August 24, 2012

"The Republicans are smart enough to get the ‘pope of America,’ and the Democrats are stupid enough not to invite him."

"The Catholic vote is the most critical vote. They’re the wild card... So, why wouldn’t you ingratiate yourself to the pope of America and send a wink and a nod to Catholics?"

Who's the "pope of America"? It's Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan:
He's also a scholar and a passionate defender of the church's traditional views on what he calls "settled questions." If you've ever wondered why exactly the Catholic church opposes gay marriage and ordination of women as priests, listen to Dolan articulate the church's beliefs. It's far from a simple matter of saying "no."...

For example, here's the archbishop on gay marriage: "I have a strong desire to play shortstop for the Yankees. I don't have a right to because I don't have what it takes. And that would be what the church would say about marriage."
I was playing the video on that, and Meade said: "He sounds like Scalia." And I said: "That's what I thought!"
And here's Dolan arguing against the ordination of women as priests: "Jesus gave women positions of responsibility. The only ones at the foot of the cross except for St. John? Women. The people that discovered his resurrection? Women. The people that were with him on his journeys? Women. People say, 'This guy was kind of a pioneer in women's rights.' So, if he were going to intend them for the priesthood, he woulda done it. And he didn't."
Got that?

249 comments:

1 – 200 of 249   Newer›   Newest»
alan markus said...

Another Wisconsinite!! (was in Milwaukee 2002-2009).

Wonder how many points that will be good for getting Romney/Ryan to carry WI.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

"The Catholic vote is the most critical vote. They’re the wild card... So, why wouldn’t you ingratiate yourself to the pope of America and send a wink and a nod to Catholics?"

Because the Democrats think Catholics (and all Christian types in general) to be the untermensch and figure it's time they were put in their place.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

It's easier to believe your political opponents are evil if you don't listen to what they actually think.

rhhardin said...

There would be a lot of bruised knuckles if there were women priests, just going by the record with nuns.

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Haz said...

The Dems are waging the War Against The Unborn. Archbishop Dolan is not welcome on their battlefield.

Speakers at the DNC must be pre-certified as bedrock pro-abortion, or they don't get onto the speakers' list, nor probably into the building.

Big tent bullshit, yadda yadda yadda.

They are missing a big opportunity. Dolan is a rock star in the American Catholic Church, and a very charming and engaging man as well. Having him deliver the closing benediction wold attract Catholic voters.

Maybe Annie Laurie Gaylor can fill in.

Seeing Red said...

I'll say it again, my BFF is Catholic. Her priest is socially liberal, he was fuming at the BC requirement. They're a small congregation, but he let them know it.

Mogget said...

Eh, I work with Catholics and I don't think that Dolan has as much influence as is attributed to him.

Pogo said...

Rev. Wright can goddamn America! to open.

An adverse blessing, but fitting the platform.

shiloh said...

Dwindling church going Catholics aside, and totally disgraced Catholic ((( covering up for deviant pedophiles )))church hierarchy notwithstanding, the concept of an American pope is somewhat amusing.

Indeed, "us" Catholics are quite independent. But of course on the upside for mittens, he has the Mormon vote locked up :-P except for Harry Reid lol.

Scott said...

What if Dolan went up to the dais for the benediction at the Democrat convention -- and got booed? I bet they're worried about that.

karrde said...

sounds like Scalia.

Scalia is Catholic, isn't he?

(Aside: I think a plurality, possibly a majority, of the Supreme Court are Catholic.)

Michael Haz said...

Plus, maybe he could do a exorcism on Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz while he was there.

Ann Althouse said...

"Scalia is Catholic, isn't he?"

Everyone on the Supreme Court is either Jewish or Catholic.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

Shiloh--Catholic church attendance has been stable since the mid-90s, though it's below what it was in the mid-20th century. And despite some hiccups, Catholic Church membership is still growing faster than the population, though not by much.

Shouting Thomas said...

These are not issues of logic, nor are they meant to be.

Althouse, your attempt to subject these issues to the standards of your academic legalism just proves that you don't belong to the faith.

And, thus, what goes on within the faith is none of your business.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"These are not issues of logic, nor are they meant to be."

I think the Catholic Church would disagree with you on that. To them, they actually are issues of logic and reason. And faith as well, of course.

Pogo said...

Just to drive the point home, the Democrat benediction should have Debbie Wasserman Schultz perform an abortion onstage.

Celebrate abortion, America!

Chuck66 said...

It's amazing how much anti-Catholic bigotry there is in the Democrat party. Want to see the hate? Any time an article about the Catholic churc come up in the Milw Journal, Wisc State Journal, or Minneapolis Star-Tribune, read the comments.

It makes right wing anti-Catholic bigotry of 80 years ago look pretty tame.

Seeing Red said...

After Lech W. gave his blessing, the Poles (& I am 1, tho not Catholic) will be paying attn & the Hispanics might, too.

Chuck66 said...

Shiloh, the problem wasn't pedophiles, it was homosexual priests who liked teenage boys.

The church under JP2 and the current pope have done quite well in dealing with the liberal gay priests of the 60s and 70s.

shiloh said...

"stable since the mid-90s"

According to who, the Catholic church?

In any event, the Catholic church, like most religions are all about donations. And of course you can't "trust" donation statistics according to the Catholic church also.

Interesting w/the dwindling priest #s, the church is relying more on ordained Deacons. Oh, the irony. I digress.

Bottom line, if you believe in the Bible, you vote for Obama. ok, ok, the Bible can be "interpreted" every which way to Sunday! depending on one's social, religious, political agenda.

So it shall be written, so it shall be done!

Chuck66 said...

I would rather see a smaller but true Catholic church in the US, than one that tries to change every year to keep up with latest trends.

Shouting Thomas said...

Attendance at Catholic churches is largely driven by the character of the presiding priest.

My friend Father Rod, who I call the Laughing Priest, routinely filled every pew at a parish that is just about empty now that he has been recalled to the Philippines to teach seminary.

Father Rod is a true man of God who loves his parishioners and guides them with compassion and humor. The congregation laughs its way through Mass with him.

His parishioners are struggling like hell to get him back.

deborah said...

"And here's Dolan arguing against the ordination of women as priests: "Jesus gave women positions of responsibility. The only ones at the foot of the cross except for St. John? Women. The people that discovered his resurrection? Women. The people that were with him on his journeys? Women. People say, 'This guy was kind of a pioneer in women's rights.' So, if he were going to intend them for the priesthood, he woulda done it. And he didn't.""

A stellar chain of logic. Not.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The largest growing segment of the Catholic Church is Hispanic. This is a group that Obama needs and is pandering to by breaking the laws on immigration. While at the same time, the Democrat party is making a celebration of abortion and gay marriage which is contrary to the views of the church and to the values of most Hispanics.

In addition making the central plank of the Dem party a celebration of homosexual marriage will not endear them to the religious Black community.

The approach seems very schizophrenic to me. I think they are grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to splinter people into warring groups and get the splinter votes.

alan markus said...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz perform an abortion onstage.

Dang it, with a little bit of planned parenthood (Alan Grayson could have provided the necessary component*), she could have gotten pregnant 6-7 months ago & then had the abortion performed on her, ala Katie Couric's colonoscopy (I won't bother linking that YouTube).

* = I guess the possibility of a Wasserman/Grayson spawn would probably turn a lot of conservatives pro-choice though.

shiloh said...

No Chuck66, the problem was the cover-up, your distinction w/out a difference notwithsatnding.

Chuck66 said...

Shiloh, how is membership doing at leftwing churches like the ELCA, and other old legacy Protestant churches? They adapt every liberal trend. Gay marriage. Abortion, illegal immigration. Anti-defense. Anti-gun. Global warming...I mean Climate Change. Nationalized health care.

Shouting Thomas said...

God is the father.

That's why priests must be men.

What you folks want to do is destroy the Church.

The Church, I hope, will ignore you. I know a lot of priests and several bishops, because I worked for years as a church musician.

Believe me, my friends in the priesthood know that you folks want to sabotage the Church. The Church has a long history of dealing with saboteurs masquerading as reformers.

Go somewhere else if you don't like the Catholic Church.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

" "stable since the mid-90s"

According to who, the Catholic church?"

Actually, according to Gallup and just about anyone else trying to do the measuring. And I'll be nice and actually give you a link to the data. Though I suspect that won't be enough for you. Data never is enough for those who are already convinced they're right.

Chuck66 said...

Shiloh, I do agree with you on that. The church handled the problem with gay priests having sex with boys, very poorly. Its almost a though they were in denial that this was really happening.

