Vatican is Operated by Arcane Laws
--- THIS BLOG HAS BEEN ABANDONED. OUR NEW HOME IS: THE WEASEL SOAP BOX ---
And yet, many women, a couple of Canadian women in particular, feel that the Vatican's outdated policies are truly outdated and have decided it's more amusing to risk their hides than to fall into the traditional roles of submissive obedience. These obstinate bishops, priests and such frowned upon the ordination of women in the same manner they frown upon homosexuality, contraceptives and other issues which don't fall into perfect synchronous with church mandate.Catholic women secretly ordained.
The women, including two Canadians, say the ordination will follow Vatican procedures.
But church officials have strongly objected to such ceremonies in the past. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, excommunicated seven women in 2002 after they were ordained.
Those excommunitions must've made him feel like a big man; one suffering from the throes of small penis syndrome. Either that, or the celibacy was really getting to him at that point.
We all know the true reason why women aren't ordained - the men would have to start behaving properly and the church would be forced to massively reformed. It would require a small reformation for allowing the entrance of women as something more than humble nuns. But for these men, this is one of the last remainig elements in the western world that permits such overtly blatant sexism without crying "FIRE!".
Michele Birch-Conery of British Columbia is also expected to be ordained Monday. She said Ratzinger's actions encouraged her to emulate women who have already taken part in the ceremony.
"To see how these women came to live with their faith while respecting the beliefs of others moved me deeply," said Birch-Conery, a former nun. "I immediately felt in solidarity with them. I have always practised my faith on the fringes. But now I realize that there is more and more of us on these fringes."
The Protestant divisions of the Christian church, have seen this as progression towards equality (one of the few good things I have been able to say in the recent months; then again, it isn't one of the wings therein associated with the radical fringe movement of Bible-thumpers of the evangelical genre). They've also permitted, in a few denominations, the ordination of women as priests.
Catholic women `ordained' amid Church disapproval
Mike Catanzaro, a pastor at a Presbyterian Church, drove from Canton, N.Y., to support Rue. "The world is about to change today," he said.
It seems like the world for the Presbyterians didn't end when women could be begin preaching.
Politically, such as in the case of the Sponsorship Scandal (Gomery Inquiry), that when just men are involved, the conditions are rife for rampant neptism and corruption. While women are equally as suseptible to corruption as men, in the poltical arena, it has been typically shown that with women present, the risk of corruption is reduced.
Perhaps the sex scandal within the walls of the Vatican could've been curbed... If only they had allowed women the same rights as men. If only they had loosened the steep genitilia requirements, perhaps they wouldn't be facing the same problems they are today.
::
4 Comments:
It seems obvious to me now that the church is not interested in the retention of disciples, but in the preservation of their ancient values. That's all fine and well, as long as they understand that they can only have one. The more you concentrate on yesterday, the fewer will be enticed today.
Let the baby have its bottle. If the church doesn't respect women, why should anyone who respects women be a part of it? If the church ousts homosexuals, why should anyone who believes in individual rights be a part of their ranks?
Far too many people affiliate themselves with organizations they do not understand, just so that they can say they belong to one. Do you really want hatemongers speaking for you just to save you the trouble of speaking for yourself? Why not start your own communal religion with likeminded people, each of whom have a fair share in delegating rules and traditions?
This is just my opinion. Time will tell whether people prefer an elitist dictatorship over shared responsibility.
Brian Damage, at 11:09 a.m.
That is why I hate all organized religion.
You seem to think that a communal religion is the solution, but in reality, it is just a bandaid solution.
Protestantism, or in its original form, Lutherism, was seeking to do the same thing during the Reformation Age, at a time when the printing press was a reality and books were being published.
But, despite the attempts, this demonination is still very retsrictive even though it is "liberal" in some aspects, and it fails to evolve to meet the needs of those seeking spiritual guidance.
All religion, no matter how communal clings to some form of arcane tradition. Only those which are solely based on spirituality are those which aren't restrictive.
This is why the ideals of Secularism (evolved atheism, and also a bit of a take on agnostism) emerged in the 19th century. It was to challenge the confirmist thinking of religions.
It was designed to challenge the ignorance and lack of tolerance and understanding that spewed from the orfices of organised and unorganised religion. However, unlike atheism, it was more about: religion blocks understanding, but we can't stop it. But rather, it is designed to bring people into a position where they can still have religion and be understanding and tolerant. That is where the aspect of agnostism comes in.
France is a secular nation. It may have had a religious past, but it has moved beyond it because secularism, which is tied to eucumenicism and pluralism, encourages religion to be but on the backburner of society and treated as a personal and not a sociatal element of life.
A.I., at 11:51 a.m.
Sorry, I respectfully disagree. I don't think all religion is based on tradition and I don't think communal religion has to be restrictive. I was thinking more along the lines of creating your own religion from scratch and bouncing ideas off of other likeminded individuals who are seeking something, as you call it, spiritual.
But this idea is secondary to my argument. My main point is that religious don't have to be exclusive. Instead of a hierarchy of power there could be equal opportunity for people to enlighten eachother. Instead of holding on to the past just for its own sake, religious members can keep eachother in the loop so that the organization can be continually transmogrified and updated.
Brian Damage, at 6:03 p.m.
I see your point that it can transition over years and be molded into something contemporary, but, if the likeminded people get stuck thinking that the current ways are fine, then no changes occur.
Many of the schism-produced religions started out on such principles, but along the way, got stuck in neutral when people began to embrace some of the traditions.
Also, people when using religion for spiritual guidance look to some sort of leader and rely on a hierarchal system to give them the support they need. An equal system may not be what people want and eventually, these same like-minded people will want someone with the final say and someone who can show them the way.
A.I., at 8:46 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home
A.I. :: Permalink
