The poor guy has lost it.
In an address to a gathering sponsored by the World Parliament of Religions (PWR) last Friday, former US President Jimmy Carter has once again blamed traditional religion, particularly Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics, for “creating an environment where violations against women are justified."
I don't know of any Roman Catholic dogma which 'creates' such an environment (and I suspect the same can be said about Southern Baptist dogma). But then again, Jimmuh thought a rabbit was going to swim out of its pond and attack him.
Delusionary then, delusionary now.
HT: Gateway
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Surprised he didn't blame the Jews, either.
Great, and on behalf of my fellow Catholics everywhere...
GO TO HELL Jimmeh, you pompous ass
What is it with former Democrat presidents and failed presidential candidates…? Carter and Gore should be put in a lock box somewhere - a ‘green’ one, of course!
RR--Great job of representing the faith.
MR. Carter has a legitimate point in this regard--the Catholic Church, historically dominated by men, has used politics in the name of dogma to deny women an opportunity to serve as priests, bishops, archbishops, etc.
Women became powerful in medieval Christianity as abesses and nuns by acquiring land and wealth. By the 1400's, their authority became significantly limited by a series of maneuvers by church officials. Moreover, clerical hegemony, based on an attitude of male superiority,
led to different interpretations for ordination, limiting it to male clergy and service at the altar, i.e. current "tradition".
A well-researched, scholarly approach is:
The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the
Medieval West. By Gary Macy. 2008
Of course, there are some Catholics who will view this book as blasphemy or will label it as "feminist ideology".
Perhaps the Catholic Church does not want to deal with the problems associated with married men and women who run a congregation.
Karen Jo Torjesen, 1993
"Yet up until the mid-third century, only occasional sparks were generated by this clash between the social strictures on women's roles and the freedom women found in Christianity. For more than two hundred years Christianity was essentially a religion of the private sphere, practiced in the private space of the household rather than the public sphere of a temple. Its concerns were the domestic life of its community rather than the political life of the city. But during the third century Christianity began evolving toward its eventual form as a public religion. The burgeoning numbers of adherents and the new formality and dignity of the Christian liturgies meant that Christian participation was increasingly a public event. By the fourth century Christians were worshipping in their own public temples, called basilicas. During this period the friction between the social conventions about women's place and women's actual long-standing roles as house church leaders, prophets, evangelists, and even bishops precipitated virulent controversies. As Christianity entered the public sphere, male leaders began to demand the same subjugation of women in the churches as prevailed in Greco-Roman society at large. Their detractors reproached women leaders, often in strident rhetoric, for operating outside the domestic sphere and thus violating their nature and society's vital moral codes. How could the remain virtuous women, the critics demanded, while being active in public life?"
Women became powerful in medieval Christianity as abesses and nuns by acquiring land and wealth. By the 1400's, their authority became significantly limited by a series of maneuvers by church officials.
Umnnnhhh....the same thing happened to priests and Bishops, albeit slightly later than the 1400's.
has used politics in the name of dogma to deny women an opportunity to serve as priests, bishops, archbishops, etc.
The allegation of 'politics' is completely false. Dogma is dogma. You may call it whatever you like to demonstrate your ignorance, of course.
Right, anony. Next you'll defend the Muslim extremists and their treatment of women as "okay" and "tradition".
Disgruntled--To some Muslims, treating women as inferior human beings is rooted in dogma. To some Catholics, denying women ordination to the priesthood is rooted in dogma. It would appear that in both cases, men are controlling women, albeit one group more directly and harshly
compared to another group. According to Dad29, dogma is dogma and cannot be questioned!
Now, if you want to question another group's religious practices--the unequal treatment of women based on male superiority--then be prepared for others to use the same arguments against the practices of your faith as well.
Dad29, you can be ignorant if you want. Like any institution, the history of the Roman Catholic Church has been embroiled in politics. For example, Martin Luther was excommunicated for challenging established church practices (simony and indulgences) and because of growing fear among church leaders that his beliefs would embolden German princes to challenge the papacy on political grounds.
Besides, how does dogma become dogma? In some cases, the pope makes declarations and decrees, in other cases, leading members of the Catholic Church form councils to develop canon law--all based on a belief of what are the perceived tenets and principles of the faith.
And the dogma of the Church, as we know, has come under scrutiny, fair or unfair, right or wrong.