Over the past 25 years, they have made many changes to deal with this.

Pogo said...

Man, they need a lesbian Episcopalian priest to do a gay marriage onstage first, then a ritualized abortion performed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

It's morning sickness again in America, so Celebrate Abortion!

Else they gonna put y'all in chains!

Lem said...

Maybe Obama is waiting for Dolan to register..

Oh wait.. you got to be invited first and then you register.

Ok.. never mind.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Just from my own anecdotal observations. The demographics of the Catholic Church have changed. Most of the elderly parishioners are literally dying off. The pews are filled with very devout younger people, families with children and about 80% Hispanic.

The main masses at our church are conducted in Spanish and the English mass is much less attended. Years ago, the Spanish mass was an occasional occurrence, now it is the main practice. That doesn't bother me since I was raised in the Church with the Latin mass being the norm. I actually prefer the mass not being in English, however the sermon or homily in Spanish is a bit difficult to follow since my Spanish skills are rusty.

The point is that the Catholic Church is changing to younger and Hispanic. This is a good thing for the survival of the Church. The Republicans are wise to recognize this group.

Freeman Hunt said...

Why are there empty chair editorial bits sprinkled in the interview?

shiloh said...

hmm, would people lie to a pollster about church going? But I would trust Gallup over anything coming from the church.

I stand corrected, if Gallup's poll is believable. hmm, religious faith is all about belief in the abstract.

A certain symmetry! :)

Fr Martin Fox said...

Adding to Cardinal Dolan's point about our Lord not calling women to holy orders...

The argument is often made that Jesus didn't do it (but presumably expected future generations to do so), because the Jewish community--to whom he appealed first--couldn't handle it. Or, perhaps more specifically, the Apostles couldn't.

Here's the problem with that:

1. Our Lord said and did a lot of things that his fellow Jews "couldn't handle," such as, "Moses said...but I say" and, "the Father and I are one," and of course, the biggie, "I AM." One time they reached for stones, another time they sought to push him off a cliff; and of course, he eventually got turned over to the Romans to be crucified. So much for that argument.

2. So let's examine the, "the Apostles weren't ready for it" argument. Well, in addition to argument 1, let me add this. The Apostles, in sticking with him, had to go along with Jesus being God, and Jesus being a Messiah who would be humiliated and murdered (not what anyone hoping for Messiah wanted), and then, after all that, then they had to go along with letting in the "dogs" (Gentiles) and setting aside the ritual laws. It's all in the New Testament, how big a deal this was; there were conflicts between the Apostles at some points over this.

Oh, and don't forget, the Lord also told the Apostles they could never get divorced (read Matthew 19 about how little they liked that), and that they had better be prepared to suffer and die.

(Meanwhile, as far as women in leadership: remember that women had been prophets, led men into battle, and ruled over Israel. They had never been priests; yet the priesthood of the New Covenant was something very different from the OT priesthood.)

So...the argument boils down to this: the Apostles could go along with their entire world turned upside down, and facing excruciating deaths...but they couldn't accept women as priests? Other than assuming the worst about them as men...where's the evidence for this?

It's a dumb argument.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"hmm, would people lie to a pollster about church going? But I would trust Gallup over anything coming from the church."

Confirmed, then, data isn't enough to convince you you're wrong. People will do just about anything to keep their biases confirmed.

Argue against the Catholics if you like, I don't much care. But if you're going to argue effectively you might want to actually argue from facts rather than from wishful thinking.

shiloh said...

"argue from facts"

Re: facts, Romney better hope recent polls aren't accurate.

'nuf said!

carrie said...

The democratic party is neither inclusive nor tolerant--it's all or nothing on every single social issue and its position on these issue are set by a small group of its members. I think that many of the rank and file of the democratic party are finally waking up and realizing that the democratic party doesn't like them or respect them--the party just wants their vote and their cash.

Michael said...

Absolute beliefs are the most infuriating to "progressives.". When you have no belief other than the sanctity of abortion how else would you feel when face to face with moral conviction?

shiloh said...

"is neither inclusive nor tolerant--it's all or nothing on every single social issue and its position on these issue are set by a small group of its members."

Republican party in a nutshell!

Saint Croix said...

"He sounds like Scalia."

I'll bet Dolan knows what a person is, though.

And I'll bet Dolan wouldn't suggest that states have a right to kill newborns, or the "incompetent elderly."

The Catholic view that abortion is a homicide is one I happen to share. And not because I'm Catholic, but because I can read our death statutes and I believe our Supreme Court should follow the law.

I feel that Scalia has set up a wall of separation between his Christian beliefs and his jurisprudence. Which is fine and good, unless it's made him look the other way as the government starts killing babies.

Christianity informs much of our law, including the ancient Christian hostility to infanticide. The Catholic church may be wrong on specifics, such as their opposition to birth control. But their opposition to infanticide is right and good. And Scalia is quite wrong when he closes his mind to these issues.

To me the Scalia dissents represent a man who is not thinking about abortion, who has shut his brain off and just wants this issue to go away.

bbkingfish said...

President Obama is the luckiest American politician since Ronald Reagan.

Cardinal Dolan? Really? I can't believe the GOP teed up the Catholic sex abuse disgrace for a thorough rehash by the MSM.

Dolan paid off priests who abused kids, helped them relocate as "civilians" to new communities without informing those communities of their predatory behavior. Then, when asked about his role in the coverup, Dolan lied about it. Now, since his lying has been uncovered, Dolan refuses even to answer questions about his off-the-books financial support of his pedophile priests. Some "rock star."

Paterno supporters take heart! You have a home in today's Republican Party!

Carnifex said...

I would suggest to Shiloh that Zero is closer akin to Pilate than Jesus. Pilate couldn't be bothered to vote more than "Here" either, and look how far he got!

But this could never happen. Everyone "knows" Mormons are satanist cranks bent on ruling the world. The Catholic Church would never agree to share it.(this is "sarcasm", for the Zero voters)

Ann Althouse said...

"Althouse, your attempt to subject these issues to the standards of your academic legalism just proves that you don't belong to the faith."

That is the argument for excluding religion from political discourse. Is that where you want to go?

There is a lot of writing on that issue, which is one of the topics we study in my religion and the Constitution course.

Here. Read that.

LarsPorsena said...

"..In any event, the Catholic church, like most religions are all about donations..."

Sounds like the Democratic Party. It's all about the donations.

Chuck66 said...

Actually Shiloh, when I went to my cacaus in Minnesota, during the platform discussion, we debated:

-Abortion (should there be restrictions or not)
-Conceal-Carry. Should that be allowed.
-Increased gov't spending on mass transit (including Amtrak).

The votes tended to go about 60-40% in favor over the "conservative" position.

Do you think Democrat gatherings have 40% of their attendees take the conservative position on those things?

The most common denominator amongst Republicans where I lived was ecomonic freedom. That and a strong forign policy (but not a blank check on defense spending)

Lem said...

It could also be.. a simple matter of aesthetics and taste.

Going by the 2008 extravaganza I say Obama is a Greek Column guy.. and Dolan, is a safe bet that Dolan is Roman Column guy.

Of course these are very powerfull men and they are not going to admit to this... this weakness.

We need a Column Beer Summit.

Chuck66 said...

Irony is that the Catholic church is still quite liberal. Look at illegal immigration. Or some anti-business views they have. Or for loose law enforcement.

Its just that the Democat party has moved so far to the left, they have even left the liberal Catholic church behind.

Carnifex said...

Christ Shiloh, can you elevate your arguement above the level of "I know you are, but what am I"?

Did you ever graduate third grade like your mother wanted? You can join Jethro as being a "double naught spy"!

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"Re: facts, Romney better hope recent polls aren't accurate.

'nuf said!"

I'll just repeat what I said about wishful thinking. It applies to both sides when it comes to polls and elections.

deborah said...

"God is the father.

That's why priests must be men.

What you folks want to do is destroy the Church.

The Church, I hope, will ignore you. I know a lot of priests and several bishops, because I worked for years as a church musician.

Believe me, my friends in the priesthood know that you folks want to sabotage the Church. The Church has a long history of dealing with saboteurs masquerading as reformers."

God is the father, God is also as a mother hen caring for her chicks. Your concept is too simplistic for the creator of the universe.

How, exactly, is female priesthood a threat to the church?

Paddy O said...

Jesus never appointed any gentiles to positions of authority, even though he commended various gentiles throughout his ministry.

So, for his authority to be valid it can't depend on the types of people that Jesus appointed as I'm assuming Timothy Dolan is not Jewish, God bless him.

Paul in Acts fights for the rights of gentiles to participate fully in the church, and on occasion says some very nice things about women leaders in the church.

The Christian faith doesn't run very well as a binarian faith. There's the tricky part of the Spirit that gives gifts to whoever it'll give gifts to, and some of those gifts are leadership.

But, my understanding is that the Catholic Church's position on women priests doesn't really have to do with who Jesus appointed, but has a lot more to do with what Catholic's see as the role of the priest. It's not that Jesus appointed only men, it's that Jesus was a man. So, only men can be priests.

Which is a more consistent argument, one I also disagree with because I disagree on the place and role of priests in the church. But, that's why I'm a protestant.

elkh1 said...

""The Republicans are smart enough to get the ‘pope of America,’ and the Democrats are stupid enough not to invite him.""

What a silly comment!

"Catholic church opposes gay marriage and ordination of women as priests."

Democrats see an insufficiently evolved anti-gay, war-on-women bigot. Democrat "Catholics" such as Pelosi, Kennedy, John Kerry don't mind killing unborn babies. Obama wanted to kill botched-abortion survivors. Obamacare forces Catholic Church hospitals to provide contraceptions, and abortions(?) Dare they send an invite for a rebuff?

shiloh said...

"but not a blank check on defense spending"

Paul Ryan appears to be out of the loop.

As an independent, I'm not gonna sit here and defend the Dems as the party of total inclusion, but Althouse cons spewing Republicans as the party of democracy is somewhat amusing, especially regarding the 2000 election lol.

ok, ok, America's a Republic, not a Democracy.

In any event, the list is quite extensive re: what Reps are totally against, speaking of absolutes. Of course they only say they're totally against something, but in real life hypocrisy flourishes among cons. ie Reps recently railing against Akin, but what Akin actually believes about rape/abortion is part of the Rep platform, unless "they" delete it next week lol.

>

When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to pause and reflect! ~ Mark Twain

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"Its just that the Democat party has moved so far to the left, they have even left the liberal Catholic church behind."

I am in the odd position, I guess, of defending the Catholics despite not being one. It's difficult to peg Catholics as either liberal or conservative given the right-left divide in the US. They've been a rather large swing constituency in US politics. Churchgoing Catholics tend to be Republicans, non-churchgoing Catholics tend to be Democrats. Like any group, they have hot-button issues that will send them over the edge, and for Catholics who are Democrats, those issues are different (immigration, death penalty) than they are for Catholics who are Republicans (abortion, birth control). And then there are some Catholics who are twitchy on all those issues, including (generally) Catholic Hispanics.

Anyone speaking of courting the "Catholic Vote" doesn't know what they're talking about. Better to speak of which Catholics. Bringing Dolan on is a clear sign that the GOP is courting traditional, churchgoing Catholics. Which is no real surprise, honestly.

Paddy O said...

"your attempt to subject these issues to the standards of your academic legalism just proves that you don't belong to the faith."

Attempting to subject issues to the standards of academic thought and often legalism as it occurs in each generation is what the church has done since the Gospels. You think Jesus wasn't debating Jewish law with the Pharisees?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Dolan would make a completely non partisan blessing in the Convention and would then go on to interviews where he would completely make the case of the Catholic church. It is the interviews that the Democrats fear.

edutcher said...

Sounds like the little animal is walking past the graveyard again.

He's Catholic like he's a vet.

deborah said...

"2. So let's examine the, "the Apostles weren't ready for it" argument. Well, in addition to argument 1, let me add this. The Apostles, in sticking with him, had to go along with Jesus being God, and Jesus being a Messiah who would be humiliated and murdered (not what anyone hoping for Messiah wanted), and then, after all that, then they had to go along with letting in the "dogs" (Gentiles) and setting aside the ritual laws. It's all in the New Testament, how big a deal this was; there were conflicts between the Apostles at some points over this."

And black men got the vote before black women and white women. See a connection?

"Oh, and don't forget, the Lord also told the Apostles they could never get divorced (read Matthew 19 about how little they liked that), and that they had better be prepared to suffer and die."

If precedent is so relied upon, why can't priests marry today?


"It's a dumb argument."

Dumb as it may be, you did not counter it.

Dr Weevil said...

shiloh's just not very good at thinking or writing, Carnifex. Example: after several days of hearing people whine about the phrases "legitimate rape" (as if rape were ever legitimate!) and "forcible rape" (forgetting all about the statutory kind), shiloh writes "deviant pedophiles" (8:45am) as if there were some socially-acceptable non-deviant form of pedophilia. She writes without thinking, as Todd Akin talks without thinking, so it's best to ignore her.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"As an independent, I'm not gonna sit here ..."

Shiloh, you'd have more luck convincing Dolan to perform a same-sex blessing than you would have convincing anyone here that you're an independent.

Seeing Red said...

--As an independent--


I met one of those last week. He was kidding himself, too.

Saint Croix said...

I'm assuming Timothy Dolan is not Jewish, God bless him.

Ouch!

Saint Croix said...

Also, he's speaking English!

Michael said...

"How, exactly, is female priesthood a threat to the church?"

It isnt. It is simply a rule of the church. The church, infuriatingly, does not ordain women to the priesthood. Because they want their priests to be males. They cant have it their way if you have it your way. Madenning, huh?

yoobee said...

Saint Croix: "I feel that Scalia has set up a wall of separation between his Christian beliefs and his jurisprudence. Which is fine and good, unless it's made him look the other way as the government starts killing babies."

Perhaps you know something that I don't, but in which cases did Scalia show himself as someone who looked the other way on abortion? He has been fairly consistent (maybe less so than Thomas, but still consistent) in his condemnation of abortion.

yoobee said...

Saint Croix: "I feel that Scalia has set up a wall of separation between his Christian beliefs and his jurisprudence. Which is fine and good, unless it's made him look the other way as the government starts killing babies."

Perhaps you know something that I don't, but in which cases did Scalia show himself as someone who looked the other way on abortion? He has been fairly consistent (maybe less so than Thomas, but still consistent) in his condemnation of abortion.

Shouting Thomas said...

deborah,

The structure of the Church is based on the Church's concept of the correct structure of the family.

Althouse, I'll read the tract when I've got the time. Working today.

shiloh said...

ERN, trust me, I'm not gonna convince anyone here of anything ie the nature of the uselessness of political blogging.

btw, I'm a liberal independent. Better? :)

hmm, no word verification ...

Sloanasaurus said...

I'm not catholic so I don't care much what the church dies regarding its priests. However, most people I hear complaining about things like woman's rights to be priests, are people who hate the church to begin with. Nevertheless, they have these opinions. There are plenty of other churches that have woman pastors, allow gay marriage, etc... What's the point of attacking one church for not doing these things?

For example, I heard one liberal complaining that it was immoral that a catholic hospital (funded by the church) in Africa was not offering contraception to the African people it served. There was no mention by this liberal about the wonderful fact that catholics had chosen to put a church there. All she cared about was whether the people had contraception.

ricpic said...

I assume the "Got that?" at the end is snark.

Althouse, a thoroughly modern unbeliever, let's us know she ain't buyin' Dolan's commitment to Christ's word.

Roy Lofquist said...

"Re: facts, Romney better hope recent polls aren't accurate.

'nuf said!"

http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/

"At Pew Research, the response rate of a typical telephone survey was 36% in 1997 and is just 9% today."

I'd say that the polls are just about as accurate as Ann's amusing joke polls.

The exit polls, supposedly the most accurate, had Walker losing in the Wisconsin recall election by 9%. We all know how that turned out.

I live in central Florida - ground zero. In the last two months I have declined to participate in about 20 polls. Some friends have reported doing the same.

At this point in 1980 Carter was ahead by 11%.

If you want to get some glimmering about what's happening quit listening to the astrologers.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"How, exactly, is female priesthood a threat to the church?"

Unless you are a Catholic, why should you care?

I don't care if the Episcopalians want to have female priests or whatever it is that they call them in that position. It isn't any of my business.

Hagar said...

The left wing of the Democratic Party is working very hard at returning to their preferred status as a didained and unappreciated minority.

Seeing Red said...

Ahhh, nuance. Don't think so.

Shana said...

" How, exactly, is female priesthood a threat to the church?"

Well, you could take a lesson from the Protestant churches. Those denominations that ordain women are dying, those that don't are robust and growing. There are exceptions to this rule, but it is certainly true overall.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"btw, I'm a liberal independent. Better? :)"

Clarifying, at least. In that it confirms that you're not actually an independent.

shiloh said...

"Arguably the most important event of the entire 1980 presidential campaign was the second presidential debate, which was held one week to the day before the election (October 28). On October 26, two days prior to the debate, Gallup released a survey that suggested that Carter was leading Reagan by a margin of 47% to 39%. Over the course of two hours, the entire race changed drastically, and what was considered an extremely tight race with the President slightly ahead became a comfortable Republican victory for Reagan. Nothing of that magnitude has happened since in any televised confrontations."

Again, the "uselessness" of comparing 1980 to 2012, notwithstanding as "media" has changed a tad in the interim.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

Critics of the lack of women priests in the Catholic Church usually approach it from a secular-equality point of view. That makes sense, because most of them are secular. But the Church, while not completely immune to such arguments, has other priorities. It's why they're a church. And as others have said, I'm not sure why anyone not affiliated with the church even cares. Doubly strange--those advocating that the church change to conform to society at large are usually the same ones arguing in favor of diversity. Even though the church changing to "fit the times" would mean less of the same.

It's almost as if they don't really believe in diversity. Or, at a minimum (and more likely), they just haven't thought out the full ramifications of their own beliefs. Which puts them at a disadvantage with the Catholic Church which actually has thought all these things out. Over and over again for a long time.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but it's occasionally interesting.

Christopher in MA said...

How exactly is female priesthood a threat to the church?

It isn't. Dolan is pointing out the obvious - had Christ (who is, after all, the Son of God and is both all-powerful and omnipotent) wanted there to be women priests, He would have created them. It's not as if priestesses were unknown in the ancient world; Judaism was an anomaly in that regard. What Dolan is trying to pound into the ears of the why can't I have it now the church is a bunch of old white men generation is that the Church does not have the authority to create women priests, because Christ did not give Her that authority.

Here's an alternate view - whenever the Bible is brought up in regards to homosexuality, someone is bound to say, "well, Jesus didn't say anything about gays, so he must not have had a problem with it." The same argument can be used against women priests - if they were so important and necessary, Christ would have mentioned them. But He didn't.

And this is pissing into the wind, but - I'll take complaints about pedophile priests seriously when those of you getting your hate on against the Church can prove you're just as offended by the much larger percentage of government school teachers molesting their students.

deborah said...

"It isnt. It is simply a rule of the church. The church, infuriatingly, does not ordain women to the priesthood. Because they want their priests to be males. They cant have it their way if you have it your way. Madenning, huh?"


No, I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I am annoyed by the weak arguments.

DBQ, wow. Not that it's relevant, but I was raised Catholic. I have a great-uncle who is a priest and an aunt who is a nun. And even if none of the above were the case, I fail to see how it is your concern that I am discussing the issue. Having said all that, I will still vote for you as queen.

shiloh said...

"not actually an independent."

Not registered, nor have I ever been registered a Dem. Interesting concept ie a registered Dem, who usually votes Dem down ballot, but always votes Rep for president. And vice versa for a registered Rep.

As "they" could be viewed as quite independent or not, depending on one's perspective.

Have I voted Republican? A few times ... very few! btw, I would never vote for Dennis Kucinich lol.

TosaGuy said...

"I'm not catholic so I don't care much what the church dies regarding its priests. However, most people I hear complaining about things like woman's rights to be priests, are people who hate the church to begin with."

Ding. Ding. Ding. Ding.

The Catholic Church certainly brings lots of criticism on itself, but there is a bit too much glee by its opponents when they pile on.

Bender said...

The Republicans are smart enough to get the "pope of America"

Dolan is a rock star in the American Catholic Church


Argh.

There is NO "pope of America," and that blowhard Bill Donohue (who really does hurt the cause more than he helps it, even if not as bad as an Akin) does no one any favors by using that phrase.

Moreover, there is NO "American Catholic Church." None. It is the Catholic Church, period. Or, if you prefer, the Catholic Church in America, to distinguish the one universal Church from her presence in other areas.

Bender said...

The largest growing segment of the Catholic Church is Hispanic

The largest growing segment of the Catholic Church is in Africa.

Michael said...

Deb. ". No, I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I am annoyed by the weak arguments. "

There is no requirement for the church to argue according to your rules. You would not trouble to read and understand their theological arguments and would resort to the "what does it hurt" level of sophmoric discourse.

garage mahal said...

My favorite argument of all time is "well, until you sufficiently address this other argument that has nothing to do with this argument, your opinion means nothing!"

shiloh said...

Re: the 1980 election, mittens ain't no Dutch as it's extremely amusing when a con tries to compare Romney to Reagan.

Or when a con tries to compare mama grizzly to Nixon.

Christopher in MA said...

I am annoyed by the weak arguments.

What weak arguments? Father Fox give you a very good primer on why there are no women priests (although - and Father, correct me on this - there can be women cardinals). I added my own poor mite.

They aren't weak arguments. You just don't like them, which is another thing entirely.

shiloh said...

Hey, I have a soft spot :D for Bill Donohue, as he was the only fool who "tried" to defend Cardinal Law of Boston just before he was whisked off to a Vatican desk job!

Shana said...

"Paul in Acts fights for the rights of gentiles to participate fully in the church, and on occasion says some very nice things about women leaders in the church."

Like, " But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence"?

When we have moved and had to look for a new church, a woman pastor was a sign to cross that church off our list, because it says a lot about what a church is willing to compromise with the culture on.

Where there are women pastors, performing gay "marriages" , or fake healing services soon follow.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"There is no requirement for the church to argue according to your rules."

It seems to me that by definition a church is not going to argue according to your rules, especially when they have different first principles. It's not that the arguments are weak, they're just made from a different philosophical perspective. Religious people aren't arguing from bare naked reason (though you can argue seculars aren't either, but that's a different discussion).

Saint Croix said...

in which cases did Scalia show himself as someone who looked the other way on abortion? He has been fairly consistent (maybe less so than Thomas, but still consistent) in his condemnation of abortion.

Scalia has never condemned abortion.

He's condemned Roe v. Wade as an illegitimate opinion. Not the same thing.

Scalia has discussed the possibility that abortion might be a homicide, and said that such an argument is a value judgment and cannot be resolved legally.

I believe that's an insane thing to write. American law has always resolved death and homicide issues legally.

Scalia, without comment, has accepted the Blackmun argument that an unborn baby is a legal non-person, and she has no right to life. Without discussion, Scalia has defined the baby as sub-human, as property.

Indeed, in his Casey dissent Scalia suggests newborns and the "incompetent elderly" might not be people, too.

Scalia draws an analogy comparing abortion to bigamy. That only works as an analogy if you accept the liberal argument that abortion involves no baby.

Scalia's dissents are not pro-life. He has not put his brain to work on the homicide issue, at all. Has not thought about it. He's disengaged and sloppy.

Christopher in MA said...

I presume that snark was addressed to me, garbage? It holds true - ask the Church-bashers if they give a damn about schoolchildren being molested, and they sputter about that being different, as though there are degrees of molestation.

Or ask them if they even know the percentages of Protestant ministers and rabbis who have been found molesting their congregants. You'll get nothing but a blank stare.

But I expect nothing less than nonsense from you. Go back to wanking off over that upcoming John Doe indictment, you hack.

Bender said...

as far as women in leadership: remember that women had been prophets, led men into battle, and ruled over Israel. They had never been priests; yet the priesthood of the New Covenant was something very different from the OT priesthood

A clarification, if I might, Father.

In fact, at the time of Jesus and the Apostles, there were plenty of priestesses in pagan religions. The service of women in pagan rites was well-known. So it is not as if it was an unknown concept to them, it is not as if it had never occurred to them as arguably a possibility.

But "women priests" were rejected out of hand, not because Jesus and/or the Apostles wanted to suppress women, not because the idea was unknown to them, but because, given the nature of the ordained priesthood, that is, given the essence of Holy Orders, a "woman priest" is an ontological, theological, and sacramental impossibility.

EMD said...

How exactly is female priesthood a threat to the church?

How exactly is male-only priesthood a threat to you?

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"My favorite argument of all time is "well, until you sufficiently address this other argument that has nothing to do with this argument, your opinion means nothing!"

The problem being that one side actually does think the other argument is important (even prior) to any other argument. Again, it's why these arguments often go nowhere: we're all arguing over what we're arguing about.

jimbino said...

The words appropriate to Dolan's reasoning are:

specious, casuistic, jesuitry.

What Jesus countenanced or did not specifically repudiate cannot be taken as rules for today, otherwise most RC priests would be fishermen (maybe fisherpersons?).

wildswan said...

