|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A decision to cross the Tiber
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
In April of this year, I joined the Catholic Church via the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. It was the end point of more than a decade of discernment. I was brought up in the Baptist Church, rejected it as a teenager, and became an Anglican in my early 40's. But I gradually came to agree more with Catholic Eucharistic theology, praying for the dead, and invoking the intercessions of the Communion of Saints. So becoming a Catholic was a logical outcome.
Yet, and here I want to stay out of dead horse territory, some on this forum, Marvin the Martian, Pyx_e and Evensong, suggested, in a thread in May, that I must be a misogynist, to join a Church which doesn't ordain women. If one accepts the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the intercession of the saints and the BVM, the only logical conclusion is to become Catholic, or, possibly Orthodox. Catholics and Orthodox don't ordain women. The Ordinary, of the Ordinariate, Monsignor Keith Newman was asked in an interview if he would accept women priests if the Magisterium sanctioned it. He said, of couse he would. I am the same.
It is my agreement with Catholic theology that led me over the Tiber, not a personal objection to women priests. So I seriously object to being accused of misogyny. How do those accusers account for the fact that Forward in Faith, and now the Ordinariate, has more women members than men? Are the women anti-women?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Link please. Or you are just making it up.
All the best, Pyx_e.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
From the Cache
Paul th* wrote; quote:
The first is that there is any misogyny. I can assure you that we love our women! We just obey the, so far, revealed doctrine of the Universal Church, that women aren't ordained to the priesthood. This isn't about misogyny, rights, or equality. It's about the received teaching of the Church.
I replied: quote:
Paul, I disagree. I accept that in the two valid for reasons for joining the Ordinariate (Scripture and Tradition) the only one that holds any water is Tradition. And I accept that you personally are not misogynistic.
However there has always been a underbelly. No one is prepared to be labelled a women hater in this day and age and are very careful about what they say or do and would rightly cry for evidence but the “tainted alters” debacle and my personal experience at for instance St Stephens House clearly indicates that some male priest are not coming from a rational or loving place when it comes to women priests. This is all at best weak, but it is unhelpful to write “we love our women!” Some of you don’t.
Secondly and more strongly me this has always been a justice issue. You deny a women the opportunity to fulfil her calling for biological reasons. You can wrap it up in tradition but it only applies because she is a women and or no other reason. While misogyny is too strong a word to describe this you have to accept that it is a far stretch from “we love our women!” It is discriminatory in the same way that discrimination by race is. If you truly loved your women (in its self a patronising phrase) you would be at the forefront of the struggle in the church to ensure this 2000 years of patriarchal nonsense was overcome. Not fleeing into a bastion.
Sorry if I have drawn to close to a Dead Horse but I could not let it pass.
All the best, Pyx_e
Today you wrote:
quote:
Yet, and here I want to stay out of dead horse territory, some on this forum, Marvin the Martian, Pyx_e and Evensong, suggested, in a thread in May, that I must be a misogynist , to join a Church which doesn't ordain women.
My bold.
So I re-quote what I said about you from the previous thread quote:
And I accept that you personally are not misogynistic.
Clear? I did not say you were a misogynist. What now?
All the Best, Pyx_e
[ 02. July 2011, 19:44: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Paul: If you will accept women priests if the Magisterium sanctions it but not unless then it seems to me that you have no objection in principle to woman priests.
If that is so then why cant you stand up for your own convictions (either for or against) instead of hiding behind some "authoritative" decree?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shamwari:
If that is so then why cant you stand up for your own convictions (either for or against) instead of hiding behind some "authoritative" decree?
I don't know what you mean by standing up for my own convictions. My convictions are Catholic and not Protestant. Some Protestant groups ordain women. Many Protestant groups don't believe in an ordianed priesthood. So I choose to join the Catholic Church which, entirely incidentally to my theological position, doesn't ordain women. So I stand by my conviction that Catholic theolgy is what I accept.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lunar
Shipmate
# 16251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If one accepts the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the intercession of the saints and the BVM, the only logical conclusion is to become Catholic, or, possibly Orthodox.
Well no, actually. All of that would be assented to by most, if not all the congregation, and certainly by all the clergy, at my liberal catholic Anglican parish church. However, they also embrace the ordination of women - and two of our regular celebrants at Mass are female. If that is not the reason why you couldn't be a member of our congregation, could you spell out what that reason is?
Posts: 51 | From: uk | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Paul
your decision is one I respect very much. I don't think I will make that journey myself probably, but I think for many Christians, they wonder, whether in their churches, they hear a clear call of doctrine and teaching at all now. Maybe in the Catholic church you have found this and it sounds very positive.
