Respect

"Dave Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Gabby said:

Today the men I meet who are preparing for the priesthood in Canada have
already lived a life. They are usually more mature, much older (35-55),
more experienced and know what they are giving up. Many people chose to
be
celibate for a variety of reasons. Sex is fun and makes life very
interesting -- and while it's necessary to transmit life, it's not at all
necessary for living.

I have to ask... just how many 35-55 year old men have you run into that
are
planning on entering the priesthood? I did a little surfing and came
across a
site with profiles of seminary students that indicates that , 10% were
under
23, 41.7% were 23-25 and another 18% were 26-30, making 68% of them are
under
30. Only 16% were over 40. So I am naturally curious that the men you
meet who
are going into the priesthood are all 35-55 when that age group is a
relatively
small percentage of the total answering the call.

Well, the one who was ordained here about 2 years ago was a former
paratrooper aged 55. The guy in the next parish was a retired teacher
before becoming a priest. The seminarian I was working with a few years ago
was well over 30 and had already lived common-law. The one who's being
ordained to become our pastor is over 30. Yes, I've met the young ones -
our transitional deacon is 27 but he's from Poland and has been a 'priest in
training' since he was 12. Were I to make the rules they'd have to be at
least 25 before they even applied for the seminary. Preferably after having
held a job and lived on their own.

Gabby

Peter Aitken said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose they could try to effect change from within, but all the top
positions
are males.

So I was right - you think that people should either put up with the
existing situation or leave. As I said, that's a truly bizarre attitude.

Phooey. It is a club. Different clubs have different rules. If you think that
your current organization is stuck in the middle ages and you know that progress
is an uphill battle you bail out and join one that is more suited to you. Why
fight the RC church when Anglicans have a similar basis but more tolerance and
acceptance. There are lots of religions and denominations from which to choose.

"Dave Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Aitken said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose they could try to effect change from within, but all the top
positions
are males.

So I was right - you think that people should either put up with the
existing situation or leave. As I said, that's a truly bizarre attitude.

Phooey. It is a club. Different clubs have different rules. If you think
that
your current organization is stuck in the middle ages and you know that
progress
is an uphill battle you bail out and join one that is more suited to you.
Why
fight the RC church when Anglicans have a similar basis but more
tolerance and
acceptance. There are lots of religions and denominations from which to
choose.

You may look on it as a club but a lot of people do not. They can have very
stong emotional ties to a church, the history, the ceremonies, the people,
and do not want to leave but rather change it for the better. It's a good
thing that a lot of people have a bit more fortitude and backbone than you
do and will not cut and run just to avoid fighting for change.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the [censored] from my email address before using.

Peter Aitken said:

You may look on it as a club but a lot of people do not. They can have very
stong emotional ties to a church, the history, the ceremonies, the people,
and do not want to leave but rather change it for the better. It's a good
thing that a lot of people have a bit more fortitude and backbone than you
do and will not cut and run just to avoid fighting for change.

Oh Poppycock. Some of these churches have been around for a long time and
pride themselves on their tradition. In fact, that same inflexibility is their
version of the proof of the validity of their faith. No individual is going to
force the church to change to suit them. This is especially true in the RC
church where women are given a very minor role but major changes can only me
made in the all male management.

My question would be why would women even want to belong to a church that
denies them the opportunity to become an important member of the institution.
Why would a person voluntarily become a member of an church where they are
prevented from being part of the clergy because of their gender?

Let's face some facts about religion. Most people do not choose their
religion. The vast majority are born into it because their families belong to
denomination X. Some join a church or convert because they are required to in
order to marry a person of that faith. Only the fundamentalist churches that
keep popping up seem to be attracting new members in significant numbers.

One the church has you they start the indoctrination process. They will use
various forms of coercion to keep you, from friendly visits, threats of mortal
sin and even shunning.

Change from within? It's like pissing up a rope. Why on earth should a woman
fight the papacy when the Anglican Church has beliefs similar to catholicism
but allows women a more active role in the church and the clergy? Why tolerate
archaic belief systems when there are lots of denominations around with more
reasonable views?

"Dave Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Aitken said:

You may look on it as a club but a lot of people do not. They can have
very
stong emotional ties to a church, the history, the ceremonies, the
people,
and do not want to leave but rather change it for the better. It's a good
thing that a lot of people have a bit more fortitude and backbone than
you
do and will not cut and run just to avoid fighting for change.

Oh Poppycock. Some of these churches have been around for a long time and
pride themselves on their tradition. In fact, that same inflexibility is
their
version of the proof of the validity of their faith. No individual is
going to
force the church to change to suit them. This is especially true in the RC
church where women are given a very minor role but major changes can only
me
made in the all male management.

My question would be why would women even want to belong to a church that
denies them the opportunity to become an important member of the
institution.
Why would a person voluntarily become a member of an church where they are
prevented from being part of the clergy because of their gender?

Let's face some facts about religion. Most people do not choose their
religion. The vast majority are born into it because their families belong
to
denomination X. Some join a church or convert because they are required
to in
order to marry a person of that faith. Only the fundamentalist churches
that
keep popping up seem to be attracting new members in significant numbers.

One the church has you they start the indoctrination process. They will
use
various forms of coercion to keep you, from friendly visits, threats of
mortal
sin and even shunning.

Change from within? It's like pissing up a rope. Why on earth should a
woman
fight the papacy when the Anglican Church has beliefs similar to
catholicism
but allows women a more active role in the church and the clergy? Why
tolerate
archaic belief systems when there are lots of denominations around with
more
reasonable views?

I've explained it as simply as I can and you still do not get it. The fact
that you dismiss the strongly help opinions of millions pf people as
"poppycock" is rather indicative of where you are coming from. I see no
point in continuing this thread. Unlike you, I am not young enough to know
everything.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the [censored] from my email address before using.

Dave Smith said:

Why on earth should a woman
fight the papacy when the Anglican Church has beliefs similar to

catholicism

Quoted message said:

but allows women a more active role in the church and the clergy?

Why tolerate

Quoted message said:

archaic belief systems when there are lots of denominations around

with more

Quoted message said:

reasonable views?

You're talking gobbledygook. Why bother with any theological belief
system, it's not possible to discuss the virtues of any over another
intelligently, they are all equally superstitious silliness.

Sheldon

Gabby said:

Considering that the church tells husbands to make sure their wives
enjoy sex, indeed advises them to masturbate their wives to orgasm if
they haven't reached that point during intercourse, I don't think
anyone can honestly say that the Church doesn't want one to 'enjoy
sex'.

Guess it's time to read the "Song of Solomon" again. Is that book in
the Catholic version of the Bible? -aem

Peter Aitken said:

Quoted message said:

Change from within? It's like pissing up a rope. Why on earth should a
woman
fight the papacy when the Anglican Church has beliefs similar to
catholicism
but allows women a more active role in the church and the clergy? Why
tolerate
archaic belief systems when there are lots of denominations around with
more
reasonable views?

I've explained it as simply as I can and you still do not get it. The fact
that you dismiss the strongly help opinions of millions pf people as
"poppycock" is rather indicative of where you are coming from.

What I dismisses as poppycock was your denial that religions are not like clubs
that people are free to leave if they don't like the rules or the assignment of
inferior positions. And I pointed out to you that there are other religions and
denominations that people can join if they feel the patriarchy of their current
church will not heed their wishes. The very fact that millions of people
maintain the opinions of the church should reinforce what I said about leaving
the church rather than trying to change the church and change the minds of those
millions of people.

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave Smith

Quoted message said:

Probably. Yet another case of repeating something so often that
people start to believe it. Family is family, not just a collection
of people in your church. That is a different type of association,
not family in the true sense.

I thought the line was that a family was any group of people in any
order/gender/number? The people we choose to consider family, isn't
that the line now?

Regards,
Ranee

--
Remove Do Not and Spam to email

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

See my Blog at: http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave Smith

Quoted message said:

Gabby said:

Quoted message said:

There is an incredible irony about a religion that preaches
family values but whose leadership is a group of men who have
given up hope of having a family.

