Catholic Mass 'sexist and elitist', say priests.

[Seth]

I'm not going to argue doctrine, which is set by fiat and political and financial expediency.

If you're going to discuss Catholicism, you must perforce discuss doctrine.

This is about the PRACTICES of the organisation. Mass is a practice.

Yes, it is, and that practice is dictated by doctrine, down to the smallest detail.

I really don't give a flying fuck about beliefs. You and everyone else and every organisation can believe whatever they bloody well want. It's called freedom of belief.

Yup.

Practices , there is no freedom of practice, practice comes under the aegis of law and is subject to question.

Ah, well, sorry, but you're still wrong, at least in the US, where what is expressly stated is that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibition the free exercise thereof. (emphasis added)

"Free exercise," you see, does happen to include "practice" as well as belief. And when the doctrine of belief demands particular practice, that practice is protected. There are, of course limits, to forestall your inevitable red herring and strawman parade. Human sacrifice, for example, is not permitted even though it is a religious practice, but the criteria for suppressing or prohibiting a particular practice are quite strict and very limited in scope, generally limited to instances where the practice causes involuntary physical harm to others. Snake handling, for example, which causes harm to the handler, is a protected religious practice in the US, as would be, for example, self-flagellation. Flagellating someone else without their consent would not be. Flagellating someone WITH their consent would be. Human sacrifice is always prohibited because the legal presumption is that no person can consent to his own killing.

So, the issue of female priests is not subject to regulation by the state. It's a part of Catholic doctrine that women cannot be priests, and nobody can gainsay that doctrine.

Get used to it, it's called the Enlightenment and it's been around for a while.

Get a grip, you have no real clue what you're talking about.

[.Morticia.]

as I said, yer a hoot

[cowiz]

Make me a sandwich

[Seth]

as I said, yer a hoot

How...erudite. How...thoughtful and informative. How...rational....

[Gallstones]

Hasn't the Catholic church started confirming infants at the time of Baptism now?

When I was still in the church I remember having a discussion about the new practice and most in attendance at that time thought it was a shit idea.

According to my expert,.............{There be a snip}.......

Who's your expert Seth; have a priest on speedial?

[Gallstones]

after you prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist

Until then the working conclusion is there is no such being.

Further, bringing the 'supernatural' into dialogue about the day to day workings of an organisation is completely irrelevant.

When the discussion is about the day to day workings of an organization based on a supernatural entity, then it is apropos to bring in the supernatural entity. I don't see how it can be separated from "it's" organization. Those undertaking the workings do it because they assume such an entity exists and wants those workings undertaken.

Just because they believe that there is such an entity does not mean that those who do not can't still argue a point from their belief which includes their entity.

[cowiz]

after you prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist

Until then the working conclusion is there is no such being.

Further, bringing the 'supernatural' into dialogue about the day to day workings of an organisation is completely irrelevant.

When the discussion is about the day to day workings of an organization based on a supernatural entity, then it is apropos to bring in the supernatural entity. I don't see how it can be separated from "it's" organization. Those undertaking the workings do it because they assume such an entity exists and wants those workings undertaken.

Just because they believe that there is such an entity does not mean that those who do not can't still argue a point from their belief which includes their entity.

Fair enough GS, but can we ask for evidence to support supernatural claims? If they argue for it, surely they must be able to present a rationale for their reasons.

[Gallstones]

after you prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist

Until then the working conclusion is there is no such being.

Further, bringing the 'supernatural' into dialogue about the day to day workings of an organisation is completely irrelevant.

When the discussion is about the day to day workings of an organization based on a supernatural entity, then it is apropos to bring in the supernatural entity. I don't see how it can be separated from "it's" organization. Those undertaking the workings do it because they assume such an entity exists and wants those workings undertaken.

Just because they believe that there is such an entity does not mean that those who do not can't still argue a point from their belief which includes their entity.

Fair enough GS, but can we ask for evidence to support supernatural claims? If they argue for it, surely they must be able to present a rationale for their reasons.

I don't really think they have to. If we are discussing doctrine, then the details of that doctrine is theirs to decide. If they are intending to impose their doctrine on non-adherents, then it is reasonable to insist that in the very least, some evidence be provided. And even then, people can opt out. Within the religion, the church can reasonably expect that adherents follow the doctrine of the church--else is one an adherent? Outsiders don't get a say in what that doctrine is or what it covers as they aren't under its dictate.

Just because their organization is based on something that probably doesn't exist, doesn't mean they can't believe that it does exist or form a club around it and have club rules.