Sure, Pope John II in 1988 and 1994 went to great lengths to reiterate that the decision to deny women access to the priesthood is not based on a belief that women are less competent than men. But he also maintains the absolute equality of men and women within the Catholic Church, which appears contradictory--all persons are considered to have inherent and equal worth, independent of their gender.
For example, Martin Luther was excommunicated for challenging established church practices (simony and indulgences) and because of growing fear among church leaders that his beliefs would embolden German princes to challenge the papacy on political grounds
Uh huh. And deleting a couple of books from the NT...
leading members of the Catholic Church form councils to develop canon law
Not quite. Only the Pope writes Canon Law.
But he also maintains the absolute equality of men and women within the Catholic Church,
...as persons, or children of God. There is no "right" to Ordination, whether male or female...
And it was Christ who made the decision, not JPII.
Anony, if it is Muslim dogma to treat women like dirt, how is it that only 20% or so of that faith practice it?
...leading members of the Catholic Church form councils to develop canon law--Not quite. Only the Pope writes Canon Law.
Yes, of course. I'm sure you know that "The Code of Canon Law" is the compilation of church rules and regulations. It sets the policies for Catholic bishops as they run dioceses, and for superiors of religious orders. And I'm sure that you know the earliest Canon Law forbade women’s ordination, endorsed by the Council of Nicaea. Hence, my initial statement, which you clarified.
...as persons, or children of God. There is no "right" to Ordination, whether male or female...
And it was Christ who made the decision, not JPII.
Jesus did not ordain anyone, although he called men and women to discipleship. Luke's gospel (8:1-3) reports that Mary Magdalen, Joanna, and Susanna were among the women who travelled with Jesus, and supported his ministry from their own resources. Priesthood and eucharistic worship did not resemble what we know until the 300's A.D.
Historically, the Church has made many changes in what had previously been regarded as authoritative teachings from tradition (e.g. usury, slavery, the revolution of the earth around the sun, the use of Latin in seminaries and for worship).
Back to Jimmy Carter...
He ought to be sent over to Iran as a swap for the three hiker hostages. Jimmy makes as much sense as Mahmoud -- they might see eye to eye on a lot of things. Lets hope they like him enough to keep him.
I'm a woman and Carter is a complete moron.
I'd take the catholics and the Baptists over the Muslims any day. I listened to a Southern Baptist preacher explain Paul's letter to the Ephesians ( you know the "wives submit to your husbands" one) through a prism of love and respect that made more sense than any others I had heard.
If you want a female pastor - try the Methodists, Episcopalians, and ELCA.
Jesus did not ordain anyone
Wrong. The "feed My lambs/sheep" commands were NOT 'calls to service.' By the way, your murder of the priesthood echoes Luther's--another of his little problems with the Church.
Priesthood and eucharistic worship did not resemble what we know until the 300's A.D
Really? Ever read Justin, Martyr's stuff?
By the way, there are plenty of holy women STILL following Christ. Some are nuns; some are lay.
Jesus did not ordain anyone
Wrong. The "feed My lambs/sheep" commands were NOT 'calls to service.' By the way, your murder of the priesthood echoes Luther's--another of his little problems with the Church.
Priesthood and eucharistic worship did not resemble what we know until the 300's A.D
Really? Ever read Justin, Martyr's stuff?
By the way, there are plenty of holy women STILL following Christ. Some are nuns; some are lay.
Finally,
It sets the policies for Catholic bishops as they run dioceses, and for superiors of religious orders
No, Canon Law does not "set policy." It is LAW, meaning that Catholics must follow it. It is normative.
Can't you ever get past politics into the real world?
Priesthood and eucharistic worship did not resemble what we know until the 300's A.D
Really? Ever read Justin, Martyr's stuff?
Justin was the forefather, yes. In the first two centuries the rite is spoken of as an offering and as a bloodless sacrifice. In Cyprian of Carthage (250 AD) we first find the Eucharist regarded as a sacrifice of Christ's body and blood offered by the priest for the sins of the living and dead. Regarding the priesthood, refer to the First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church (325 AD.
The "feed My lambs/sheep" commands were NOT 'calls to service'.
According to who, you? So the sermons I heard growing up on this very notion are "whack"???
Can't you ever get past politics into the real world?
Deny all you want about the political aspects of the Church. It's as real as it gets.
By the way, there are plenty of holy women STILL following Christ. Some are nuns; some are lay.
