Female priests.

"First, CON offered the explanation of the Church being the Mother while the priest is the Father and congregation = the children. That sounds nice and all, but he missed the entire point of my Round 2 rebuttal- The special relationship between the Church/church-goers, priest/Church, priest/congression, etc, cannot be put into words. Rather the words act as symbols to help explain the RELATIONSHIP, not set definitive parameters of who can and cannot hold certain positions. " But it's not symbolic. There is a relationship. This relationship is a marriage. Once again, this is (at least part of) the reason for clerical celibacy. The words don't act as symbols to describe a relationship. The relationship is, very much, a marriage. I also gave you biblical proof in support of this, my opponent has given you none. "I mean that's like saying Catholic men can not have particular relationships (for lack of a better term) with winter or time because of the terms Father Winter and Father Time. Now, you're probably thinking "A RELATIONSHIP with winter? Huh? " Yeah, exactly. It doesn't seem to make sense because winter is not something that has anything to do with gender and neither is the word church. " No, there's a difference. Why? Because with the priest/church relationship, it IS a marriage. Not the case with any possible marriage to Father Time or Father Winter. "The Church has 2 definitions: the actual building and the group of people that make up congregation. Well we've already established that the congregation = the children so how can the child be the Mother as well? And the other definition of the Church being the actual building in which services are held doesn't apply either. .. a priest/male cannot marry a building regardless of its gender (assuming it had one). " Now you're just getting hung up on semantics. Don't look to dictionary. com for Catholic theology. Once again, speaking theologically (and I remind you, Catholic theology is the only criterion we should be judging the debate by; a burden my opponent never refuted), the church is more than a building and more than the congregation. It is the Bride of Christ. It is the bride of the priests. If you were to allow females to be priests, it would become both a bride and a groom. This is the contradiction that my opponent doesn't seem to get. "As you can see, this makes no sense at all. And the point is that the terms "Father" and "Mother" are simply supposed to facilitate one's understanding of the relationship between, say, a priest and his "children. " A priest serves as a source of guidance and teaches about right and wrong. That is what a father is supposed to do, so it makes sense that they call a priest Father. But that is what a mother is supposed to do also, so a female priest could just as easily be called Mother. I argue that the Priest isn't "father" as CON wrongfully suggests because the Church is "mother" . .. instead, a priest is father because of the role he plays in the church (leader/teacher) and he is a LIVING MALE so obviously we won't call him a female term such as Mother. So again, the terms of father/mother/daughter/children simply help describe relationships (like similies and metaphors)- that has nothing to do with whether or not a woman should be able to become a priest. " I've already refuted this many times throughout the debate, but I'll try to make it clear one last time. Even if you ant to accept that the terms "Mother" and "Father" are purely symbolic here, the term "bride" isn't. It IS an actual marriage. Ask any priest. Ask any theologian. My opponent continues: "Anyway, in conclusion of this point, CON writes, "My opponent is telling you that it's possible to be a mother, a daughter, and a bride, without being a female. Futhermore, the baptismal is often referred to as what? The womb. One cannot have a womb without being female. " . .. CON is a liar. " First of all, don't attack me by calling me a liar. You asked for the reasoning. I gave it to you. You can't seem to accept it. I am deeply offended. Don't call me a liar. Every claim was either common knowledge or sourced. You're just saying that's it's symbolic with no actual proof. Second of all, I've already refuted all of this. you're just reiterating yourself. Once again, the marriage is not symbolic. The term "Bride of Christ" is DEFINITELY NOT SYMBOLIC. The church is more than a building and more than the congregation. It is an entity. It is the BRIDE OF CHRIST. It's not symbolic. In fact, it's in the Bible. I gave you the verse. It definitely wasn't symbolic in that verse, yet you continue to claim it is symbolic. You gave no refutation of this verse, so I should win just base on biblical support. "So the other argument my opponent offered was that women can't be priests because "God said so. " Well, PROVE IT. Where did God say that women could not be priests? The Bible? No. There are no scriptures in the Bible that suggest women cannot be ordained. Even if there were, God did not write the Bible. Men did (figures). So although they were "inspired" through God's Holy Spirit to pen the Good Book, the Bible is not to be taken literally in every instance according to the Catholic Catechism. This is probably because of all the inconsistencies and flat out mistakes it includes, such as the assertion that the world is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, etc. So the point is that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and even if it said women shouldn't be priests (WHICH IT DOESN'T), remember that this is the same Bible that also says wearing two different fibers (such as a polyester-cotton blend) at the same time is a sin, and that hugging a girl on her period makes you unclean, and you should not be touched for at least 30 days. So, clearly society (including Catholics) do not receive or practice the Bible literally in every concept. "" Okay, first of all, it doesn't matter if the Bible says if wearing two different fibers at the same time is a sin. Technically and theologically, it's still a sin. And we're judging this debate BASED ON THEOLOGY. Not what is more convenient for modern society. And even if the Bible doesn't say priests can't be female, Jesus said ti, didn't he? He's certainly infallible, by Catholic standards. And wait. .. Isn't the pope infallible on doctinal issues? So, since th pope says that women can't be priests, then BY CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, thy shouldn't. If the pope were to decalre thet they should be priests now, not only would he be going against all of the theological support which ISN'T SYMBOLIC, he would also be going against every other pope that is supposed to be infallible, which he isn't allowed to do. He makes some sort of agreement before hand not to go against past popes. So, it's already the right decsion since th pope is infallible, and furthermore the pope CAN'T go against it. I'm not going to go through all of your rehashing of old stuf. I've already refuted all of it. So, at the end of the debate we can see: 1. ) The church is a bride (not symbolically). Therefore, it cannot also be a groom. My opponent keeps saying that it's symbolic, but never gave you any theological support, whereas I did. If you don't believe me, go ask a priest. My opponent makes the claim that the reason is traditon and apostles, but he gives no support for this. I've backed my arguments theologically. 2. ) The decision to make it so priests can't be women was made by an infallible pope. So it's automatically right, according to Catholic theology. 3. ) The current pope cannot disagree with past popes, so making priests female is impossible, anyway.