Pope tells Anglicans, "Come on Down!"
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
Quite so. I don’t think Coldstream realized how that sounded (or may be he was just parroting the official Catholic church line, a sort of copy and paste like some other posters do) . But when somebody is talking of putting women or anybody on a pedestal, equality is out the window, out of the question. By putting women on a pedestal, the Church means that women should be worshiped as mothers. But giving them equal rights in education, employment etc.? Forget it, that is not part of the worship.
Pedestal does not come equipped with a university degree, a doctor’s license etc. That is not for women, they only get the pedestal.
Indeed, Catholic view of women is very simple. There are two types of women, virgins and whor*s. Virgins should be cherished, put up on a pedestal (which by coincidence happens to be located in the kitchen and the bedroom). As to the rest (whor*s), well they are doomed to Hell forever anyway, who cares what happens to them?
Funnily enough, a news conference has just been held live on Sky News from Dublin over a report into clerical child abuse in the Dublin diocese which has criticised the Catholic Church for covering it up.
The report investigated how Church and state authorities handled allegations of child abuse against 46 priests.
It found that the Church placed its own reputation above the protection of children in its care.
The Irish state authorities tried to cover-up the abuse by allowing the Church to operate outside the law.
The investigation covered a period from 1975 to 2004. It found that four archbishops - John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973, Dermot Ryan who died in 1984, Kevin McNamara who died in 1987, and retired Cardinal Desmond Connell - did not hand over information on abusers.
Hundreds of children made complaints against 46 priests. The number of boys who complained of being sexually abused was double that of girls.
Quoting Risus
I can't see why the anglicans would want to join a church full of child molesters and perverts.
You will be surprised, Risus. A few years ago, Anglican Church decided to let women in, they decided that women can become priests. That raised a holy Hell in the Church, many parishioners were deeply offended. Many of them decided to switch to Catholic Church.
I remember there was so much demand in those days to convert to Catholicism that Catholic Church was considering holding classes, as to how to become a Catholic and how to behave after one becomes a Catholic.
So do you think child molesting, child sex abuse scandals will keep such people from joining Catholic Church? No way. Letting women become priests is the blasphemy of the worst kind, there is a special Hell reserved for women priests and those who tolerate them.
As to child sex abuse, well, nobody likes it but it does happen. Surely it is not as bad a sin as admitting women priests?
So Anglicans wouldn’t want to join Catholic Church? Don’t you believe it.
I can't see why the anglicans would want to join a church full of child molesters and perverts.
You will be surprised, Risus. A few years ago, Anglican Church decided to let women in, they decided that women can become priests. That raised a holy Hell in the Church, many parishioners were deeply offended. Many of them decided to switch to Catholic Church.
I remember there was so much demand in those days to convert to Catholicism that Catholic Church was considering holding classes, as to how to become a Catholic and how to behave after one becomes a Catholic.
So do you think child molesting, child sex abuse scandals will keep such people from joining Catholic Church? No way. Letting women become priests is the blasphemy of the worst kind, there is a special Hell reserved for women priests and those who tolerate them.
As to child sex abuse, well, nobody likes it but it does happen. Surely it is not as bad a sin as admitting women priests?
So Anglicans wouldn’t want to join Catholic Church? Don’t you believe it.
There is a myth about what the Catholic Church actually envisages in marriage. It has nothing to do with abuse, subjection of women as an object of work or sexual servitude or child rearing. That is all condemned by the Church.
The problem in our modern society is that we have lost the realization that there are fundamental differences.. complimentary but still at their origins different... in the emotional and vocational make up of women and men. That is why we can so glibly turn marriage into an absurdity by extending it to homosexual 'partners', which bears no resemblance to that between one man and one woman.
That is why so many women find themselves deeply unhappy and lonely in our modern society, some for forsaking marriage and family completely to chase a career. It is why so many marriages founder now on shifting understandings
There's nothing wrong with defining yourself a career woman, and i certainly support equal opportunity (NOT affimative action) between men and women in the workplace. But the fact is it has left many women profoundly unfulfilled. And it has spawned the ultimate exploitation and victimization of women, in the tragedy of abortion.
Last edited:
I love my family, I love my children but I was incredibly unfulfilled staying home. I may incur the wrath of many when I say that I didn't find taking care of a home and children to be very fulfilling. Does that make me selfish? by some people maybe. For the record, I was and still am a good mother, even though my children are in their 20s. I never considered myself to be 'just a housewife' or 'just a mother', but I certainly didn't find that doing those things made me a well rounded person. i wonder how you - or many men would feel if all they looked forward to in their lives was cleaning a house and changing diapers. Women are just as competative as men, they like challenges - like men.
As far as your statement, "The problem in our modern society is that we have lost the realization that there are fundamental differences.. complimentary but still at their origins different... in the emotional and vocational make up of women and men. That is why we can so glibly turn marriage into an absurdity by extending it to homosexual 'partners', which bears no resemblance to that between one man and one woman. ' goes, so what if their are differences? Just what are these 'emotional and vocational differences' and how exactly do they figure into anytning?
And marriage? Up until the lat few hundred years marriage in the Christian world as in many other places, was a legal contract transferring chattel (the girl) from the father, to another man (the husband). The only reason it was officiated by a priest is that the priest was usually the only literate person in the village. they didn't even wed inside the church itself, for pete's sake! People were married at the door of the church!
I've been married for close to 30 years to one man, and I love it, but I certainly don't romanticize the state of marriage. If 2 people want to make a commitment to each other than I'm all for it. I'm secure in my relationship and with the reasons why I chose to wed, and I don't give a tinker's damn if 2 men or 2 women decide they want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. In today's world, that kind of commitment is most laudable.
