How many non-chritian non-atheists are there on...

Originally posted by Will Everitt
I know why. The church is sexist and denies it.

Not sexist--never! Simply--traditional...

Originally posted by stocken
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the discussion had become (in violation of the thread) a matter of whether or not there can be female (physically speaking) popes. You seem to claim that there can't be. I disagree. Just change the title, and any female is just as capable as some men to be popes.

-- would that be a mome, or what?

The point is that a Pope isn't just a title. It represents a metaphysical reality of that person.

It's a bit like a transvestite claiming he (she?) bore a particular child. It might seem like that to all the outside world, but it is not really so.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The point is that a Pope isn't just a title. It represents a metaphysical reality of that person.

...which is the result of a human vote. Please.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The point is that a Pope isn't just a title. It represents a metaphysical reality of that person..

If men & women are not only physically but also spiritually different, wouldn't it make sense to have two churches, male & female, with a corresponding spiritual Father & Mother?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The point is that a Pope isn't just a title. It represents a metaphysical reality of that person.

It's a bit like a transvestite claiming he (she?) bore a particular child. It might seem like that to all the outside world, but it is not really so.

So what you're saying is, there's no room for women in religion (other than to perhaps worship)? Careful, now...

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
...which is the result of a human vote.

So what? A person's metaphysical essence is not immutable from birth to death.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So what? A person's metaphysical essence is not immutable from birth to death.

So a woman could be Pope then if the right people voted that her essence had changed.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So what? A person's metaphysical essence is not immutable from birth to death.

So what? You are arguing that the role of the Pope can only be filled by a man. But if that metaphysical essence which characterizes a Pope is the result of a human vote, why couldn't those voting choose a woman as the person whose metaphysical essence is to be altered? (I understand that linguisticly she would then have to be addressed as Mama, but the linguistic impossibility of having a female Pope is the only one in play. There is no nomological impossibility, since you have said that metaphysical essence can be voted upon a person.)

And I strongly disagree that a human vote can change a person's metaphysical essence.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


It's a bit like a transvestite claiming he (she?) bore a particular child. It might seem like that to all the outside world, but it is not really so.

But isn't it the case that "a person's metaphysical essence is not immutable from birth to death"? How do you know that such a change hasn't occurred in the transvestite? Maybe there was a vote about it!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
If men & women are not only physically but also spiritually different, wouldn't it make sense to have two churches, male & female, with a corresponding spiritual Father & Mother?

No. For one thing, men and women still have a common destiny as human beings. For another, they are called to work together to achieve that destiny.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No. For one thing, men and women still have a common destiny as human beings. For another, they are called to work [b]together to achieve that destiny.[/b]

Why couldn't two separate churches work together--separate, yet together? A veritable marriage of male & female spirituality. What would prevent them from working together?

And (cough) what does your post say about the relative status of the various church denominations that exist? Only the RCC has it right?

Originally posted by stocken
So what you're saying is, there's no room for women in religion (other than to perhaps worship)? Careful, now...

Worship is a primary responsibility of all humans - ordained/consecrated or lay. What I'm saying is that women have a different responsibility or vocation, no less in dignity, in the Church.

Equality does not mean identity.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So a woman could be Pope then if the right people voted that her essence had changed.

You cannot change the essence of any being into something it has no potential to become.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why couldn't two separate churches work together--separate, yet together? A veritable marriage of male & female spirituality. What would prevent them from working together?

And (cough) what does your post say about the relative status of the various church denominations that exist? Only the RCC has it right?

1. From a Catholic perspective, if that's the way God wanted it - that's the way he would've set it up.

2. My post answers the question that was raised to it - why can a woman not become Pope? Since the Pope is a title unique to RCC, it says nothing about the relative status of other denominations.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You cannot change the essence of any being into something it has no potential to become.

If the role of the President of the United States were defined to be held by a white man, it would be the case that black men would have no potential to fulfill it. Would black men have a legitimate gripe against those who thus defined the role of President?