Absolutely...but what's going to happen when the priest shortage (which is sad, by the way) becomes so problematic to the Church???
www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/04/18/what-to-do-about-the-priest-shortage.html
But what to do? Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor Pope John Paul II, opposes liberalizing the current rules that forbid marriage and female priests. His followers are split. A 2001 survey by the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops found that 56 percent of priests thought celibacy should be a "matter of personal choice." A Gallup Poll conducted in 2005 shortly after the death of John Paul II found that 63 percent of American Catholics support allowing priests to be married; 55 percent said women should be allowed to become priests.
We don't have to look far to see what Dad29 thinks of women. When he wants to insult someone, he calls them a sissy, says they act like a little girl, or suggests they're menstruating.
The nice thing about the phrase "priest shortage" is that there's no definition to the term.
Christ established the priesthood w/the command to 'do this in memory...' along with the 'feed My lambs...' statement.
I don't doubt that there are politics involved in some decisions. It follows the Fall.
However, theology is now, and always was, the principal driver of decisions.
John--I'm the anony he called an old biddie. I really don't care what he thinks of me, just like Dad29 doesn't care what I think of him. Fine by us. All I seek is debate in a civilized manner, and on this thread, that's happening.
Calling someone a sissy doesn't demean women, it's meant to deflate the male ego. Something those without it will never understand.
Someone without an ego? Huh?
Now that we know what you think about calling someone a "sissy", where's the justification for calling someone a "young girl just going through first menses"? Is that some aspect of Natural Law I don't understand?
John--That's Dad29's schtick! He can go to confession and be forgiven. He's on the "right" side of things.
The nice thing about the phrase "priest shortage" is that there's no definition to the term.
Yes, all followers of a faith are "priests". They spread the faith. HOWEVER, certain duties and functions of a church must be formally carried out by designated officials qualified to perform those duties and functions. So there is a definition to the term, after all.
designated officials qualified to perform those duties and functions
They are 'qualified' by Ordination.
The 'undefined term', more precisely, is "shortage."
If there is no "shortage" of priests in the United States, why are churches getting shuttered and/or being consolidated? If there is no "shortage" of priests in the United States, then why are some congregations "importing" them from other countries? If there is no "shortage" of priests in the United States, then why are the numbers for seminary graduates who will enter the priesthood been in dramatic decline? If there is no "shortage" of priests in the United States, then why almost 30% of parishes do not have a resident priest?
It's sad to think that long-standing "tradition" is the only obstacle to having women and married couples be ordained as priests.
Anony, your rhetoric is .....rhetoric.
Define "shortage." Hard numbers will do.
And your rhetoric is also sloppy.
There is a VERY big difference between "married" priests and femi-priests. In fact, there is no such thing as femi-priests.
Anony, your rhetoric
is .....rhetoric.
Actually, it's FACT. But you can call it "rhetoric" if you like.
Exactly the problem with the left and the right these days...tje refusal to admit that the other side makes cogent points. If anyone should "buy ammo", it's moderates!
You're good at avoidance.
I'll try again.
Define "shortage." Hard numbers will do.
Here you go. The first link (Dec 2009) focuses on Spain, but does provide data for the United States.
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/faith/as-priest-numbers-fall-even-catholic-spain-is-not-immune-to-a-crisis-of-faith-1839313.html
The second link is from 2005; nonetheless, it provides an overview.
www.futurechurch.org/fpm/statistics.htm
The third link regards Ireland (Nov. 2009).
www.cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=17786
The fourth link is from Pope John Paul II (Nov 2004).
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4046029.stm
I mean with this with sincerity, as God as my witness--Merry Christmas.
Have a blessed Christmas and Year of Our Lord 2010!
OK, those are numbers. Couldn't find Upper Midwest numbers, but I live in Milwaukee so I have an idea about that situation.
So. Since priests are required for the Sacraments (except 2--Baptism and Matrimony), tell me what effect the "shortage" has had on Sacramental life.
Great question. I don't know off-hand. From 2002, but an excellent summary (I think) nonetheless...
www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1932
Yah, you see, simply declaring a "shortage" doesn't really mean anything at all.
In Mexico, people see a priest once every 4 months. You recall that in Japan, there were NO priests for around 300 years (or so)--yet when priests were finally allowed into the country, there was a very vibrant RC community. Not large, but extant.
So what's a "shortage"?
"I do not mean to suggest by this that there is no basis or need to encourage priestly vocations in the American church, nor to deny that there are crippling shortages of priests in certain geographic areas and among certain populations."
From that same article.
Post a Comment