I thought you'd made a mistake by saying you'd ''crossed the Tiber'', I thought you meant the Rubicon (I checked the phrase out and I understand its meaning). May God bless you in that journey. I for one have a part of me that wishes to cross the Tiber too. Maybe one day.
Saul the Apostle
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lunar:
Well no, actually. All of that would be assented to by most, if not all the congregation, and certainly by all the clergy, at my liberal catholic Anglican parish church. However, they also embrace the ordination of women - and two of our regular celebrants at Mass are female. If that is not the reason why you couldn't be a member of our congregation, could you spell out what that reason is?
Perhaps there isn't one. Does church membership have to be mutually exclusive? Who's to say that you can't be a member of more than one church?
The trouble with the idea that membership of church A invalidates membership of church B, is that in order for church B to be able to revoke membership from one of its members, on the grounds that that member is also a member of church A, the rules of church B need to be written in a way that concedes the possibility of being a member of churches other than itself - which in turn requires the rules to acknowledge the existence of churches other than itself.
Generally speaking, churches don't like to admit that they're not the only church in town. For that reason, it's unlikely that exclusivity of membership will be properly formalised - and if it is, chances are, the rule will have the odd loophole or two, and will never be enforced.
Which means that there's really no point in playing one church off against another - and, personally, I think it sucks when people do.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Jessie, I believe the RCC most explicitly holds that once a Catholic always a Catholic. Which does not require admitting any other body is a church.
The Orthodox Church doesn't have an official teaching on this, but once you're baptized Ortho, you can be remembered at the altar forever, whatever so-called church you go to. So it's pretty much the same idea.
Thanks for playing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Please read the DH Guidelines.
In particular this para
quote:
1. Types of threads
This board is dedicated to those topics that recur with tedious regularity on nearly every multi-denominational religious debate forum on the internet. Specifically: biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, the role of women, evolution, abortion, closed communion and bitching about church music. If you want to talk about any aspect of those subjects, post your thread here. (bold mine)
The OP seeks to discuss accusations of mysogyny in the context of the Catholic Church's guidelines on the role of women. Discussions of the nature of mysogyny in general could take place in Purgatory, provided they steered clear of the role of women in churches. However the OP placed the discussion firmly in the context of the role of women in church. Therefore mysogyny as an aspect of guidelines re the role of women in church is centre stage.
That makes this thread a Dead Horse. A DH Host has, correctly, requested the transfer of the thread. Off it goes.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
I thought you converted to Judaism a couple of years ago?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Jessie, I believe the RCC most explicitly holds that once a Catholic always a Catholic. Which does not require admitting any other body is a church.
The Orthodox Church doesn't have an official teaching on this, but once you're baptized Ortho, you can be remembered at the altar forever, whatever so-called church you go to. So it's pretty much the same idea.
Yep, thanks for that.
The reason I draw attention to the non-mutual-exclusivity of different churches, is that it makes a nonsense of the idea that a decision to join one church can be rightfully seen as a rejection of another church.
However, the argument that joining the Catholic Church is misogynistic seems to be based on the idea that it constitutes a rejection of some other church that ordains women. So it's an argument from a false premise, in my opinion.
But it might be a straw man. Does anyone really think that joining the Catholic church is a misogynistic decision?
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Well, in practical rather than ideological or doctrinal or theological terms, the end result could be seen as mysogynistic.
It seems likely, in human, practical, terms that the church-segment most adamantly opposed to the OoW will probably also turn out to be comprised largely those who are also persuaded, consciously or unconsciously, of the inferior nature of the female sex. It seems likely that these will be the folk who argue longest and hardest against the OoW.
To the extent that any one individual decides, even if for quite different reasons, to align him/herself with a Magisterium which opposes OoW, even if also for other reasons, that person can certainly be seen as in alliance with that opposition.
Protests to the contrary will therefore always be seen as somewhat suspect by those favoring OoW.
If I claim to be, oh, say, pro-union, but also ally myself with an environmental group which finds that unions tend, incidentally, to work against one of my environmental group's goals, I am in something of a pickle.
It's not so much that I cannot support both environmental and pro-union stances; I certainly can. But members of either group may be forgiven, perhaps, for regarding my alliance with the other group as cause for unease concerning my motives.
The result is going to be something like this thread: a lot of energy put forth justifying my stances and explaining away any apparent contradictions to people unlikely to find these explanations convincing.
And such time and energy might better be put toward furthering the goals of one or the other group.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Yet, and here I want to stay out of dead horse territory, some on this forum, Marvin the Martian, Pyx_e and Evensong, suggested, in a thread in May, that I must be a misogynist, to join a Church which doesn't ordain women.
