From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:44:39 GMT

In article <C1F46s.5DI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.021535.23365@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: : : The pope, [...] continues to treat women of the church like
>second-class citizens.
: : 
: : 	By not allowing women to have the opportunity to have
: : leadership positions. Will a woman ever be a priest? Bishop?
: : Archbishop? Cardinal? Pope?

: >   Could you please tell me what you know about the above positions,
: >then?

: 	The Catholic Church has a hierarchy. Priests give orders to
: laypeople. Bishops give orders to priests, archbishops to bishops,
: Cardinals to archbishops, and the Pope to Cardinals.

>   You are greatly exaggerating the amount of "bossing around" that
>gets done in the Catholic Church.  A fundamental error you seem to be
>making is that the Church is merely a social organization created by
>human beings, and assuming its members believe this.

	Even if it was not _created_ by human beings, it is still an
organization of human beings.

	Is "God told us to" your main defense?

>   You still have not addressed my observation that you seem to think
>the priesthood is _merely_ a leadership position.  It is not.  The
>priesthood is passed on through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which
>Sacrament can only be administered to men. [A lot about how Scripture
and Tradition say so...]

	And is there a parallel sacrament that can be administered
only to women that entitles them to the same authority and
resposibility a man can have in the Church? Or is it "only men are
entitled to positions of authority and resposibility in the Church
because the Bible tells us so"?

>   Let me ask you a question: can _men_ be priests (i.e. as defined by
>the Catholic Church)?

	Why is that a relevant question? If they _want_ to have an
all-male leadership, then they shouldn't be in the business of
advertising how they are more feminist than Gloria Steinem, as they
seem to be doing (using feminist in the general sense of being
pro-woman). And they shouldn't complain if some are unhappy about
their stance. Would you be willing to live with a "Feminist Church"
schism?

My guess is that you will say no, because you
>don't accept the Catholic Church as God's Church, nor do you even
>believe in God (as I have taken from other of your posts -- correct me
>if I'm wrong).

	I consider the God of the Church to be pure fiction, though
not an absolute impossibility. Does that answer your question?

In this case, according to what you believe, why does
>it even matter that women cannot be priests, when not even men can be?

	If they wish to pass themselves off as great moral leaders,
then they will have to be moral themselves.

>   Let me also give an analogy for why women cannot be priests.  That
>of motherhood.  On one level, motherhood is a physical characteristic;
>that is, only women can be mothers because of biology.  This can be
>determined physically.

	How is this relevant?

	Does that mean that a woman can be a priest if she is willing
to strap on a dildo so that she _seems_ to have a penis?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan