the new Pope’s choice of name. The cardinals think long and hard about the choice of a papal nomen. It is intended as a clear signal of their intent. Much attention has focused on the previous 15 popes called Benedict. But it is worth remembering that the first St Benedict was not a pope, but the founder of the monastic order that bears his name. Benedict is the patron saint of Europe. His principal legacy — the Benedictines — was critical in planting the roots of Christianity throughout Europe in the dark, post-Roman period of the 6th and subsequent centuries. Without Benedict, Europe may not have been the centre of Christianity in the Middle Ages that made it the birthplace of modern civilisation.
The conclave clearly shared the view of John Paul II that Europe confronts another similar challenge — the lure of relativist, materialist secularism that is steadily stifling the Church in its birthplace. In choosing this Benedict, from the heart of Europe, they have demonstrated the Church’s intention to meet this challenge, not with compromise and accommodation, but with the unbending affirmation of the universal, eternal truth
-the artist formerly known as sinker
-----------------
Shock! New Pope a Catholic
Gerard Baker
Pinning a conservative label on Benedict XVI is absurd. His mission transcends Left and Right
WHAT HAS been most enjoyable about the stunned reaction of the bulk of the media to the election of Pope Benedict XVI has been the simple incredulousness at the very idea that a man such as Joseph Ratzinger could possibly have become leader of the universal Church.
Journalists and pundits for whom the Catholic Church has long been an object of anthropological curiosity fringed with patronising ridicule have really let themselves go since the new pontiff emerged. Indeed most of the coverage I have seen or read could be neatly summarised as: “Cardinals elect Catholic Pope. World in Shock.”
As headlines, I’ll grant you, it’s hard to beat God’s Rottweiler, The Enforcer, or Cardinal No. They all play beautifully into the anti-Catholic sentiment in intellectual European and American circles that is, in this politically correct era, the only form of religious bigotry legitimised and sanctioned in public life. But I ask you, in all honesty, what were they expecting?
Did the likes of The Guardian, the BBC or The New York Times think there was someone in the Church’s leadership who was going to pop up out on the balcony of St Peter’s and with a cheery wave, tell the faithful that everything they’d heard for the past 26 — no, make that 726 — years was rubbish and that they should all rush out and load up with condoms and abortifacients like teenagers off for a smutty weekend? Or did they think the conclave would go the whole hog and elect Sir Bob Geldof (with Peaches, perhaps, as a co-pope) in an effort to bring back the masses?
It has been fun (and revealing) to watch as the cardinals’ deliberations have been portrayed, with so little imagination or understanding, as a classic left-right battle between conservatives (bad, of course) and progressives (good). But it bears little reality to the way the Church’s leadership really thinks about its future.
The “conservative” label immediately pinned on Pope Benedict is for a start, hardly helpful. He, like the last one, defies easy characterisation in political terms. He was one of the intellectual driving forces behind the reforming Second Vatican Council. He has, like his predecessor, spoken out strongly against the war in Iraq, and indeed against the use of military force in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. He is in the broad church of prelates who, as William Rees-Mogg pointed out in these pages last week, essentially regard modern capitalism with moral disdain.
Sure, he is doctrinally a traditionalist, but this is misunderstood too. If you, as the papacy does, claim direct authority, through your 264 predecessors from the ministry of St Peter, who, the Gospels tell us was inaugurated into that ministry by the Son of God while he was present on earth, is it really possible to take anything other than a bit of a traditionalist view when it comes to doctrinal matters?
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting, at this sensitive moment, that God is a Tory. But the Church’s mission is to bear witness to the truth. The truth is not something that needs redefining each time a pope dies.
And it’s not really evident that churches that have made the kind of accommodations with modernity that are urged on the Vatican have fared all that well. The Church of England is a mostly genial institution led, in Rowan Williams, by a good and holy man, but I don’t get the sense that the post hoc validation of modern social mores that the C of E has been practising for some time has led to a religious awakening among the British.
Of course I’m being slightly unfair. There were choices on offer to the cardinals. They could have chosen a less challenging, less insistent voice for unwavering orthodoxy. But the idea that there was some radical alternative on offer who would have shifted the direction of the Church is way off the mark.
Two clues tell us what this papal selection truly represents. The first is the speed with which Cardinal Ratzinger was chosen. Four ballots, in less than 24 hours, was all it took for at least two-thirds of the cardinals (and probably many more) to establish a consensus in favour of this man. Why?
The answer lies in the nature of this succession. Though they loved and revered John Paul II, many cardinals still found themselves surprised at their own and the world’s reaction to the late Pope’s death. Only in the mourning did they fully grasp the significance of the historic phenomenon that he represented.
In the days leading up to the conclave the buzzword, if the Holy Spirit can be said to have such a thing, was Continuator. The cardinals wanted to anoint someone who would represent continuity with the dead Pope’s firm restatement of the church’s doctrines and values. There was no one who better offered the prospect of a reaffirmation of that papacy.