Only by association. If I recall correctly.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
It's not so much that I cannot support both environmental and pro-union stances; I certainly can. But members of either group may be forgiven, perhaps, for regarding my alliance with the other group as cause for unease concerning my motives.
The result is going to be something like this thread: a lot of energy put forth justifying my stances and explaining away any apparent contradictions to people unlikely to find these explanations convincing.
A very good analogy, in my opinion, I'm sure the OP will be pleased with it.
I could be proved wrong, though - but I can't help suspecting that OoW supporters are more likely to question a decision to join the Catholic church, than Catholicism supporters are to question a decision to join a group of OoW supporters.
Is the OP able to comment on whether or not he holds any formal affiliations with OoW supporter groups? The reason I ask is because, the idea that the decision to swim the Tiber constitutes a form of misogyny is perhaps more understandable (if not necessarily more correct) if such formal affiliations with OoW groups do exist than if they don't.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lunar:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If one accepts the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the intercession of the saints and the BVM, the only logical conclusion is to become Catholic, or, possibly Orthodox.
Well no, actually. All of that would be assented to by most, if not all the congregation, and certainly by all the clergy, at my liberal catholic Anglican parish church. However, they also embrace the ordination of women - and two of our regular celebrants at Mass are female. If that is not the reason why you couldn't be a member of our congregation, could you spell out what that reason is?
Same here.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lunar
Shipmate
# 16251
|
Posted
It's absolutely correct that to join one church does not imply rejection of another.
However, to leave one church for another, citing difficulties with one's former home, is another matter.
The OP'er explained his move to the RC church in terms of doctrine and practice which he stated were only present in the Roman church, or possibly the orthodox. I pointed out that this is not the case, and asked what else he might find inimical in his former tradition.
In the contemporary climate, it is an obvious question whether the ordination of women, and the prospect that women bishops will be consecrated in the Church of England, may be an issue here. If the OP'er says that is not the case, I will absolutely accept that.
Posts: 51 | From: uk | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Does anyone really think that joining the Catholic church is a misogynistic decision?
Not of itself no but I know of at least one instance where it does seem to have been.
BTW, I can also be a partial third to lunar and leo - the CofE church I attend ticks all the boxes in the OP but has signed resolutions A and B. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
One of the important doctrines within the Catholic church is that the bishop of Rome is considered as the successor of St Peter and that it is bets for Christians to be in communion with the Holy See.I don't think that this is an integral part of the doctrine of any other Christian community.
It is further Catholic doctrine that the teachings of the Church are thjose of Jesus Christ and are not changed just because we feel it would be better to do so.It is part of Catholic doctrine that bishops meeting in ecumenical council can determine what should be the mind of the Church,being guided in those moments by the Holy Spirit.
An understanding that the priesthood belongs to men ,an understanding which has been there for 2000 years cannot easily be changed and it takes some time for the whole Church under the leadership of the successor of Peter to come to a conclusion that the ministry of women in the priesthood is something which Jesus wanted from the beginning.
Of course there are mysogynistic Catholics just as they can be found in any other society,but to say that Catholics per se are necessarily mysogynistic is arrant nonsense.I don't think that this was actually being said,but it is being perhaps implied that unless one speks out and says this is wrong one is being mysogynistic.
Obviously with over a billion Catholics they can't all be mysogynistic,but of those who come into the Church voluntarily like Paul Th there is no reason to count them as mysogynistic unless one has other reasons for doing so.
Of those who joined our Catholic community this past Easter two were married women,one was an un married woman,one was a boy of 15 and two were young men about to be married soon. I, who prepared them for this step ,saw no evidence that they believed women to be an inferior sex,but they did believe the teachings of the Church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
An understanding that the priesthood belongs to men ,an understanding which has been there for 2000 years cannot easily be changed and it takes some time for the whole Church under the leadership of the successor of Peter to come to a conclusion that the ministry of women in the priesthood is something which Jesus wanted from the beginning.
I hope you taught your catechumens that the Church does not appear to be in the process of "coming to the conclusion" that Christ wills women priests, but that in fact it has been settled definitively and without ambiguity in the negative. And that this conclusion is not "misogynistic" either.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
There is only one certainty in this life - and that is death.
Amongst those coming into the community there was only one catechumen,the others being already baptised.
Actually the question of women priests never came up .No asked about it.
As you will no doubt agree Catholic doctrine as such does not change,but we sometimes come to clearer understandings of the teachings of the Church.It was not for me to state that the Church
will never admit women into the priesthood. We know for example that a Czech bishop ordained women in exceptional circumstances to the sacred priesthood and it is possible that these circumstances might arise again.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lunar:
In the contemporary climate, it is an obvious question whether the ordination of women, and the prospect that women bishops will be consecrated in the Church of England, may be an issue here. If the OP'er says that is not the case, I will absolutely accept that.
Of course it's an issue. But not because I have personal issues about women priests. It's an issue for me bacause I believe in the unity of the Church, in response to Christ's command that we be ONE. The consecration of women to the priesthood and episcopate sunders all possibility of Church unity, because the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, who together comprise around two thirds of Christendom, don't ordain women. I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Women's ordination is a minor matter against that wish.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Forthview, Catholics believe that there are other certainties than death: solemnly defined doctrines, for example. You must know as well as I do that the Church categorically judged on the invalidity of such attempts at ordination.
Here's what Bl. JPII said in his Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994): quote:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
In their response to a dubium submitted to them about whether this doctrine was really to be held definitively (i.e., was part of the ordinary infallible magisterium), the CDF responded in the affirmative:
quote:
In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium.
It doesn't get any clearer than that. You of course are not compelled to accept it. Fine. But when you exercise a duly delegated official teaching position you must not allow your doubt to replace what the Church teaches - that would be an abuse of a privileged position entrusted to you, not by Bishop X or Father Y as individuals who may or may not agree with you - but by the Church herself who has settled the issue definitively.
I understand that you were not called upon you to comment on the issue of women's ordination, but if you were it very much would be "for [you] to state that the Church
will never [because she can't] admit women into the priesthood."
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Only by association. If I recall correctly .
i'm not used to posting in DH. I know I can't make the horse any deader than it already is, so I ask Evensong:
Do you consider the Catholic Church to be institutionally misogynist? Even if you let me off the charge for my personal conviction to join it. Pope John Paul II said that he didn't consider women's ordination to be within his remit, as it wasn't sanctioned by Christ. Now we all know that a Pope, a generation down the line, may receive an updated revelation which could overturn that stance. Do you accept that the Church acts out of a theological conviction, even when you disagree with it, rather than out of any tendency to undermine Women?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
PaulTH, see above - and all the best for your journey.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
It seems likely, in human, practical, terms that the church-segment most adamantly opposed to the OoW will probably also turn out to be comprised largely those who are also persuaded, consciously or unconsciously, of the inferior nature of the female sex. It seems likely that these will be the folk who argue longest and hardest against the OoW
I'm sorry, but this is a complete load of shite. There are at least as many women joining the Ordinariate as there are men. Are they "persuaded consciously or unconsciously of the inferior nature of the female sex?"
There is a big world out there. And a big Christian world, most of which doesn't ordain women. This is not the biggest or mosty pressing problem which confronts 21st century Christianity.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
So you've decided to throw women's ordination under a bus and this is the bus that from your privileged position as a white heterosexual male, you've decided to throw it under:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of course it's an issue. But not because I have personal issues about women priests. It's an issue for me bacause I believe in the unity of the Church, in response to Christ's command that we be ONE. The consecration of women to the priesthood and episcopate sunders all possibility of Church unity, because the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, who together comprise around two thirds of Christendom, don't ordain women. I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Women's ordination is a minor matter against that wish.
[italics for emphasis]
Great, but it would be nice if proponents of this view could please not try to make claims for how non-discriminatory it is. It's a decision, in this case by the privileged, that the less-privileged are expendable in the light of their lofty thoughts about unity, theology and authority.
I might want to belong to a 'whites-only as key office bearers' golf club because I reckoned it was the only golf club which had access to the original, beautiful and true rules of golf which I love for their purity because I'm a golf nut. I might never think a bad thought about non-white golfers in my life. But you know what? If I let my beautiful historical speculations and love for golf trump the equal treatment of black golfers, I'd still be an institutional racist.
But but but... some of my black golfing buddies love the club's ancient and unique character so much, and they think the course is so sublimely beautiful, that they dont mind being relegated to waiting upon the white golfers, being allowed to run the kitchen and the hospitality events, and being consigned to having a blacks-only team which is never ever allowed to be part of the sacred deliberations on the Rules Of Golf or to play in the Most Sacred Original Tournament, because that's traditionally for whites only and always has been.
Why, some of them have even written books on what a privilege it is to be allowed into the clubhouse, and how what they do is Just As Important as what the white people do - because who could imagine a Most Sacred Original Tournament without the serving roles being taken on by black people!
This is what is called 'internalised racism' where people having been brought up with ideas of what people of their race are good for and what a 'good person' of their race does, buy into those organisations which have institutionalised racism. There are often benefits for them in doing so. They get to play on the beautiful beautiful Most Ancient Course, don't they? With the Most Authentick Rules! That feels so great, and it's so worth putting the telescope to the blind eye for.
And to the white chaps, that proves that what they are doing is fine, because they see so many happy black chappies who are so contented with their assigned roles, not like those nasty uppity ones!
For a white person to ditch a golf club trying to undo its racist legacy to go to one where the racist legacy is in full force is a racist act. It may not be done for racist reasons. It may be done for pure love of the game. But for someone to decide from a position of privilege that their lofty thoughts about the One True Pure Game of Golf trump the need to worry about justice for black people, and that equal treatment for them is a 'minor matter' is a manifestation of unconscious never-questioned white privilege.
So to return to your question, fine, it's a beautiful experience full of spiritual richness for you, but to get it, it's necessary to throw women and gay people under a bus and to sign up for institutional discrimination against them. I hope it's worth it for you.
L.
[ 03. July 2011, 23:25: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
for someone to decide from a position of privilege that their lofty thoughts about the One True Pure Game of Golf trump the need to worry about justice for black people, and that equal treatment for them is a 'minor matter' is a manifestation of unconscious never-questioned white privilege.
You have a lot more faith than I do in the hardiness of any social justice whatsoever if it were cut off from the nourishment of the church, i.e. the one true church. I do not regard the church as an ornament or accessory to the extent that it reflects approved values in western secular society, but as the historical and spiritual foundation of most of them. Even without the claims of the RCC to infallibility, its size commends it to the greatest respect and assurance as at least fully a part of the true church. The claims e.g. of Anglicanism are less certain, and possibly less still as time goes by and its differences from the RCC widening. I must admit this even as an Anglican myself: one takes a risk, and one can only hope and pray that one's reasons for doing so are worthy. The time may come, as it apparently has for PaulTH, that the risk no longer seems worth taking.
If the ordination of women is the will of God, then it will surely happen in the RCC.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Do you consider the Catholic Church to be institutionally misogynist?
It clearly is.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There are at least as many women joining the Ordinariate as there are men. Are they "persuaded consciously or unconsciously of the inferior nature of the female sex?"
Maybe they are. It is possible to collaborate in your own oppression. Read what Louise said about internalising.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The claims e.g. of Anglicanism are less certain...
I'm not sure what that means.
quote:
...and possibly less still as time goes by and its differences from the RCC widening.
Widening? It doesn't look like that from where I'm sitting.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The claims e.g. of Anglicanism are less certain...
I'm not sure what that means.
Apostolicae curae etc. To those for whom valid orders are a concern, every Anglican must acknowledge those of Rome, but no RC is permitted to return the favor.
quote:
Widening? It doesn't look like that from where I'm sitting.
Then from where you're sitting you must be able to see RC bishops secretly ordaining and consecrating women. I can't, from where I'm sitting.
[ 04. July 2011, 01:01: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
You have a lot more faith than I do in the hardiness of any social justice whatsoever if it were cut off from the nourishment of the church, i.e. the one true church. I do not regard the church as an ornament or accessory to the extent that it reflects approved values in western secular society, but as the historical and spiritual foundation of most of them. Even without the claims of the RCC to infallibility, its size commends it to the greatest respect and assurance as at least fully a part of the true church.
Thanks but as a woman I'm doing just fine without the 'one true church' as far as social justice is concerned, and arguments that 'size is important' don't impress me one bit.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Apostolicae curae etc. To those for whom valid orders are a concern, every Anglican must acknowledge those of Rome, but no RC is permitted to return the favor.
Yes, but so?
quote:
quote:
Widening? It doesn't look like that from where I'm sitting.
Then from where you're sitting you must be able to see RC bishops secretly ordaining and consecrating women.
I've seen RC bishops - including an actual Pope on TV - worshipping in Anglican churches. I've seen the new RC Catechism which recognises Protestant churches as churches. I've seen & attended joint services with RC and Protestant ministers co-operating to lead them. I've read papers written by the present Pope that are nearer to Protestant ecclesiology than anything since the Reformation. I've seen even Evangelical Anglican churches, and Methodist ones too, use a form of Eucharistic service that no-one but a liturgy geek could tell from the current RC Mass in English if it wasn't for a few Hail Marys here and there and prayers for the Pope (and my local Anglo-Catholic parish church has those as well). That is literally true - I've seen Polish and Hungarian and Czech visitors to London walk into our low-church evangelical Anglican church and not notice that it was Protestant until they were talking to us after the service. I've attended RC masses and been able to follow the words without a book. Just last week I went to both Cathedrals in Liverpool and their bookshops were selling books about the other one. I've seen (again on TV) the Roman and Anglican bishops of that city leading joint services. I've seen a Presbyterian church near Glasgow whose woman minister is married to a Catholic man. I've been in the house of my Mum's cousin in Glasgow, a Boy's Brigade leader and an elder of the Kirk, and he (or his Catholic wife) has an RC Missal on their shelves. On TV I've seen Taize brothers (technically Presbyterian) and RC bishops taking Communion together at the funerals of both the late Pope and of Brother Roger.
