Originally posted by lucifershammerYou say women has a different responsibility (singular). Interesting. Tell me, what would that responsibility be?
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.
If we're talking equality in terms of what is possible for women to do versa men, I find it extremely hard to believe that a woman couldn't lead men in spiritual matters (such as the popes responsibilities).
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf the definition reflects the metaphysical reality of the position (as with "male mother" ), then they don't. If it doesn't, then they do.
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?
EDIT: IIRC a person who is not a natural-born US citizen cannot become the President of the US. Do you think naturalised citizens have a legitimate gripe against those etc.?
Originally posted by stockenAs human beings, to love God and love their neighbour. As women, to be loving mothers, daughters and wives. As it is for men to be loving fathers, sons and husbands.
You say women has a different responsibility (singular). Interesting. Tell me, what would that responsibility be?
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut this way the overall responsabity of men is higher then of women when you take into account the male only jobs in the church.
As human beings, to love God and love their neighbour. As women, to be loving mothers, daughters and wives. As it is for men to be loving fathers, sons and husbands.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat? Arnold can't be president?
If the definition reflects the metaphysical reality of the position (as with "male mother" ), then they don't. If it doesn't, then they do.
EDIT: IIRC a person who is not a natural-born US citizen cannot become the President of the US. Do you think naturalised citizens have a legitimate gripe against those etc.?
(Not knowing what IIRC stands for, I may very well have missed the point.)
Originally posted by Will EverittA lot of mothers I know would disagree with you. LOL
But this way the overall responsabity of men is higher then of women when you take into account the male only jobs in the church.
In any case, it isn't a question of one responsibility being "more" or "less" than the other. They're different. That's all.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou wouldn't characterize the Pope as having more responsibility than Cardinal Law's housekeepers?
A lot of mothers I know would disagree with you. LOL
In any case, it isn't a question of one responsibility being "more" or "less" than the other. They're different. That's all.
Originally posted by stockenArgh. Nice catch, though. I meant every legitimate responsibility, every legitimate task, every legitimate* job.
Tell that to a reluctant male prostitute?
---
I actually wrote "mail prostitute", first. ha ha. 😵
In any case, we were talking about the relative responsibilities of men qua men and women qua women as given by God.
---
* "legitimate" is not equal to "legal"!