I think most would say that they have a very large family indeed.

Probably. Yet another case of repeating something so often that
people start to believe it. Family is family,

<gasp!!> How can you SAY that? What about The RFC Family ? "-)

Quoted message said:

not just a collection of people in your church.

Or online.

Quoted message said:

not family in the true sense. I just can't see someone counselling
others on marriage and parenthood when that person has never and will
never be married or a parent.

Oh, pishtosh, Dave. Haven't you ever heard "Those who can, do; those
who can't, teach" -- or become counselors. And those who aren't
intimately involved in a problem often have a different (and not
necessarily poor) perspective it.
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> The Nylons added 4-3-05.

"I read recipes the way I read science fiction: I get to the end and
say,'Well, that's not going to happen.'" - Comedian Rita Rudner,
performance at New York, New York, January 10, 2005.

Melba's Jammin said:

Quoted message said:

not family in the true sense. I just can't see someone counselling
others on marriage and parenthood when that person has never and will
never be married or a parent.

Oh, pishtosh, Dave. Haven't you ever heard "Those who can, do; those
who can't, teach" -- or become counselors.

I thought it was Those than can't, teach, and those who can't teach teach
PhysEd. :-)

Quoted message said:

And those who aren't
intimately involved in a problem often have a different (and not
necessarily poor) perspective it.

Odd that you should use the word "intimate" because that is what these guys
aren't. They have forsaken intimacy. It is not just one or two people in
an institution, like an unmarried married or divorced counsellor with in an
organization. This is an entire institution run by people who are not only
unmarried, but you are supposedly celibate, and giving advice on marriage
and other family matters.

Dave Smith said:

Melba's Jammin said:

Quoted message said:

not family in the true sense. I just can't see someone

counselling

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

others on marriage and parenthood when that person has never and

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

never be married or a parent.

Oh, pishtosh, Dave. Haven't you ever heard "Those who can, do;

those

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

who can't, teach" -- or become counselors.

I thought it was Those than can't, teach, and those who can't teach

teach

Quoted message said:

PhysEd. :-)

"Those who can, do... those who can't do, teach... those who can't
teach, manage."

Sheldon

"aem" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Gabby said:

Considering that the church tells husbands to make sure their wives
enjoy sex, indeed advises them to masturbate their wives to orgasm if
they haven't reached that point during intercourse, I don't think
anyone can honestly say that the Church doesn't want one to 'enjoy
sex'.

Guess it's time to read the "Song of Solomon" again. Is that book in
the Catholic version of the Bible? -aem

Of course.

Gabby

"Dave Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Aitken said:

Quoted message said:

Change from within? It's like pissing up a rope. Why on earth should a
woman
fight the papacy when the Anglican Church has beliefs similar to
catholicism
but allows women a more active role in the church and the clergy? Why
tolerate
archaic belief systems when there are lots of denominations around with
more
reasonable views?

I've explained it as simply as I can and you still do not get it. The
fact
that you dismiss the strongly help opinions of millions pf people as
"poppycock" is rather indicative of where you are coming from.

What I dismisses as poppycock was your denial that religions are not like
clubs
that people are free to leave if they don't like the rules or the
assignment of
inferior positions. And I pointed out to you that there are other
religions and
denominations that people can join if they feel the patriarchy of their
current
church will not heed their wishes. The very fact that millions of people
maintain the opinions of the church should reinforce what I said about
leaving
the church rather than trying to change the church and change the minds of
those
millions of people.

Huh? What you "dismisses?" And am I denying that religions are not like
clubs or that they are like clubs? I guess I have to figure out what you are
saying.

Your idea that religions are like clubs is so astoundingly wrong that I am
at a loss as to how to respond. Tens of thousands of people have died or
undergone the most hideous tortures because of their religion. People have
also committed terrible crimes in the name of their religion. I am not
saying this is right or reasonable or sensible - in fact I think it is one
of humanity's major flaws - but it is an undeniable fact. To liken this to
a club ... well, can you imagine 2 million people going to Rome because the
head of the Italian Stamp Collecting Club died?