I thought that the ultimate exploitation of women was to force them to have many children, simply because the man liked to have sex.
But I could be wrong.
The Catholic Church has ALWAYS held catechism classes for those who want to convert - I'm surprised that as a Catholic, you didn't know this. Also, there has always been an element in the Anglican church 9the Tractarian Movement and the Cardial Newman society) who want to reconcile with the roman Catholic Church. also, the Anglican Church has always been very fluid in its practices. Anglican churches in areas that are in largely Baptist ares tend to be what we would call 'Low Anglican'. their services are quite similar to those in Baptist churches. churches in areas that have a high Roman Catholic population tend to be what is called High Anglican. some even have (or had) private confession as opposed to the public confession that is part of the church service, not to mention the 13 stations of the cross!
Yes, when the church first started admitting womn as priests there was a cuffuffle. I remember watching bits of the Lambeth Conference when I lived in Belgium at the time and some of the things that were said were quite interesting.
HOWEVER, the cuffuffle died down and for the most part, women priests are quite accepted by the majority of anglicans. Yes, there are many that want to go to the Roman Catholic Church, but they were bent in that direction anyway.
I no longer consider myself a Christian but I left after examining my faith and my religion deeply. Statements like yours are based in ignorance, not knowledge and worse, are unecessarily inflamatory. i understand that you dislike religion and that is your right, but shouldn't you be making your statements based on knowledge rather than generalization and supposition? I'm truly surprised that you were raised a Catholic and yet you seem to know more about Hinduism than you do about the religion you were supposedly raised in.
Why would that surprise you? I was raised Catholic but I know more about Native American Spirituality than Catholicism. At 63, what I learned as a kid is buried pretty deep in rusty old file drawers.
Whoa there, Downhome Woman. Where did you get the idea that I was raised Catholic? I have never ever revealed in these forums (or even Canada.com forum) which faith I was brought up in.
That may be so, but I do remember many people were hopping mad about Anglican Church admitting women. There was much more interest in joining Catholic Church in those days than there was before that. I don’t know if the interest was long lasting or it faded out eventually.
But when those people were so mad about Anglican Church admitting women, when they were so eager to join Catholic church, do you think they were put off by the child abuse scandals in the Church? Don’t’ you believe it. The child sex abuse scandal has been around for a long time now, it was well known at the time Anglicans decided to admit women.
But in the eyes of at least some Catholics child sex abuse was not as heinous a crime as admitting women to church was.
Incidentally, the word is spelled ‘kafuffle’, not cuffuffle, unless that is an alternate spelling I am unaware of.
Actually it was in your previous incarnation as Sir Rupert. it was one of those discussions regarding some aspect of religion and I speculated that because of your devotion to all things Hindu, that you had been brought up in the Hindu faith. You replied by saying that no, you had been raised a Catholic - one parent being religious and the other not.
Yes, after the decision had been made to accept women as priests in the Anglican church there were many people who decided to leave and join the Catholic church - but they were essentially there anyway - the decision just made their minds up. things eventually went back to normal and women are now accepted as clergy in the mainstream church that (Henry VIII notwithstanding) was based on reform and change - it continues to be so.
The issue of child abuse and pedophilia? I don't think it was in the forefront of peoples minds when they converted - no more than the practice of bride burning, child brides and the killing of female children is in the minds of westerners when they convert to Hinduism.
And as for my spelling of 'cuffuffle'? It's a 'non-word' word - . I've seen it spelled a few ways - curfuffle, carfuffle, cafuffle, cafoufle, even gefuffle. My spelling is merely another variation. I realize that you feel yourself to be the arbiter of many things, but you must have your cranky pants on to pick on a non-issue like that.
SJP
Incidentally, the word is spelled ‘kafuffle’, not cuffuffle, unless that is an alternate spelling I am unaware of.
You don't want to go there regarding the spelling of anything. You, like all the rest of us make lots of spelling errors. Just remember what has been said before - This is not a classroom and you are not the teacher. Play nice.
Incidentally, the word is spelled ‘kafuffle’, not cuffuffle, unless that is an alternate spelling I am unaware of.
You don't want to go there regarding the spelling of anything. You, like all the rest of us make lots of spelling errors. Just remember what has been said before - This is not a classroom and you are not the teacher. Play nice.
Eeeuw! that just sounds painful! Being a 'lowly female' has it's benefits - glad I'm an 'inny'!:lol::lol:
Hey there VanIsle! Nice to see you pop up! I'd be here more often but after work, if I go on the computer it usually ends up with me staying up WAAAAY past when I should be in bed (sleepy1::hmph
- Like right now!!!:lol:I admit to making many spelling mistakes but this word? Like I said - he's just being Mr Cranky Panties.
Now now. You called him a name. You will be on the ignore list for sure.Hey there VanIsle! Nice to see you pop up! I'd be here more often but after work, if I go on the computer it usually ends up with me staying up WAAAAY past when I should be in bed (sleepy1::hmph
I admit to making many spelling mistakes but this word? Like I said - he's just being Mr Cranky Panties.
ACTUALLY - I only said that he was BEING Mr Cranky Panties, I didn't actually SAY he WAS Mr Cranky Panties. Thus, I am only describing an action as I see it, and not name calling. But then it's only my opinion ....:lol:
I did the same ... several times. In the end, he begged me to talk dirty to him. No kiddin! Posts are in here somewhere.....