[cowiz]

I don't really think they have to. If we are discussing doctrine, then the details of that doctrine is theirs to decide. If they are intending to impose their doctrine on non-adherents, then it is reasonable to insist that in the very least, some evidence be provided. And even then, people can opt out. Within the religion, the church can reasonably expect that adherents follow the doctrine of the church--else is one an adherent? Outsiders don't get a say in what that doctrine is or what it covers as they aren't under its dictate.

Just because their organization is based on something that probably doesn't exist, doesn't mean they can't believe that it does exist or form a club around it and have club rules.

Okay I'm out of context here. I'll re-read this thread before commenting further.

[Seth]

Hasn't the Catholic church started confirming infants at the time of Baptism now?

When I was still in the church I remember having a discussion about the new practice and most in attendance at that time thought it was a shit idea.

According to my expert,.............{There be a snip}.......

Who's your expert Seth; have a priest on speedial?

I wish. No, it's an extremely well-educated lay person. But I can get a priest on short notice. I recall one instance of getting information from the Archbishop of the Denver Archdiocese on a particularly knotty problem.

[Seth]

after you prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist

Until then the working conclusion is there is no such being.

Further, bringing the 'supernatural' into dialogue about the day to day workings of an organisation is completely irrelevant.

When the discussion is about the day to day workings of an organization based on a supernatural entity, then it is apropos to bring in the supernatural entity. I don't see how it can be separated from "it's" organization. Those undertaking the workings do it because they assume such an entity exists and wants those workings undertaken.

Just because they believe that there is such an entity does not mean that those who do not can't still argue a point from their belief which includes their entity.

Fair enough GS, but can we ask for evidence to support supernatural claims? If they argue for it, surely they must be able to present a rationale for their reasons.

Well, as I understand it there's about 2011 years worth of philosophical consideration and debate on the issue, so yes, I imagine they have answers for pretty much everything. You might not like the answers, but I'm sure they have them.

When it comes to women priests, its pretty simple, as I understand it, God says "no women priests." Not much of an avenue of appeal for that decisions, I'm afraid.

[Animavore]

after you prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist

Until then the working conclusion is there is no such being.

Further, bringing the 'supernatural' into dialogue about the day to day workings of an organisation is completely irrelevant.

When the discussion is about the day to day workings of an organization based on a supernatural entity, then it is apropos to bring in the supernatural entity. I don't see how it can be separated from "it's" organization. Those undertaking the workings do it because they assume such an entity exists and wants those workings undertaken.

Just because they believe that there is such an entity does not mean that those who do not can't still argue a point from their belief which includes their entity.

Fair enough GS, but can we ask for evidence to support supernatural claims? If they argue for it, surely they must be able to present a rationale for their reasons.

Well, as I understand it there's about 2011 years worth of philosophical consideration and debate on the issue, so yes, I imagine they have answers for pretty much everything. You might not like the answers, but I'm sure they have them.

When it comes to women priests, its pretty simple, as I understand it, God says "no women priests." Not much of an avenue of appeal for that decisions, I'm afraid.

Where does God say, "No women priests"?
As far as I know it was Paul that said that.

[Pappa]

Make me a sandwich

[.Morticia.]

The First Ammendment is about practices as they pertain to worship and devotion

NOT doing whatever you like in the NAME of religion

Big difference.

[Seth]

after you prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist

Until then the working conclusion is there is no such being.

Further, bringing the 'supernatural' into dialogue about the day to day workings of an organisation is completely irrelevant.

When the discussion is about the day to day workings of an organization based on a supernatural entity, then it is apropos to bring in the supernatural entity. I don't see how it can be separated from "it's" organization. Those undertaking the workings do it because they assume such an entity exists and wants those workings undertaken.

Just because they believe that there is such an entity does not mean that those who do not can't still argue a point from their belief which includes their entity.

Fair enough GS, but can we ask for evidence to support supernatural claims? If they argue for it, surely they must be able to present a rationale for their reasons.

Well, as I understand it there's about 2011 years worth of philosophical consideration and debate on the issue, so yes, I imagine they have answers for pretty much everything. You might not like the answers, but I'm sure they have them.

When it comes to women priests, its pretty simple, as I understand it, God says "no women priests." Not much of an avenue of appeal for that decisions, I'm afraid.

Where does God say, "No women priests"?
As far as I know it was Paul that said that.

Evidently Paul got it from God. If you disagree, feel free to take it up with Paul, or with God, or even the Pope.