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the [censored] from my email address before using.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the [censored] from my email address before using.

"Dave Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Oh Poppycock. Some of these churches have been around for a long time and
pride themselves on their tradition. In fact, that same inflexibility is
their
version of the proof of the validity of their faith. No individual is
going to
force the church to change to suit them. This is especially true in the RC
church where women are given a very minor role but major changes can only
me
made in the all male management.

My question would be why would women even want to belong to a church that
denies them the opportunity to become an important member of the
institution.
Why would a person voluntarily become a member of an church where they are
prevented from being part of the clergy because of their gender?

Because they want to and agree with the basic rules of that organization.
Not every female want to be "liberated". Many people, men and women, are
happy with their station in life. I know p eople that have tunred down
promotions and higher income because they did not want to chage their lives
for it. Evidently the RC church is not for you, but that does not make it
wrong for those that belong willingly.

Quoted message said:

Let's face some facts about religion. Most people do not choose their
religion. The vast majority are born into it because their families belong
to
denomination X.

Absolutely. I know far more people t hat are what there parents were but
very few that converted because t he belived the teachings of a different
relicion. .

Quoted message said:

One the church has you they start the indoctrination process. They will
use
various forms of coercion to keep you, from friendly visits, threats of
mortal
sin and even shunning.

Works for many. I prefer to make my own decisions and have my own beliefs.
The subject of this thread is Respect. You can have your ideas, I have
mine. I'll respect yours regardless of whether or not it agrees with mine.

Quoted message said:

Why on earth should a woman
fight the papacy when the Anglican Church has beliefs similar to
catholicism
but allows women a more active role in the church and the clergy? Why
tolerate
archaic belief systems when there are lots of denominations around with
more
reasonable views?

This goes back to respect and the ability to make up one's own mind. If
you don't agree with the teachings and the rules of a particular religion,
look for another that does suit you. Tens of millions of women ae content
withthe RC church as it is. Good for them.

Quoted message said:

Peter Aitken said:

Huh? What you "dismisses?" And am I denying that religions are not like
clubs or that they are like clubs? I guess I have to figure out what you are
saying.

Hmmm.... s is right beside d on my keyboard. Excuse the hell out of me for a
typo.

Quoted message said:

Your idea that religions are like clubs is so astoundingly wrong that I am
at a loss as to how to respond. Tens of thousands of people have died or
undergone the most hideous tortures because of their religion.

Indeed they have. They are more like a club now than they used to be because
people have a little more freedom in some countries and are able to drop out if
they find the church is teaching something that conflicts with their knowledge
of reality. It wasn't always that way. It wasn't so far back in out history
that the pope's of the day were approving of torture and killing to ensure that
they had a captive audience to ensure their wealth and power. When people are
too ignorant to know any better and heavily indoctrinated with the threat of
excommunication and eternal damnation they tend to take their religion more
seriously.

Quoted message said:

People have
also committed terrible crimes in the name of their religion. I am not
saying this is right or reasonable or sensible - in fact I think it is one
of humanity's major flaws - but it is an undeniable fact.

Oh? A human flaw but not a problem with religion?

Quoted message said:

To liken this to
a club ... well, can you imagine 2 million people going to Rome because the
head of the Italian Stamp Collecting Club died?

It's a good chance to rub shoulders with the rich and powerful. Bush, Clinton
and Rice were there too.

Quoted message said:

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the [censored] from my email address before using.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the [censored] from my email address before using.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Edwin

Pawlowski said:

This goes back to respect and the ability to make up one's own mind.
If you don't agree with the teachings and the rules of a particular
religion, look for another that does suit you. Tens of millions of
women ae content withthe RC church as it is. Good for them.

Especially since there are so many liberal churches available to
those who wish them. I see that as an argument to _keep_ the RC
traditionalist, not to change it.

Regards,
Ranee (not Roman Catholic)

--
Remove Do Not and Spam to email

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

See my Blog at: http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/