The other clue lies in the new Pope’s choice of name. The cardinals think long and hard about the choice of a papal nomen. It is intended as a clear signal of their intent. Much attention has focused on the previous 15 popes called Benedict. But it is worth remembering that the first St Benedict was not a pope, but the founder of the monastic order that bears his name. Benedict is the patron saint of Europe. His principal legacy — the Benedictines — was critical in planting the roots of Christianity throughout Europe in the dark, post-Roman period of the 6th and subsequent centuries. Without Benedict, Europe may not have been the centre of Christianity in the Middle Ages that made it the birthplace of modern civilisation.
The conclave clearly shared the view of John Paul II that Europe confronts another similar challenge — the lure of relativist, materialist secularism that is steadily stifling the Church in its birthplace. In choosing this Benedict, from the heart of Europe, they have demonstrated the Church’s intention to meet this challenge, not with compromise and accommodation, but with the unbending affirmation of the universal, eternal truth
-the artist formerly known as sinker
billvon 3,131
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>You probabaly haven't read a DAMN THING about what the Church
>teaches regarding the fundamental value of women. Just b/c women
>can't be priests, that means the church oppresses women? How
>incredibly myopic of you. Try to read some church documents and see
> WHY it teaches what it does, instead of just judging w/ such predjudice
> and ignorance.
I've read quite a bit, and while they were originally fairly misogynistic, they have since gotten much, much better. They still consider women not quite as capable as men in some areas (i.e. clergy) but they are now not that bad overall. In several important areas they've actually fought pretty hard for women's rights.
What's even more interesting is how they became an essentially patriarchal religion, and why they chose how to present the life of Jesus, Mary etc. The catholic church, when it first began to gather people to itself, had some not-insignificant competition from pagan religions; in most of these religions, the goddess of creation was a woman, one whose womb (the earth) gave rise to mankind. This was a pretty natural way to conceive of religion - after all, women are the sex that gives birth to humans.
Thus when judaism, then christianity, and finally catholicisim created its legends, woman was subservient to man (indeed, was made from him) and was complicit in his fall from grace. She tempted him into evil. She was the villian, partly because the competition was a fertile goddess who offered both pleasure (sex) and the power of creation. It took a powerful legend to overcome that sort of commonsense version of a god. When Mary was described later, in the New Testament, she was described as conceiving an immaculate conception. This stood her apart from the pagan goddesses who created life through sex; by describing her as inseminated from God himself, they neatly avoided the problem of a comparison to a pagan goddess.
And of course they made a lot of other changes. The 'womb' of the earth became hell. Pan became the devil. Important dates were skewed a bit (Christmas, Easter) to co-opt pagan holidays. In a lot of ways christianity was an attempt to demonize pagan religions, and they succeeded spectacularly.
That's not to say that the legends of the bible are any less inspiring, or worthy, or valid. But the early church did not evolve in a vacuum; it had a reason to denigrate women to ensure its very survival. To its credit it has largely reversed itself once the original reason (defense against pagan religions) stopped being a significant factor.
>teaches regarding the fundamental value of women. Just b/c women
>can't be priests, that means the church oppresses women? How
>incredibly myopic of you. Try to read some church documents and see
> WHY it teaches what it does, instead of just judging w/ such predjudice
> and ignorance.
I've read quite a bit, and while they were originally fairly misogynistic, they have since gotten much, much better. They still consider women not quite as capable as men in some areas (i.e. clergy) but they are now not that bad overall. In several important areas they've actually fought pretty hard for women's rights.
What's even more interesting is how they became an essentially patriarchal religion, and why they chose how to present the life of Jesus, Mary etc. The catholic church, when it first began to gather people to itself, had some not-insignificant competition from pagan religions; in most of these religions, the goddess of creation was a woman, one whose womb (the earth) gave rise to mankind. This was a pretty natural way to conceive of religion - after all, women are the sex that gives birth to humans.
Thus when judaism, then christianity, and finally catholicisim created its legends, woman was subservient to man (indeed, was made from him) and was complicit in his fall from grace. She tempted him into evil. She was the villian, partly because the competition was a fertile goddess who offered both pleasure (sex) and the power of creation. It took a powerful legend to overcome that sort of commonsense version of a god. When Mary was described later, in the New Testament, she was described as conceiving an immaculate conception. This stood her apart from the pagan goddesses who created life through sex; by describing her as inseminated from God himself, they neatly avoided the problem of a comparison to a pagan goddess.
And of course they made a lot of other changes. The 'womb' of the earth became hell. Pan became the devil. Important dates were skewed a bit (Christmas, Easter) to co-opt pagan holidays. In a lot of ways christianity was an attempt to demonize pagan religions, and they succeeded spectacularly.
That's not to say that the legends of the bible are any less inspiring, or worthy, or valid. But the early church did not evolve in a vacuum; it had a reason to denigrate women to ensure its very survival. To its credit it has largely reversed itself once the original reason (defense against pagan religions) stopped being a significant factor.
sinker 0
They still consider women not quite as capable as men in some areas (i.e. clergy) but they are now not that bad overall
***
That is incorrect. Women not being priests has nothing to do w/ capabilities. It has to do with identity. A man is a priest b/c he represents Christ. From an article by a Catholic apologist,
..."In every Mass "a man is always at the center"—the man Jesus Christ. The priest who represents him, the alter Christus, represents him best by himself being a man. That oversimplifies things, of course, but nevertheless that is a key reason (by no means the only key reason) why the priesthood is restricted to males. The priest is a "stand in" for Christ. As he re-presents the sacrifice of Calvary, the priest "is" Christ. The Mass is a divine drama, and the male lead needs to be played by a male."
