Selah Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 In the current situation, it would be seen as a step towards women priests, so it would probably be harmful. Besides, the ancient deaconesses were not ordained, so the position was not really parallel to a deacon. Yes, but they were historical, and were not priests. The radtrads shrieking about it would make no sense. Heh. Though, I also think we should go back to baptizing the old fashioned way, i.e. water poured over the head and nekkid, but eh. It's not that big of an issue to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Yes, but they were historical, and were not priests. The radtrads shrieking about it would make no sense. Heh. Though, I also think we should go back to baptizing the old fashioned way, i.e. water poured over the head and nekkid, but eh. It's not that big of an issue to me. You are mistaking archaeologism and traditionalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 You are mistaking archaeologism and traditionalism. Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Yes, but they were historical, and were not priests. The radtrads shrieking about it would make no sense. Heh. Though, I also think we should go back to baptizing the old fashioned way, i.e. water poured over the head and nekkid, but eh. It's not that big of an issue to me. In my experience, the argument for deaconesses is based on the historical precedent. It is not a good argument because those deaconesses were nothing like what is envisioned for the proposed modern deaconesses. I might not shriek, but I would object to such deaconesses. I was baptized by immersion as an adult. I wore a white robe. It was a public ceremony which would not have been practical if I were naked. It was important to me that I make a public profession, so I think the robe was a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 It wasn't very Catholic of the Priest to break his vows. Two wrongs dont make a right. It is not dehumanizing to expect a priest to be faithful to his vocation and to Church teachings. No its not. But its dehumanizing to use the terms "gay" or "partner" to reduce their importance in a conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 But its dehumanizing to use the terms "gay" or "partner" to reduce their importance in a conversation. I do not see how that sentence was dehumanizing. How do you think it should have been phrased? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Two wrongs dont make a right. No its not. But its dehumanizing to use the terms "gay" or "partner" to reduce their importance in a conversation. There was only one wrong, and it belongs to you. This is another case of you seeing things that aren't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Two wrongs dont make a right. No its not. But its dehumanizing to use the terms "gay" or "partner" to reduce their importance in a conversation. How about 'homo-romantic life companion'? It was a fairly simple sentence, and it is not like he used any slurs to describe this guy. It seems more like you take issue with the fact that we are not ok with priests flaunting their faithlessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 It was a fairly simple sentence, and it is not like he used any slurs to describe this guy. It seems more like you take issue with the fact that we are not ok with priests flaunting their faithlessness. In my experience, the words "gay" and "partner" are preferred terms in self-description. I have only seen objections to "gay" from people who believe that homosexual behaviour is a sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 In my experience, the words "gay" and "partner" are preferred terms in self-description. I have only seen objections to "gay" from people who believe that homosexual behaviour is a sin. That was my thought as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I've got as much right to complain as any woman. I sit next to seminarians in class. I will graduate along side them. They get the collar and I won't. Doesn't bother me. It bothers me that I couldn't be a gymnast. I was too big to be one. Wasn't born to be a horse jockey either. If God had wanted me to be either, he'd have made me short with tiny feet, not these ungangly size 14's I stomp around in. If he'd wanted me to be an astronaut, I wouldn't have been born afraid of heights. If he'd wanted me to be a priest, I'd have been born a male. Bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I've got as much right to complain as any woman. I sit next to seminarians in class. I will graduate along side them. They get the collar and I won't. Doesn't bother me. It bothers me that I couldn't be a gymnast. I was too big to be one. Wasn't born to be a horse jockey either. If God had wanted me to be either, he'd have made me short with tiny feet, not these ungangly size 14's I stomp around in. If he'd wanted me to be an astronaut, I wouldn't have been born afraid of heights. If he'd wanted me to be a priest, I'd have been born a male. Bottom line. Meh...bad example. The idea that a women cant be a priest is not dependent traits she can change...like cardio and muscular stuff. She is inherently unable to be a priest because she is a woman. If someone tried to be a gymnast you can always succeed. Its not guaranteed that you could be the BEST gymnast in the world, but you could BE one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Dont do that. Dont dehumanize people just because you dont agree with their lifestyle. Thats not very 'catholic' of you. Do you really want me replying to your posts again? If not, then please go back to ignoring mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Do you really want me replying to your posts again? If not, then please go back to ignoring mine. You can do whatever you want ND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 You can do whatever you want ND. OK, let me say this another way... Can you please just ignore my posts and I promise to reciprocate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now