Evidence for God from Science

Please READ the comment below before choosing an option. After you've chosen it, ARGUE about it. Saying: "Hurr durr, it is not normal etc" is not an argument, but your opinion!!

Before I continue, I'd like to state that I am against it, but have failed to argue about it mostly because of the lack of argument(s) (mainly because I am terrible at reacting fast or thinking quick in such philosophical matters). Also note that this was no serious debate or something as such. All was done in a friendly tone.

So....

There was a discussion held a few hours ago on my college concerning women's position inside the Catholic Church. Our professor of anthropology (a Catholic, mind you) argued that, theologically speaking, women are inferior to men because men can fulfill the sacrament (become a priest) whilst women can not.
So, the topic he critiques is the one concerning the Catholic Church's hierarchy. Of course, CC writes in the document of the Second Vatican council (I am too lazy to find which one, but I have read most parts and I am absolutely certain) that different people (including different sexes) have different role to play in the Church which is what I argued, but not from that position. I've approached this argument (different people/sexes ---> different roles) from another side -- the social side (the CC one I remembered just now). The prime example to that is the Feudal system: there are 3 fractions that make a whole -- 1)Oratores (those who pray -- so clergy and Church), 2)Bellatores (those who fight -- so monarch and his army), 3) Laboratores (those who work -- so peasants, merchants). If one of those crumble, the system (or state) crumbles, as well (so argues Plato, as well, to an extent).
When I am trying to compare that to today's society there arise certain problems since the way of thinking is much different, so I am not really sure what example from today's world I should use...
Of course, I do not imply feudalism should return, I just used it as an example.

I must mention that there is no need for prejudice against the professor because he is a really good professor/philosopher/guy and with this topic encouraged us into a philosophical, argumentative discussion. Of course, his main field is philosophy of anthropology, but being a Catholic and knowing that the philosophy and theology have went hand in hand throughout the centuries, he allowed himself to philosophize about this and bring the students into the discussion, as well.

So, I'd like to ask you to choose the option and argue your side.

CC writes in the document of the Second Vatican council (I am too lazy to find which one, but I have read most parts and I am absolutely certain) that different people (including different sexes) have different role to play in the Church

Of course, in the first place, it matters not what the CC or any other church asserts is the truth of such a matter. The ONLY relevant arguments, pro or con, should be found and rooted in Scripture.

Philip wrote:

CC writes in the document of the Second Vatican council (I am too lazy to find which one, but I have read most parts and I am absolutely certain) that different people (including different sexes) have different role to play in the Church

Of course, in the first place, it matters not what the CC or any other church asserts is the truth of such a matter. The ONLY relevant arguments, pro or con, should be found and rooted in Scripture.

Well, considering their long tradition of theologians, as well as translating, transcribing and preserving the Scripture, I decided to take a look what their opinion is.

Should have at least one more choice in the poll.

Such as, "I'm not catholic, so I have no say".

Can't vote. I see nothing wrong either way.

What is more important is correct teaching seasoned in truth but grace and love.

The natural order of marriage is man, woman and then children. Woman is no less than the man, nor are children less than the woman or man, and yet for a correctly functioning family unit each serve a unique role. Sin in people often makes some see the issue as one of "power" for what they perceive as a more important and powerful roles, mistaking such for just a natural order of function. The foundation for all such is love, and for us, that is rooted in God Himself.

• Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Overlay such this family model upon the church, which is really comprised of our extended spiritual family in Christ, and I'd expect a similar order of sorts. Whether it should be strictly codified and followed, well one's spiritual growth and maturity ought to be considered since women can have loads where many men fail or vice-versa.

Again correct teaching is crucial, and such should be done out of love a rooted in Christ, not to claim power, abuse, control or take advantage of others as so often happens.

I agree that women can become priests.
I really don't see a problem with it at all.

The pope says NO - that women can NEVER become priests! http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /93118528/ But I thought he was supposed to be so progressive?

http://time.com/3729904/francis-women/

The fundamental reason for the Church's refusal to admit women to the priesthood is that it's bound by the example of Christ. Jesus did not include women among his original 12 apostles, so the argument runs, and the Church is compelled to follow that example, restricting the priesthood today to men.

The pope has spoken. End of topic.

Now Rick is gonna reconsider Catholicism! It's a mans world, etc!

Philip wrote:Now Rick is gonna reconsider Catholicism! It's a mans world, etc!

My wife would never let me be catholic.

My wife would never let me be catholic.

Man, who wears the pants around there???!!!

Philip wrote:

My wife would never let me be catholic.

Man, who wears the pants around there???!!!

My wife wears the cassock in our family.

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

My wife would never let me be catholic.

Man, who wears the pants around there???!!!

My wife wears the cassock in our family.

Philip, I'm not sure you should refer to RickD as "Man" anymore.

K: Philip, I'm not sure you should refer to RickD as "Man" anymore.

We'll let Nessa decide - seeing as how he is so in touch with women's feelings. Or is it all just TALK? Does "Larry" make his own samwiches? For awhile there, he was my hero in seeming to know just how to handle women. But now I'm starting to wonder.

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

My wife would never let me be catholic.

Man, who wears the pants around there???!!!

My wife wears the cassock in our family.

Philip, I'm not sure you should refer to RickD as "Man" anymore.