I don't know why a woman would even WANT to be a priest! Same for men too, what a daunting role to be in!
As for the other things you wrote about, the whole "created it's legends" thing is a little offensive. Try a little harder not to denegrate beliefs and customs that many people hold very dear. Christianity is the story of converting mankind. It makes sense that this story incorporates and transforms the symbols and rituals of pagans.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
***
That is incorrect. Women not being priests has nothing to do w/ capabilities. It has to do with identity. A man is a priest b/c he represents Christ. From an article by a Catholic apologist,
..."In every Mass "a man is always at the center"—the man Jesus Christ. The priest who represents him, the alter Christus, represents him best by himself being a man. That oversimplifies things, of course, but nevertheless that is a key reason (by no means the only key reason) why the priesthood is restricted to males. The priest is a "stand in" for Christ. As he re-presents the sacrifice of Calvary, the priest "is" Christ. The Mass is a divine drama, and the male lead needs to be played by a male."
I don't know why a woman would even WANT to be a priest! Same for men too, what a daunting role to be in!
As for the other things you wrote about, the whole "created it's legends" thing is a little offensive. Try a little harder not to denegrate beliefs and customs that many people hold very dear. Christianity is the story of converting mankind. It makes sense that this story incorporates and transforms the symbols and rituals of pagans.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
billvon 3,131
>That is incorrect. Women not being priests has nothing to do w/
>capabilities. It has to do with identity. A man is a priest b/c he
> represents Christ.
And thus a woman, by your own argument, is incapable of being Christ-like enough to be a priest. The church considers them incapable. That's not really debatable.
>The priest is a "stand in" for Christ.
I think a woman can stand in for Christ as well as a man can. I would venture to say that a great many women I know would be far closer to the ideal Christ taught than many priests I know. Indeed, claiming that the priest has to "look like" Christ would be a better argument to exclude Asian priests than women.
>I don't know why a woman would even WANT to be a priest! Same
>for men too, what a daunting role to be in!
When I was in school, there were two kinds of priests and brothers who ran the place. Those who wanted to dedicate their lives to Christ and those that simply could not function outside a controlled environment. It worked out well; the clergy provided the support that some people needed and they put their energies into work in the name of Christ. But it was pretty obvious that there was a benefit to them - at least, some of them.
>As for the other things you wrote about, the whole "created it's
>legends" thing is a little offensive. Try a little harder not to
>denegrate beliefs and customs that many people hold very dear.
Like I said, I was not trying to denigrate anything. But it is important to understand the environment in which Christianity was created. Men wrote the bible; men who were products of their environment. A male-centric view was as important to them as, say, freedom is important to americans. That is reflected in their works.
>Christianity is the story of converting mankind. It makes sense that
> this story incorporates and transforms the symbols and rituals of
> pagans.
I agree. It made it far easier to accept, and that is one of the reasons it has been so successful.
>capabilities. It has to do with identity. A man is a priest b/c he
> represents Christ.
And thus a woman, by your own argument, is incapable of being Christ-like enough to be a priest. The church considers them incapable. That's not really debatable.
>The priest is a "stand in" for Christ.
I think a woman can stand in for Christ as well as a man can. I would venture to say that a great many women I know would be far closer to the ideal Christ taught than many priests I know. Indeed, claiming that the priest has to "look like" Christ would be a better argument to exclude Asian priests than women.
>I don't know why a woman would even WANT to be a priest! Same
>for men too, what a daunting role to be in!
When I was in school, there were two kinds of priests and brothers who ran the place. Those who wanted to dedicate their lives to Christ and those that simply could not function outside a controlled environment. It worked out well; the clergy provided the support that some people needed and they put their energies into work in the name of Christ. But it was pretty obvious that there was a benefit to them - at least, some of them.
>As for the other things you wrote about, the whole "created it's
>legends" thing is a little offensive. Try a little harder not to
>denegrate beliefs and customs that many people hold very dear.
Like I said, I was not trying to denigrate anything. But it is important to understand the environment in which Christianity was created. Men wrote the bible; men who were products of their environment. A male-centric view was as important to them as, say, freedom is important to americans. That is reflected in their works.
>Christianity is the story of converting mankind. It makes sense that
> this story incorporates and transforms the symbols and rituals of
> pagans.
I agree. It made it far easier to accept, and that is one of the reasons it has been so successful.
I guess it's similar to saying that because men can't have babies, they're less then women.
Sinker, through conversations with you about the value of women, the role they play in the world, in the family, and in the Church, and additional reading I've done over time, I tend to think that those who seriously believe that the Church is misogynistic simply because the use of the female in church services is limited tends to make me think that there's some learning which should go on, but probably won't.
And it's good to see you posting.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites