The Newest Catholic Church Uproar

[J-man]

A man saying he has authority doesn't mean he has authority to make that claim. It's all hand waving and I find it utterly unacceptable from any reasonable standpoint. It's effectively saying "well I have authority because I do and you just have to live with it". So if the meaning is unchanged, does that mean I can take it word for word quite literally? Let me just point some things out to you that suggest strongly that the bible is out of context for todays world:

The problem with this statement is that you presuppose that Christ isn't God the Son. There is undeniable evidence he is (i won't go into this because it's off topic, but if you want to debate it start the topic, i'm willing to defend the truth), as well as corroborating evidence outside the Bible that coordinates with the Bible's truth about Jesus. If Jesus is God, than ultimately he does have authority.

-Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female.
-Leviticus 15: 19-24 states I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness.
-Exodus 35:2 clearly states working on the Sabbath means you should be put to death.
-Leviticus 11:10 states that eating shellfish is an abomination.
-Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight- I'm pretty fucked with less than 20/20, hey?
-Leviticus 19:27 States that it is forbidden to trim hair, especially around the temples. How long is your hair?
-Leviticus 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field, as it does wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend, for example).

I am looking forward to justification for how the above is still relevant and apply to todays world.

My Justification is that these laws are irrelevant today because they are the laws for the country of Israel. They aren't the USA's laws, or Britain's laws or Russia's. They were set up to be opposite of what was the norm of the pagan countries in that time. Also, there were rules about slavery for Israel. Chattel (write form and spelling?) Slavery was outlawed and seen as murder, and slaves were freed every Jubilee? year.

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad....response-to-ellen-van-wolde-on-genesis-1.html

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/40_genesis1.html

Two genders. "Ged separated Man" would fit within the construct of God making women FROM men, separating the two.

So, tell me how "God separated Man in his own image" works.

It was a bit controversial, but certainly interesting that there may be some mistranslation within our modern bibles.

Either that, or perhaps the true motives of Professor Van Wolde was simply to stir up controversy, as she admitted and the media played on. Naturally, to stir up hype you would have to oppose the norm.

http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=1535 another great article on this controversy.

Well yeah, considering many of the gospels weren't even ALIVE when Jesus was nailed to the cross. I'd think maybe they did some plagiarism though, it's not too hard to pick up someones work from 60 years earlier and rewrite it in your own words. It's the "Purple monkey dishwasher" effect, where stories change over generation gaps.

What do you mean by "Gospels"? If you mean the persons Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, then you are mistaken. The 4 writers of the Gospels were alive at the time of Jesus. Also, the Gospels were written within the Generation of Jesus, so anyone in that generation could have read the gospels and said "Aha, That's not right, it's false. I was there!". 60 years isn't long enough for legend to eradicate fact.

If you cannot read the 1st century writing through 21st century thinking because it gets distorted, in what way is it relevant and within context to us? How can we possibly take the correct meaning from it? That right there is pretty open and shut if you ask me.

It provides relevant instruction for how the church operates. I suppose i should clear up what i mean by "thinking". By thinking, you know that Women today worked and are "equal" in status to man. Back then, women didn't enjoy any high status, nor could they do much in the way in work... or you could go to the issue of slavery. Once again, slavery is different from now and then... so what i'm saying is that you can't go into thinking "Slavery? That's outrageous!" "Women having low status? That's wrong!" You have to understand that back then things were different and you have to read the Bible accordingly.

Jesus was a man living in a society. Son of God or not, he grew up in those sociological conditions and as such was not beyond participating in their norms. Show me evidence to the contrary.

Eh what? Please clear things up, i still don't understand what you are saying.

You need authority to question the bible? That is pretty much a perfect demonstration of indoctrination demonstrated by you, if that's indeed what you mean.

Believe it or not, you too are indoctrinated.

Just because a book says it is correct does not mean it is correct. Just because a man claims to be the son of god and convinces people of it, it does not make it true.

Again, I'm ready to debate Jesus being God, and "there" is proof that he is. You cannot argue the contrary.

Just because a book claims to have authority doesn't mean anything

Please enlighten me on this. The President of the USA has a lot of authority, and he certainly can claim to have it. I guess that means nothing...

and it certainly doesn't mean I am in need of equal or greater authority to question it.

To override a true claim of ultimate authority requires authority greater than said authority.

There is zero reason that I can see as to why I shouldn't challenge this using the twin cannons of common sense and the scientific method.

Because you are not your own. You belong to God and he hasn't given you any excuse to not believe in you.

Actually, in the exact same way the bible does it, I am going to claim that I have authority. God told me I have authority over the bible, any interpretation of the bible, any of its readers and especially you. Because of this, I am the word of God and officially have the authority to do and say whatever I please without question. Do you see how ludicrous it sounds coming from me? Well that's exactly how it sounds coming from the bible and from you (about the bible). Asking me what Authority I have is pretty much trying to curtail the points of the debate and go over my head and that is just not reasonable.

This "claim to authority from God" requires proof. Unlike you, Jesus and the whole lot of Biblical authority had proof that God gave them this authority, most commonly known as doing miracles in God's name.

Edit: Chocolate chip cookies, have you seen the lineage of Jesus? It goes by father, each gospel giving a different story that can be dramatically different. Then we get to Joseph and OOOPS looks like he's not the father so it was an exercise in futility.

First off, only Mathew and Luke provide genealogies for Jesus. There are explanations to these differences that i have forgotten and will look up, but i don't have the time, so ask me when you respond to this. Anyways, Joseph was Jesus' earthly father, since he was Married/engaged to Mary, Jesus would legally fall under the earthly authority of Joseph. No futility "there."

I'll get to Cookies later, i've got no time right now and i'll be using the Wii to respond, so i'll have to wait till someone replies so that i can respond. Either that or one of the Moderators graciously allows me to double post because of my limitations, or graciously combines the double posts for the sake of carrying the argument, which i would like to say i'm pretty sure hasn't gone off topic.

 

[Surgo]

EDIT: about the question of whether or not an MTF is a man after SRS: yes. We have Y chromosomes and there's nothing we can do about them. While most TS/TGs will stamp their feet and spam you with a barrage of Newspeak, the reality is that approximating the appearance of one's target gender doesn't change one's actual gender.

This was posted ages go but it's still worth replying to.

I don't see how having the XY or XX chromosomal combination should actually be any indicator of gender here. There are men who have XX chromosomes, which is called (appropriately enough) XX male syndrome. While we were talking about MTF and not FTM, I don't see how the argument can be made to exclude FTMs from "male" via a chromosomal basis if there are already (perfectly normal) XX-males.

Edit: There's also Swyer Syndrome for XY-females, so the argument now works for MTF as well. Thanks Wikipedia!

 

[cantab]

My Justification is that these laws are irrelevant today because they are the laws for the country of Israel. They aren't the USA's laws, or Britain's laws or Russia's.

They're not modern Israeli laws either. If the Old Testament's laws do not apply today, why do the New Testament's rules about the Church?

60 years isn't long enough for legend to eradicate fact.

The presence today of widely-believed "urban legends" with origins much less that sixty years ago calls your claim into question.

The President of the USA has a lot of authority, and he certainly can claim to have it.

Wrong sort of authority. The President has no claim of always being right.

Also, in general, stop with the preaching. It brings nothing to the debate.

 

[bish]

The Catholic Church complains about a lot of things, I remember on a TV program it said they blamed gay people for floods, they just don't want women to be able to become pope's after another few decades or whatever.

 

[J-man]

They're not modern Israeli laws either. If the Old Testament's laws do not apply today, why do the New Testament's rules about the Church?

Ancient Israel =/= The unchanging church on the foundation Christ. the law of ancient israel is irrelevant because it doesn't exist anymore. The rules of the church are relevant today because the church still exists.

The presence today of widely-believed "urban legends" with origins much less that sixty years ago calls your claim into question.

right... i think i'll re-read and try to clarify, as i seem to have forgotten what "The Case for Christ" was saying about this. but anyways, the point i'm trying to make is that books such as Acts, Paul's letters, and The Gospels were written within the generation of Christ, and his enemies and neutral witnesses would be all too happy to point out all the errors, yet we have nothing historical from that period in time refuting Christianity.

Wrong sort of authority. The President has no claim of always being right.

Right, flawed analogy... What i'm trying to say that if someone like Christ claims to have the authority he claims to have, then that certainly has alot of meaning.

Also, in general, stop with the preaching. It brings nothing to the debate.

if what i'm saying is true, and "there" is reason to believe so, then it has all the relavence. i believe "the preaching" in question might have been a tad aggressive and apologize if it turned anyone off.