None of that would have happened a hundred years ago. Most of it would have been impossible forty years ago. Yes, we are getting more like each other. The gap is narrowing.
If Martin Luther was alive today he'd probably be able to stay in communion with the Pope. If the present Pope had been alive in the 16th century with the theological opinions he has now he would almost certainly have become a Lutheran. Less divides Protestant and Catholic than ever before.
The ordination of women is a side-issue. Its a done deal in the Protestant churches and we are not going back on it. When Rome gets round to ordaining women - which they will one day and I would not be surprised if it was in my lifetime - the Vatican lawyers and legislative drafters will no doubt find a form of words to prove that it does not contradict the last few hundred years of teaching. They are good at that. Its what they do.
What really divides Protestant and Catholic is the papacy, and nothing else. The strange idea that the Church on earth needs a single human boss - whether he is the Bishop of Rome or anyone else. When they get over that one, the splits of the Reformation will be done with. Being human, we'll no doubt have found some other issues to fight about by then.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Does anyone else see the massive problem in the second sentence?...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Thanks but as a woman I'm doing just fine without the 'one true church' as far as social justice is concerned, and arguments that 'size is important' don't impress me one bit.
Cars can continue a few hundred feet down the road after they have run out of gas. I assume that you have been able to avoid living in any Muslim enclaves on the European continent.
If size doesn't matter, the other side of that coin is the idea that one's small minority alone could be right when everyone else is wrong-- not only wrong but hell-bound. I'm not that arrogant.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Does anyone else see the massive problem in the second sentence?...
Not until you pointed it out. Not so much in the second sentence alone but in the two combined.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes, it really is the two sentences combined. It's during the second sentence that it hits you, though.
Frankly, if one is aiming for undivided church of the first millennium, the Orthodox would seem to be the best bet. Rome was the odd one out who split off and went in a different direction, separate from the other four patriarchs.
And I say all this as a Protestant.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thank you Ken , well said.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
My liberal parents crossed the Tiber a couple of years ago (Maybe more, they didn't consult me about it ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
I go to a very liberal TEC church, and they've come to church with me a few of times. (Dad is really big into the obligation business, Mom not so much)
Their reasons for crossing had much more to do with local church politics than theology or liturgy.
I know that they still hold to their previous liberal convictions, although they are aware that their church heads don't. How that works for them, I'm not sure, but it does.
Would they ever go back? Probably not. They burned (and so did their previous church) too many bridges when they crossed.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Only by association. If I recall correctly .
Do you consider the Catholic Church to be institutionally misogynist?
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Pope John Paul II said that he didn't consider women's ordination to be within his remit, as it wasn't sanctioned by Christ. Now we all know that a Pope, a generation down the line, may receive an updated revelation which could overturn that stance. Do you accept that the Church acts out of a theological conviction, even when you disagree with it, rather than out of any tendency to undermine Women?
I would ask what they are basing their premise on.
Can't be scripture or tradition.
The Pope doesn't accept slavery.
That was both scriptural and traditional.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Does anyone else see the massive problem in the second sentence?...
Yes.
Why is unity more important than truth Paul?
And if you equate unity with truth then you have to go back far further than the Reformation.
And like others have pointed out and I have previously, the orthodox and the catholic are not undivided.
The divisions go even further back.
And if you study any church history you will know most of the councils were not undivided at all.
There was hard core politics going on all the time. Not reminiscent of the accord of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
It seems likely, in human, practical, terms that the church-segment most adamantly opposed to the OoW will probably also turn out to be comprised largely those who are also persuaded, consciously or unconsciously, of the inferior nature of the female sex. It seems likely that these will be the folk who argue longest and hardest against the OoW
I'm sorry, but this is a complete load of shite. There are at least as many women joining the Ordinariate as there are men. Are they "persuaded consciously or unconsciously of the inferior nature of the female sex?"
There is a big world out there. And a big Christian world, most of which doesn't ordain women. This is not the biggest or mosty pressing problem which confronts 21st century Christianity.
Oh, I love this argument: "Group XYZ can't possibly be anti-ABC because there's a large contingent of ABC in Group XYZ!"
Which, I suppose, only means that you are either unaware of what "unconsciously" means, or think there's no such thing as unconscious motivation.
As a result, there can never exist any such phenomenon as anti-semitic Jews, mysogynistic women, homophobic gays, or bigoted black people, etc.
Some years back, I read somewhere there's reputed to be one or two African-American members of the Ku Klux Klan. Your impeccable logic proves that this organization is an upstanding representative of racial equality.
As for the OoW being a minor issue, I might agree -- except insofar as it represents, in the "big world out there," a longstanding, deep-rooted, world-wide, ongoing discrimination against half of the human race.
Not so minor after all, I think.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Thanks but as a woman I'm doing just fine without the 'one true church' as far as social justice is concerned, and arguments that 'size is important' don't impress me one bit.
Cars can continue a few hundred feet down the road after they have run out of gas. I assume that you have been able to avoid living in any Muslim enclaves on the European continent.
If size doesn't matter, the other side of that coin is the idea that one's small minority alone could be right when everyone else is wrong-- not only wrong but hell-bound. I'm not that arrogant.
I suspect the only proper place for responding to your comments is Hell, but let me have one last go.
This statement smacks of really ugly racism:
quote:
I assume that you have been able to avoid living in any Muslim enclaves on the European continent.
and thank you, but yes, I have lived and worked in Woodlands, the main Muslim community area in Glasgow. I work with Muslim colleagues. Right next to me in the parliament we have Muslim MSPs. Their record on social justice is just fine, thank you. If you think waving the scary muslim bogey card is the way to promote Catholicism, I think you will find the Scots Catholics posting here will want nothing to do with your arguments. People like Cardinal O'Brien have set an excellent example on interfaith relations. It's not normal for Catholics here to make racist arguments attacking Muslims to promote their faith. I'm sorry if that's the case where you live.
quote:
If size doesn't matter, the other side of that coin is the idea that one's small minority alone could be right when everyone else is wrong-- not only wrong but hell-bound. I'm not that arrogant.
The last time I looked, women were not a small minority. However when you think of these things historically or in world terms, people who think it's fine for women to be be treated as inferior or to have inferior rights or opportunities to men are a vast majority.
Within that group you can also count millions upon millions of women who have been brought up to internalise those values and to go along with customs and traditions which harm them and their daughters. So 'size commends' a body or party to respect does it? Well, no it fucking doesn't when the big battalions are on the side of making sure your uppity arse is kept down.
These arguments about unity and tradition are fine if you're a bloke. Even if you're a gay bloke, so long as you are willing to sacrifice a normal gay partnered family life for what you get out of the church, you can go all the way to the top and play a full part in ecclesiastical life. For women, they involve buying into a system of historic institutional sexual discrimination.
That this registers as only a 'minor matter' or leads to people being puzzled because the word 'misogyny' was mentioned - well what can I say? - it must be nice to be so privileged that one can be oblivious of such issues.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
If you think waving the scary muslim bogey card is the way to promote Catholicism
Oh, is that what he was doing? It looked like a complete non sequitur to me.
Louise ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lunar:
Well no, actually. All of that would be assented to by most, if not all the congregation, and certainly by all the clergy, at my liberal catholic Anglican parish church. However, they also embrace the ordination of women - and two of our regular celebrants at Mass are female. If that is not the reason why you couldn't be a member of our congregation, could you spell out what that reason is?
In February, on another thread, I wrote:
quote:
Absolutely! And that is what The Church should always be! Though Christianity has been spread throughout the world by colonisers, historically it's the religion of Europe which spread West into the Roman Empire. It stands to reason, IMO, that those churches closest to the source, ie the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, which were founded by the Apostles, are the closest thing we have to "real" Christianity. St Mark founded the Coptic Orthodox Church. St Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch, as well as Rome. Although many accretions may have grown up in those churches, by the end of the first century, they all believed in the Apostolic Succession, the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, the sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine. Despite their differences, such is still held to this day by Orthodox and Catholic Christians. Theological differences arose between the Greek speaking East and the Latin speaking West and, after the fall of the Western Empire and its overrun by heathen barbarians, the Western Patriarch was forced to exercise political power to a degree unaceptable to the other patriarchs. Hence schism. When the Protestant reformers wanted to challenge the many corruptions in the medieval Church, they threw the baby out with the bathwater and reinvented the wheel. New ideas such as penal substitutionary atonement, sola fide, sola sciptura, double predestination, te abolition of bishops and in some cases clergy and the Eucharist as a memorial only, were never taught or believed within the Universal Church in its first 1500 years.
While I fully expect our Protestant members to disagree with this anlysis of history, you will see that nowhere do I mention women. It is just my personal take on the Church, and demonstates that I don't consider women's ordination to be anything like as important as the Apostolic Succession. I have long believed that the Church of England avoided some of the excesses of European, or even Scottish Protestantism by retaining a strong liturgical tradition and keeping the threefold ministry.
Ken has pointed out many times on this forum that the Church of England is, and always has been Protestant. This is in spite of the attmpts by the Oxford Movement and later Anglo-Catholic tradition to try to reconnect it with its Catholic roots. Though I've been to many Anglican Churches where prayers are said for the dead, and the intercessions of the saints are sought, none of this comes from authorised Church of England canon. The use by Anglo-Catholic parishes before 1980, of the English Missal, and later of the Novus Ordo Rite has always been canonically illegal, and Diocesan bishops would be quite within their rights to crack down on such practices.
Once I accepted the Mass as a Sacrifice for the living and the dead, the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the intercessions of the saints and praying for thr repose of the souls of the departed, it became a logical step to become Catholic, which has little to do with women's ordination. Although some of these things may be found in lunar's parish, they are contrary to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and can only be found in the C of E in canonically illegal liturgy.
That it took me a decade to reach this conclusion isn't the point. We are all evolving our consciousneess throughout our lives. I agree with Ken that eventually women's ordination will come in the Catholic Church. Should I live to see it, I will welcome it. But to me it is less important than the faith and practice of the Church to which I belong.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I agree with Ken that eventually women's ordination will come in the Catholic Church. Should I live to see it, I will welcome it. But to me it is less important than the faith and practice of the Church to which I belong.
Fair enough.
We all choose the lesser of all evils according to our tastes.
But why bring it up again then?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Once I accepted the Mass as a Sacrifice for the living and the dead, the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the intercessions of the saints and praying for thr repose of the souls of the departed, it became a logical step to become Catholic, which has little to do with women's ordination.
Interestingly, these are all part of the liturgy of the US Episcopal Church (although "sacrifice" is a bit ambiguous - and some people here object to this idea in any case). "Real Presence," of course, is also left to be a bit of a mystery and is not "transubstantion" in any case (I don't think even Anglo-Catholics here go there). But prayers for the dead are definitely in each version of our Prayers of the People - and in the Burial Rite, too, I believe.
Not arguing; just pointing it out, that's all.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PaulTH*, your latest post still doesn't clear up why you went Catholic. If anything it merely strengthens the point that you should have, by your own logic, converted to Orthodoxy.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But why bring it up again then?
Simply because I've been ruminating for a few weeks on the idea that a decision to join the Catholic Church must have some misogynistic element in it. But I don't have much more to say on the issue!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PaulTH*, your latest post still doesn't clear up why you went Catholic. If anything it merely strengthens the point that you should have, by your own logic, converted to Orthodoxy.
As some members of this board will remember, I did seriously consider conversion to Orthodoxy at one time. I certainly accept that from both a historical and geographical perspective, it is the cradle of Christianity, and founded by the Apostles. So, incidentally, would Pope Benedict XVI accept that. I am also quite partial to elements of Orthodox theology. There are probably two things which make Orthodoxy difficult for me. Much as I admire its beauty and authenticity, I feel uncomfortable with the Orthodox Divine Litugy and the use of icons, as extensively as they are used in the Orthodox Church.
Also, I could never have belonged to the pre Vatican II Catholic Church, where it taught that it was the only form of Christianity, and refused any ecumenical contacts. The Orthodox does this still. It's attitude to ecumenism seems to be that, "when the rest of the world repents from its schism from us, we can talk. Until then we have nothing to talk about." I don't find this very helpful. The Ordinariate is ideal for me. We can retain elements of Anglican litugy and hymnody, which I love, while being in communion with the See of Peter. We can even recognise Orthodox orders and sacraments, even though they afford us no such courtesy.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
You have a lot more faith than I do in the hardiness of any social justice whatsoever if it were cut off from the nourishment of the church, i.e. the one true church. I do not regard the church as an ornament or accessory to the extent that it reflects approved values in western secular society, but as the historical and spiritual foundation of most of them.
You know, I read the above, and then I read my history textbooks. I see that the Roman Catholic Church often used to preach about social justice when it was the most important political entity in Europe. And I see it used to make token efforts to try to implement something, while upholding the Divine Right of Kings. I then see the giant leaps forward we have made since first the Reformation and the Enlightenment. And even the giant leaps forward the Roman Catholic Church has made in the last hundred years at being civilised, and I come to the conclusion that the less power the RCC has the better an entity it is. And the less we bend the knee before priests and kings the closer to those ideals rooted in history, preserved by the RCC and brought to the fore by the Enlightenment and still further by the 20th Century we are.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