Catholics have continuously asserted that there is rational basis for thinking that God exists and a rational basis for the moral positions of the Church. By rational was meant philosophical and the prime assertion of the Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy was that there is a natural law from which universal principles were derived. And the Declaration of Independence is in this tradition.

But there is a school of philosophy to which Obama probably belongs, a school represented by Richard Delgado. Delgado wrote an article for the Harvard Civil Rights journal of which Obama was one of the editors in 1989. (Minority Law Professors’ Lives: The Bell-Delgado Survey, 24 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 349 (1989)). This school of thought takes a sociological approach to principles. And Obama's only known law article which was on abortion argues that the opponents take their positions based on their social position. (This article is discussed at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2855978/posts).

What I am saying is this: The catholic Church strongly supports the philosophical position from which the Declaration of Independence derives and Obama strongly opposes that philosophical position. There could be a rational debate about those philosophical principles. A church cannot not be excluded from debate on issues of social policy if that church asserts that its moral position can be defended on rational grounds.

From a different point of view, the sociological point of view, how stupid is it to pick a fight? Yes, the Catholic Church is divided but the "youth vote" and the "senior vote" in the Catholic church goes to Archbishop Dolan. Obama is forcing the others, the boomer liberals, to confront their consciences. He may find that they have one, that Pelosi, Biden and some nuns on the run from their vows are not guides to the Catholic vote.

Finally, how about this fact: the African-American birth rate has fallen below replacement level (Since 2006). The group is dying out. But Obamacare tries to increase the percentage of minorities using birth control, tries to increase the rate at which African-Americans are dying out. It's more important to Obama and the Democrats that Sandra Fluke can hook-up than that the African-Americans survive as a group. So if boomer liberals wanted to explain away their vote for Mitt Romney, they could always say that they did not want to accelerate the decline and fall of the African-American group in America.

I think history will judge Obama as the great betrayer, a quisling selling out his people for a place at the table.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I don't understand the desire of some people to 'change' the Catholic Church to make it similar to other religious organizations. If you are a Catholic, you have a few options. Accept the beliefs of the Church or leave the Church and find a religion that reflects your beliefs.

It is the same thing as those in the Republican Party (RINOs) that want to morph the Party into a mirror reflection of the Democrat party. If you don't want to be a Conservative or be a Republican, have the courage to say so and join another political party.

Democrats, bitching about the Republican party and wanting to change it and influence the picking of candidates so that it reflects the same issues. Yes. The Republican platform is anti-abortion....get over it. That is why you are NOT a Republican and why we have more than two political parties and why there are multiple religious groups you can choose to affiliate with.

Leave the Church or accept the Church. To do otherwise is to try to make the Catholic faith, or Protestant faith, or Jewish faith...all be the same. They aren't and that is as it should be. Freedom of religion and your freedom to CHOOSE which one suits your inner soul.

deborah said...

"The structure of the Church is based on the Church's concept of the correct structure of the family."


Thanks, ST. I see where you're coming from. There's a lot to be said for heirarchy and tradition.

Michael, I hope your psychic abilities serve you well in the future.

Saint Croix said...

Even in Carhart, when the baby is halfway out of the birth canal, nobody on the Supreme Court applies equal protection to her. Nobody argues she's a citizen now. Nobody argues that murder statutes might apply. Here is a case that puts extreme stress on the born/unborn distinction. And yet nobody brings it up?

Scalia's dissents, like all the abortion dissents, have been incompetent from a pro-life point of view.

John Hart Ely's article, "The Wages of Crying Wolf," has been far stronger in critique than any Supreme Court dissent, by far. And Ely is pro-choice!

Scalia's dissents have been incredibly incompetent. And yet Scalia is far smarter than I am. So why hasn't he made the rather obvious argument that some abortions might be a homicide?

After all, Texas was punishing abortion as manslaughter!

I believe Scalia has no interest in charging the Supreme Court with infanticide. He doesn't want to harm his institution. So he looks the other way, shuts off his brain, and just wants to overturn the case.

That's the most he has done so far. Actually accusing the Court of infanticide? He has not done that. He has not spoken for the baby's right to life, or fought for it.

Shana said...

"What Jesus countenanced or did not specifically repudiate cannot be taken as rules for today, otherwise most RC priests would be fishermen (maybe fisherpersons?)"

This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Really? That's what you are going with?

shiloh said...

DBQ, according to polls :) 98% of Catholic Women use contraception which the church is totally against. Should those 98% leave the Catholic church?

William said...

Religious people aren't looking for truth but for certainty. I suspect that the irrational elements of the Catholic faith are part of the bond that Catholics have with their church....I can see why the Church would wish to defer to tradition and make the celebration of the mass a priestly and male function. I don't see why the Church would wish to keep women in an inferior administrative function, however. I think the abuse scandals would have been aborted had the investigative and disciplinary offices been put under the direction of nuns. There should be Church offices that give women some authority over priests.

garage mahal said...

But I expect nothing less than nonsense from you. Go back to wanking off over that upcoming John Doe indictment, you hack.

You're the one bringing up hacks arguments because you have nothing else, hack, not me.

Bender said...

Is it unfair and unjust that a woman cannot be a Father?

A woman can no more be a Father (priest) than a woman can be a Father (parent).

It is not merely a matter of what a priest does, it is a matter of what a priest is on the level of fundamental being. And a woman, because of the nature of her being, cannot "be" a priest.

This does not make women less than men or less than priests. To be sure, our priests are not above us, lording it over us. Although we do owe them respect, our priests, properly understood, have lowered themselves to be servants. To be a priest means to empty oneself and become lowly, and not to huff up in pride and make demands or accuse the Church of wrong.

No one has a right to be a priest. NO ONE. No man has a right to be a priest, and no woman has a right to be a priest. The priesthood is not a right, it is a service, it is something to which one is called.

Jesus did not put out want ads in the Israel newspapers soliciting Apostles to hire; rather, He went out and called them Himself. And He did not establish just any kind of organization to proclaim the Gospel and help Him in the work of salvation; rather, as the Bridegroom, Jesus specifically established the Chuch as His Holy Bride, two become one Body.

It is His decision as to who is called, it is His decision as to what the nature of the Church is; it is His Church and not ours to reinvent as we might want Her to be.

EMD said...

DBQ, according to polls :) 98% of Catholic Women use contraception which the church is totally against. Should those 98% leave the Catholic church?

Those are al a carte Catholics, which my wife was one until recently.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

The all-male priesthood comes from the fact that at the Last Supper, when Christ instituted the Eucharist, he also ordained his Apostles [even that Judas Priest]. Mary, nor any other woman, attended. Thus no women were ordained. Nor are they to be.

And if you want to know how central women are to His ministry, just look at the things the Blessed Mother was at: Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity, Presentation, Finding in the Temple, The Miracle at Cana, his public ministry, Scourging, Carrying his cross, Crucifixion, Entombment, Ascension...

Catholics aren't the only denominations with an all-male preacher requirement. The WELS Church and Orthodox churches agree on this, too. Why don't people concern themselves with these folks, too?

MadisonMan said...

I think a better idea would be to invite a couple leading economists to discuss why Obama's policies are bad for the economy, but that might be too wonky for some of the delegates clamoring for Red Meat Social Issues.

creeley23 said...

Alienating Catholics this year is political stupidity. Here's Peggy Noonan on the subject:

Mr. Obama has become actively bad at politics. Here is an example of how bad. Anyone good at politics does not pick a fight with the Catholic Church during a presidential year. Really, you just don’t. Because there’s about 75 million Catholics in America, and the half of them who go to church will get mad. The other half won’t like it either.

Whether you like Noonan or not she's right. The Catholic vote could be the difference between winning or losing for Obama.

Christopher in MA said...

DBQ, according to polls :) 98% of Catholic Women use contraception which the church is totally against. Should those 98% leave the Catholic church?

To begin with, the percentage is wrong. Not that you'd believe me, anyway, but it is.

Secondly, plenty of Catholic women (and men) steal, lie, take the name of God in vain and whatever else. Should they leave the Church?

In any event, whether a Catholic woman uses birth control or not is between her and her confessor (or God). It is none of my business, nor yours. The Church would like the women to follow Her teaching, but She cannot force them.

You ought to read Humanae Vitae. Paul VI was a very prescient man.

But that would presume you were actually interested in making an argument rather than being a second-string garbage mahal.

jimbino said...

Shana,

Have you heard that arguments should have some content apart from mere ridicule and ad hominem? Unless you're cruising for a divorce, of course.

shiloh said...

"al a carte Catholics"

Is there a difference between cafeteria Catholics and a la carte Catholics?

The menu?

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"Religious people aren't looking for truth but for certainty."

Come on, now. That's ridiculous.

shiloh said...

"The Catholic vote could be the difference between winning or losing for Obama."

That's like sayin' the sun may or may not shine tomorrow.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Clarifying my 10:54 comment: Neither Mary, nor any other woman, attended the institution of the priesthood. Sorry.

EMD said...

Can men be nuns?

jimbino said...

"Anyone good at politics does not pick a fight with the Catholic Church during a presidential year. Really, you just don’t. Because there’s about 75 million Catholics in America" is a flawed statement, because most of those 75 million Catholics, especially its own nuns, are picking fights with the Papacy, too, when it comes to women's rights over their own bodies and their place in society and the church.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

Jimbino, some arguments are so silly and ignorant that they deserve ridicule. I'm not even religious, and I agree with Shana's response to that one.

Christopher in MA said...

You're the one bringing up hacks arguments because you have nothing else, hack, not me.

In other words, you got nothing.

furious_a said...

I don't care if the Episcopalians want to have female priests or whatever it is that they call them in that position.

But the Episcopalians ought to take note. The Anglican Communion is fissuring over the issues of ordination of women and homosexuals, and of the blessing of same-sex unions, with individual churches and entire dioceses (sp?) opting out. They've got problems in Africa, too, home to more than half of all Anglicans. Bishops at conclaves are refusing to take communion together over these issues.

It's the faiths and denominations trying to make themselves contemporary that are hemorraghing (sp?) parishioners. People can get 'contemporary' by staying home and watching TV.

Bender said...

God created man in His image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them

That "man" is male and female is not coincidental. That is, the fact that man (singular) is male and female (plural) means something. It goes to the very essence and nature of who and what humanity is, of who we are as human persons.

And the joinder of man and woman, two become one, is likewise not coincidental or merely a matter of biological reproduction (much less a matter of recreational hooking up).

In the Theology of the Body, that the complete man is male and female, each incomplete without the other, and the joinder of man and woman in fruitful communion, two become one, is the image of God's entire historical and eschatological plan, including His plan for the Church, which is both Mother and Bride.

Shana said...

Well, Jimbino, I usually steer clear of ad homs, but this one was a Siren song, calling unto me. I could not resist the temptation.

So, to rectify the situation I'll ask:
Were all the apostles fishermen? Correct answer: no. There was even an IRS agent among them. Could a fishermen be called to the priesthood today? Correct answer: yes.

Stupid argument. No ad hominem now.

deborah said...

"The all-male priesthood comes from the fact that at the Last Supper, when Christ instituted the Eucharist, he also ordained his Apostles [even that Judas Priest]. Mary, nor any other woman, attended. Thus no women were ordained. Nor are they to be."


They weren't present at the meal because it wasn't the custom for women to eat with men. They were not ordained because of the Jewish
culture. For you to say 'nor are they to be,' is premature. Things change as time goes on. The current dismal state of the priesthood is due to social pressures, such decline in attraction to the priesthood leading to lesser men opting for it.

MadisonMan said...

cafeteria Catholics and a la carte Catholics

Is there any religion that has followers who follow all edicts scrupulously? I doubt it.

jimbino said...

Bender,

If you could read Genesis in Hebrew, you'd find out right away that God is plural.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"Things change as time goes on."

This is part of the fundamental disagreement. From the perspective of Catholic theology regarding the priesthood, it very specifically does not change over time, for all the reasons people have explained above.

deborah said...

"A clarification, if I might, Father."

Fr is part of his username. He is not a priest.

Nathan Alexander said...

garage mahal said:
My favorite argument of all time is "well, until you sufficiently address this other argument that has nothing to do with this argument, your opinion means nothing!"

That may be the first time you've ever told the truth.

I agree that it is your favorite argument of all time, because you do use that same argument construction more than anyone else here.

Bender said...

Now, if the Church is both Mother and Bride, and the priest is an alter Christus, who acts in persona Christi in the sacraments, Christ being the Bridegroom espoused to His Bride, the Church, the priest likewise is "espoused" to the Church, with this union of Father/priest and Mother/Church producing spiritual children.

creeley23 said...

I was raised Catholic and taught by Irish nuns and priests -- that horror story. I left the RCC for the usual reasons. Aside from the occasional Good Friday and Easter I haven't been back.

Nonetheless, I recognize the good the Church has done and continues to do, I know many good Catholics, and I will defend the Church from the ignorance and bigotry that has re-arisen against it.

jimbino said...

OK, Shana, try this one:

Jesus had no disciple who was a woman, a physicist or a goy. Should physicists and goyim, along with women, be barred from the modern priesthood?

EMD said...

Is there any religion that has followers who follow all edicts scrupulously? I doubt it.

I know many Muslims who do not.

Bender said...

If you could read Genesis in Hebrew, you'd find out right away that God is plural.

If I read Hebrew, I would read in scripture that God is One.

If I read further in scripture, I would come to understand that this One God (singular) is also a Trinity (plural), a loving communion of three persons in one divine being.

Man, male and female, is made in the image of, not merely some generic God, but is made in the image of the Triune God. And like Him, we human persons are also made to exist in a loving communion of persons, many made one.

EMD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shana said...

Luke the physician, though not a physics professor, was a goy. As was the Canaanite woman, and the Roman Centurion whose servant Jesus healed. Dumb argument.

EMD said...

Fr is part of his username. He is not a priest.

So he's lying?

jimbino said...

Madison Man,

You must know by know that there are religions that do not work by means of "edicts."

Unitarian/Universalists and modern UCCs are famous for not having edicts: they often just "vote" on their doctrine and they welcome Jews and declared atheists.

garage mahal said...

Is there any religion that has followers who follow all edicts scrupulously? I doubt it.

And the majority of Catholics aren't hard line right wing conservatives, yet all we ever see from media is a red faced lunatic like Bill Donohue yelling in someone's face representing all Catholics.

Andy R. said...

The fusion of the Republican Party and Catholicism will be bad for the Republican Party and bad for Catholicism. I'm not sure how someone can have any familiarity with history and not realize that.

Bender said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jimbino said...

Shana,

Luke, like Paul the inventor of Christianity, was not one of the Disciples. Here's your Sunday School lesson:

The Disciples:
Simon Peter - Fisherman, son of John

Andrew - Fisherman, son of John and Peter's brother

James - Fisherman, son of Zebedee, son of Boanerges (thunder)

John - Fisherman, son of Zebedee, Boanerges (thunder), brother of James

Philip - From Bethsaida

Matthew - tax collector, son of Alphaeus

Nathaniel (Bartholomew) - from Cana, a "true Israelite"

Thomas

James, son of Alphaeus

Simon, the Zealot - Guerrilla fighter

Judas, son of James

Judas Iscariot - Guerrilla fighter, son of Simon

You are probably one of those myriad RCs who has no clue as to the meaning of the recently invented Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Shana said...

Don't forget Martians, Jimbino, or computer programmers. I don't think he had any of those either.

Shana said...

Actually, Jimbino, I am Protestant.

Since Luke wrote a gospel and knew Jesus' mother, I am pretty sure he counts as a disciple.

Your original post said disciple, not Apostle. Get a life.

Bender said...

Deborah -- just let it go, huh?

Father Martin Fox is a Catholic priest at St. Rose Parish in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Chef Mojo said...

The largest growing segment of the Catholic Church is in Africa.

This is true with Anglicans, as well. And both are on the literal front lines of combat with Islam. This is going to get very interesting down the road, as a militant Church emerges out of Africa, encompassing the two sects, combined with the Hispanic aspect. Christianity is due for a lurch to the right and a Revival.

Shana said...

Apparrently, Jimbino, you need to go back to Sunday school to leanr the difference between disciples, followers of Jesus and his teaching, and Apostles. And as I pointed out before, a number of the Apostles were NOT fisherman. Either way it is an ignorant argument.

deborah said...

My apologies to Father Fox. I incorrectly recall him saying he had children. I must have been reading a quote in his post.

creeley23 said...

"Anyone good at politics does not pick a fight with the Catholic Church during a presidential year. Really, you just don’t. Because there’s about 75 million Catholics in America" is a flawed statement, because most of those 75 million Catholics, especially its own nuns, are picking fights with the Papacy, too, when it comes to women's rights over their own bodies and their place in society and the church.

* Most of those 75 million are not picking a fight with the papacy.
* None of those 75 million are running for President in 2012.

shiloh said...

"Is there any religion that has followers who follow all edicts scrupulously?"

There's a difference between sin er weakness and just refusing to follow a tenet of the church because one disagrees w/the rule.

jimbino said...

Shana,

You need to learn some history. Jesus was never a Christian; he did not recognize the "apostles," though St Paul claims to have met him in a flash of light.

Many books of the New Testament were written by impostors, claiming to be St John or St Acts(!), etc.

shiloh said...

btw, the most interesting "political" discussions are almost always about religion ~ go figure!

deborah said...

"This is part of the fundamental disagreement. From the perspective of Catholic theology regarding the priesthood, it very specifically does not change over time, for all the reasons people have explained above."

Just yesterday I was considering how progressivism is an evolutionary dead end, in that it leads to a type of ennui and anomie as seen in native Europeans, which leads to decline in birth rate. I can see that holding onto tradition is a conservative value, as talked about by Jonathan Haidt. So, rock on, Catholicism.

shiloh said...

Re: America er conservative thinking.

200+ years of tradition, unhampered by progress ...

Shana said...

Yeah, Jimbino. Whatever. Be a good boy and go reread your well worn copy of The DaVinci Code.

alan markus said...

shiloh said...
DBQ, according to polls :) 98% of Catholic Women use contraception which the church is totally against. Should those 98% leave the Catholic church


Not so -

If a statistic sounds too good to be true, be wary. A spokesman for Pelosi said she was saying that 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives — because that is how the media characterized it.
But, judging from the examples above, the media has gotten it wrong. The journalistic shorthand has been that “98 percent of American Catholic women have used contraception in their lifetimes.” But that is incorrect, according to the research.
“The shorthand is not what our statistic shows since we only looked at women aged 15-44 who have ever had sex,” Jones said.


As she pointed out, “In social science circles, sexually active means you had sex recently. Sexually experienced means you’ve had sex at least once.” The full NSFG survey (table 5) shows that 86.8 percent of women ages 15-44 have had vaginal intercourse.

Doesn't quite add up to "98% of all Catholic women" now, does it?

The claim that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception: a media foul

paul a'barge said...

It all started with who took the first bite of the forbidden fruit: woman.

alan markus said...

shiloh said...
Re: America er conservative thinking.

200+ years of tradition, unhampered by progress ..


Or looking at the 98% of Catholic women use birth control, we can paraphrase:

Re: Shiloh progressive thinking.

Many years of thinking, unhampered by intelligence...

Really need to quit getting all your info from KOS & MoveOn & Huffington.

Mr. D said...

This is going to get very interesting down the road, as a militant Church emerges out of Africa, encompassing the two sects, combined with the Hispanic aspect. Christianity is due for a lurch to the right and a Revival.

This is 100% correct. I would not be surprised in the least if the next Pope hails from Africa or South America.

Marshal said...

creeley23 said...
Nonetheless, I recognize the good the Church has done and continues to do, I know many good Catholics, and I will defend the Church from the ignorance and bigotry that has re-arisen against it.


Bumped

furious_a said...

...because most of those 75 million Catholics, especially its own nuns, are picking fights with the Papacy, too,..

That may be, but those are debates within the Church, under Church governance regarding Church teachings. Within the family, as it were.

Where the Obama adminstration crossed the line, over and above and probably more important than the contraceptive/sterilization/abortofacient mandate itself, is to legally mandate what constitutes a ministry. The narrow "religious employer" exception essentially dictates to the Church that its ministry is only to other Catholics, and excludes charities, schools, hospitals and other functions. The Church rejects this on the basis of 2,000+ years of practice AND the First Amendment.

Also on the basis of the Obama Administration's thinly-disguied attempt to drive recalcitrant private and religious entities (i.e., competitors) out of the charitable/educational/health-care 'public square'.

Whatever beef contraceptive-using Catholics, dissident nuns and Jesuits have with the old men in Rome, that's between them and the old men in Rome. But this Obama mandate is the Government telling Catholics that they and their institutions will conduct themselves in a manner anathema to Church teaching. That's an assault on the Church itself, arguably a violation of the Establishment Clause, and even dissident Catholics are recoiling against it. Nothing shelves family squabbles more quickly than an outside threat.

The political ham-fistedness of the Obama Administration is simply stunning.

shiloh said...

"Really need to quit getting all your info from KOS & MoveOn & Huffington."

Actually, I got the expression when I joined the USN in 1976 ie

200 years of tradition, unhampered by progress

"We've done so much w/so little for so long, we're now capable of doing anything w/nothing!"

"Good ship, good crew ~ fuck you, turn to ..."

carry on

jimbino said...

Speaking of Hispanics in Amerika, of which I am one: it is an error to assume that Hispanics are "good" Catholics or that they will add to the influence of the Democrat Party.

First of all, Cubans are atheists and santerists and vote Republican.

Secondly, Brazil, "the largest RC country in the world," is becoming less Roman Catholic every day, now that Candomblé has been liberated and the Holy Roller Protestants are taking over the country and Atheists make up the fastest-growing segment.

Moreover, Brazil has lessons to teach the USSA: in Brazil, condoms are distributed by gummint policy to schoolkids beginning at age 11. Sex is celebrated. Gay marriage is recognized. Booze can be bought everywhere 24/7. The President, Dilma Rousseff, is an atheist. Unemployment is falling.

Come on down to Rio for the World Cup in 2014 or the Olympics in 2016 to experience a liberated country for yourself.

The reason current Amerikan Hispanics are generally too dumb to vote in their own interests is that they are mostly from an indigenous Mexican culture historically saturated with superstition and Roman Catholicism that does not value literacy or education.

Suppression of both has long been a Roman Catholic tradition, of course, that Martin Luther struggled to fix with the people's Bible and that the Jesuits were expelled by the Pope from Paraguay for attempting to ameliorate.

If you ever see a person reading a book on a bus or on the beach anywhere in Latin America, apart from Argentina or Cuba, that person will be German, Dutch, Amerikan or English--never a Latino.

creeley23 said...

The fusion of the Republican Party and Catholicism will be bad for the Republican Party and bad for Catholicism. I'm not sure how someone can have any familiarity with history and not realize that.

Andy R: More drive-by assertions with the usual condescension but providing no reasoned support whatsoever. I imagine you want to start raving about Fr. Coughlin, but he was a one-off and the Church did eventually force Coughlin to retire from his rabble-rousing.

We are not seeing a "fusion of the Republican Party and Catholicism." Historically Catholics have voted mildly to strongly Democratic except for the Reagan years. Obama may lose the Catholic vote this year, and deservedly so, but I would be surprised if his support dipped below 40%.

The current, fragile alliance between Catholics and Republicans will be bad for your side this year. However, it will also be temporary, assuming Democrats back off their agressive efforts to force Catholic organizations to comply with the Dem agenda on birth control and abortion.

Otherwise the American Catholic Church and the RCC in general remain of like minds with Democrats on welfare and immigration with a wary eye towards capitalism. I see little reason for the Democratic Party to lose its grip on American Catholics any time soon.

jimbino said...

Right on, paul a'barge:

As Mark Twain commented,

"God's big mistake was in not forbidding eating the snake."

And do you know that the "eating of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil" is a euphemism for "having sex"?

Erik Robert Nelson said...

Well, I think Jimbino wins the award for most overt bigotry on this thread after that last post. Sheesh.

deborah said...

"This is going to get very interesting down the road, as a militant Church emerges out of Africa, encompassing the two sects, combined with the Hispanic aspect. Christianity is due for a lurch to the right and a Revival."

My aunt is a nun in an order where white American novices are extremely rare. Now they mainly come from India.

If you look at group pictures around the time of my aunt's entrance, there are a preponderance of homely girls. My aunt was very pretty, but introverted and timid.

Roy Lofquist said...

There are number of commenters on this blog who make outrageous statements yet never, ever post a link to anything to support their contentions.

This is not a good way to show credibility. It's a good way to expose themselves as bomb throwers and bull shit artists.

Rusty said...

Bender said...
If you could read Genesis in Hebrew, you'd find out right away that God is plural.

If I read Hebrew, I would read in scripture that God is One.

If I read further in scripture, I would come to understand that this One God (singular) is also a Trinity (plural), a loving communion of three persons in one divine being.

Man, male and female, is made in the image of, not merely some generic God, but is made in the image of the Triune God. And like Him, we human persons are also made to exist in a loving communion of persons, many made one.


Well if you want to go full Hebrew there is one God and he cannot be named. hence the Hebrew reference to YHW to avoid using yahweh, or g*d instead of God.
The almighty, if he/she/it/ is indeed the god of the universe and knows no limits, is infinite and to refer to he/she/it in human terms is to limit gods omniscience.
Just sayin'

jimbino said...

What you need more than a spam filter, Ann, is filter that moves comments that have no content but ad hominem, like Erik Robert Nelson's above, to a slop bucket.

deborah said...

In Christ there is no male or female.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"Christianity is due for a lurch to the right and a Revival."

Count me among the skeptics. On the left, Christianity is always on the verge of disappearing, and on the right it is always on the verge of a new Great Awakening. Neither has happened, or is likely to happen anytime soon. In Africa there's a significant expansion of Christianity against the spread of Islam, but I don't see that spreading Westward.

jimbino said...

Funny, Rusty,

but you confuse Hebrew, the language, with Hebrew, the race or religion, and you also ignore the fact that the Hebrew script of the Old Testament had no vowels that would allow you to differentiate between YHWH and Yahweh (between G*d and God). The vowels were added in the Middle Ages.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

Sorry, Jimbino, the comments you made about Cubans and Catholics struck me as objectively bigoted. You may not like it, but there's nothing ad hominem about pointing it out. I'm not calling you names, I'm making a statement about your tone.

shiloh said...

At my Jesuit hs early '70s "we" had an expression ...

Jesus is comin' again and boy is he pissed!

Marshal said...

jimbino said...
What you need more than a spam filter, Ann, is filter that moves comments that have no content but ad hominem, like Erik Robert Nelson's above, to a slop bucket.


What we really need is a way to filter certain commenters. Like you.

jimbino said...

Eric Robert Nelson,

"I'm not calling you names, I'm making a statement about your tone."

Who really cares what YOU think about MY tone?

Why don't you go to school and learn how to present a reasoned argument about the subject at hand?

jimbino said...

HaHa, Shiloh,"

You say "Jesus is comin' again and boy is he pissed!" apparently without a clue that "pissed" does not mean "pissed off." Check it out.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

"Who really cares what YOU think about MY tone? "

You realize that you're in a discussion forum on the internet, right? I'm simply pointing out that saying things like, for instance, Latinos don't read books, doesn't exactly help us take you seriously. You don't need to take my advice. In fact, from your current tone (which does in fact matter to me, as a participant here) indicates a rapid and unfortunate downward spiral.

Bender said...

I really don't understand this insistence by some to repeatedly and constantly prove himself to be an ignorant, bigoted, ass.

jimbino said...

Erik Robert Nelson:

I'm an Paraguayan-born Amerikan Hispanic Scientist who is just trying to give y'all the benefit of my living and working experience throughout Latin America.

When I contend that there are almost no Amerikan minorities who frequent the national parks and forests and that you won't find a Latin reading a book, I give you for free the summary of my extended scientific observations.

As a scientist, I welcome evidence to the contrary, such as "I met a Black man at Yosemite" or "I saw a Brazilian reading a book on Ipanema Beach."

Calling me a bigot on the basis of your observation-free lack of experience is not an argument.

furious_a said...

Who really cares what YOU think about MY tone

You apparently do, else you wouldn't keep begging for attention.

Dumb Plumber said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Crunchy Frog said...

So...the argument boils down to this: the Apostles could go along with their entire world turned upside down, and facing excruciating deaths...but they couldn't accept women as priests? Other than assuming the worst about them as men...where's the evidence for this?

I come from the Lutheran tradition where women pastors are accepted (though not universally). My own personal take on the subject, which may or may not have anything in common with the "official" position of the several branches of Lutheranism, is this:

The Apostle Paul had a specific problem with women leading church worship in one specific location, that being Ephesus. He warns against female ordination in his letters to Timothy (who was there in charge) and to the Ephesians, and nowhere else.

Why Ephesus? It was the location of the Temple of Diana, the Roman goddess of love. Worship there involved paying temple prostitutes for sex.

The last thing Paul, who had a thing against sexual immorality, wanted was "spiritual" women infecting the new church in Ephesus with their old ways of doing things, and so instructed the church there to not let them be involved at all in the priesthood.

Erik Robert Nelson said...

Alright. When I was in Mexico a few years back I saw many Mexicans reading books. So what does that mean? As a scientifically-minded person myself, I know the answer to that.

As far as your free "scientific" observations, well--we get what we pay for.

jimbino said...

No furious_a,

I'm begging for Ann to institute a slop bucket for comments like yours.

Shana said...

Crunchy Frog, there are similar passages written to the Corinthians.

jimbino said...

Now you're getting close to the idea, Erik Robert Nelson:

A scientist would report something like "out of 4000 visitors to 12 national parks and forests in the Western USSA, 4 were Hispanic, Black or Native-Amerikan persons of color, etc," which is what I saw and reported on this blog.

Check this out, titled "Chilling mystery: Why don't Mexicans read books?"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0216/p01s04-woam.html

Erik Robert Nelson said...

My impression is that concern about pagan practices wasn't limited to just one location, such as Ephesus. The emphasis on maleness of the priesthood is often set against temple prostitution--ie., the choice was made at least in part as a sign that they were not going to do things the way the pagans did. The Christian church has a long history of being countercultural in this way. Theological justifications for it may have come later than the cultural justifications, but traditionally the church has treated this as all of one piece: prudence leading the way toward truth.

shiloh said...

pissed ~ Adjective:

2. slang ( US ) annoyed, irritated, or disappointed

jimbino, you can just be a fool, or ...

a fool who also incorrectly parses words.

Your choice!

take care

jimbino said...

Erik Robert Nelson:

Just as shiloh hasn't a clue regarding the nuances of "pissed," I think you haven't a clue as to the nuances of "pagan."

Paddy O said...

Like, " But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence"?

Was that the only thing Paul ever said? What about Priscilla, or Junia, or a number of others.

The verse you're using certainly is a guide to interpretation, but when we find Paul, in other contexts, commending women leaders while in that verse seeming to deny them, it forces us to either see Paul as inconsistent in his teaching and actions, or to interpret his statements within their contexts.

Does Paul mean all women, or just wives (same word)? Does Paul mean all women or just the particular women in that particular church (who likely were not educated)?

That's a big question, and while it's nice to say that one verse is so clear as to be the ultimate decider, it's also clear that if we read the whole Bible there certainly are women leaders and women commended by God for leadership, both in the OT and the NT.

"Those denominations that ordain women are dying, those that don't are robust and growing. There are exceptions to this rule, but it is certainly true overall."

The issue here is deeper than just which denominations are ordaining women. It's also important to know the underlying theology. Many of the highly liberal denominations ordain women simply by dismissing arguments and asserting the broader feminism in society.

There are also, however, denominations that ordain women because of a strong understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit. Most Pentecostal denominations ordain women as do most Holiness (such as the Church of the Nazarene denomination I'm a part of). Such denominations are actually among the fastest growing in the world and Pentecostals as a whole are one of the largest segments of the church behind the Roman Catholics.

There's good theological and Scriptural reasons for ordaining women, and there's bad theological and Scriptural reasons. The denominations that are shrinking tend to be applying the bad theology not only on this topic but also more broadly.

Paddy O said...

"I don't understand the desire of some people to 'change' the Catholic Church to make it similar to other religious organizations. If you are a Catholic, you have a few options. Accept the beliefs of the Church or leave the Church and find a religion that reflects your beliefs."

Yes! The fact they don't ordain women as priests makes sense in light of their understanding of priests. I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on the topic of women, on priests in general, and on a lot of other topics.

Which why I'm not a Catholic.

Rusty said...

jimbino said...
Funny, Rusty,

but you confuse Hebrew, the language, with Hebrew, the race or religion, and you also ignore the fact that the Hebrew script of the Old Testament had no vowels that would allow you to differentiate between YHWH and Yahweh (between G*d and God). The vowels were added in the Middle Ages.


Excuse me.
The Hebrew religion.
The name of god isn't spoken. as is noted in the Torah, the name is not spoken.

Paddy O said...

a "woman priest" is an ontological, theological, and sacramental impossibility.

Most Protestants argue that a "priest" in general is an ontological, theological, and sacramental impossibility, as priests--by definition--are in charge of sacrifices, and the one sacrifice on the cross is all that was needed.

But again, that's why there are Protestants and degrees of protesting among them.

Shana said...

Paddy O, that is at least part of the reason I am not RC myself. However, I believe many of the reasons RCs cite for not having women as priests apply to the pastorate as well.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 249   Newer› Newest»