 

[cantab]

right... i think i'll re-read and try to clarify, as i seem to have forgotten what "The Case for Christ" was saying about this. but anyways, the point i'm trying to make is that books such as Acts, Paul's letters, and The Gospels were written within the generation of Christ, and his enemies and neutral witnesses would be all too happy to point out all the errors, yet we have nothing historical from that period in time refuting Christianity.

I'm not sure we have much from that historical period at all.

 

[Zacchaeus]

The Bible is flawed, The Old Testament is flawed more so than the New Testament I would say though. I'm a Christian, yes, but it can't be denied that there are problems with the Bible. One being the problem posed to J-Man at the top of this page, is it right to stone people and all that Old Testament jazz? No, it's said that the Old Testament no longer applies to us, but nowhere that I've seen in the New Testament does it say that it's sinful to be gay, only does it say that in the Old Testament, which apparently doesn't apply to our lives. Does that mean being gay is a sin or not? I have been led to believe it is, but the evidence to support it is confusing.

On a more related note, it is said in the Bible that women should not be in a position of power over men, and this rule is just following scripture.

 

[MrIndigo]

A pastor once told me that the New Testament was written to try and attract more people into the religion, because the Old Testament and its stories of sending poisonous snakes amongst the people to bite them etc. would scare them away.

 

[MrIndigo]

right... i think i'll re-read and try to clarify, as i seem to have forgotten what "The Case for Christ" was saying about this. but anyways, the point i'm trying to make is that books such as Acts, Paul's letters, and The Gospels were written within the generation of Christ, and his enemies and neutral witnesses would be all too happy to point out all the errors, yet we have nothing historical from that period in time refuting Christianity.

Just because you don't have evidence refuting, doesn't mean it's true. Russel's Teapot means that the burden of proving falls on the one making the unfalsifiable statement.

Right, flawed analogy... What i'm trying to say that if someone like Christ claims to have the authority he claims to have, then that certainly has alot of meaning.

This is still circular. Christ saying he has authority only has a lot of meaning if he has the authority in the first place. If he doesn't, then he has no authority to make the statement that he has authority.

Bukkake can claim he has authority, and we don't know if he does or not. If he does, then his statement that he has authority carries weight. If he doesn't, it carries no weight. Christ is in exactly the same bind. He would need to prove his authority in order for the claim that he had authority to have a lot of meaning.

I agree with your unusually pragmatic statements about Ancient Israel, though. The fact that the Church still exists today and the laws of Ancient Israel do not means that it is relevant to discuss the appropriate construement the laws of the Church as they apply to us and not relevant to discuss the same of the Ancient Israel law.

 

[Mihai]

A pastor once told me that the New Testament was written to try and attract more people into the religion, because the Old Testament and its stories of sending poisonous snakes amongst the people to bite them etc. would scare them away.

I think the New Testament was written to show the Romans that the Christians were good people. The Romans tried to kill the Christian because they were similar to the Jews and didn't render homage to the emperor. And with the
New Testament they wanted to show that they aren't like the Jews (in the New Testament they were responsible for Jesus' death) and that they think Romans are good (Pilatus wasn't responsible for Jesus' death)
That's what I think.

 

[Deck Knight]

Organized religions are groups generally known for being proudly static and immutable. Although the prejudices of the founders of said religions usually still hold true for their leadership today, this may not be reflected by the majority of the religion's followers who either don't know about said prejudices (often manifested by denial), don't care about them, don't want to be condemned for heresy, or some combination of the three. The world has changed a lot in two-thousand years and while religious leaders tend to make it their jobs to preserve tradition, I think the majority of people have learned to respect that and move on with with their lives.
Is it fair that women can't be ordained? No.
Will it be changing anytime soon? No.

Who determines what is fair?

"Fair" is a word I see thrown around aimlessly a lot. Everyone thinks their worldview is, like Snow White, the fairest of them all. While running for President in a Democratic Debate, Obama said he thought raising capital gains taxes should be done not because he had some grand economic insight or vision, but rather "for the purposes of fairness." Some people take it to the next level and actively cast aspersions on anyone who doesn't have their vision of "fairness."

Most of the people who think this or that policy of some outside organized group isn't "fair" are arguing from ignorance. They do not consider any of the practical, historical, or other relevant concerns and merely think the organization should change to suit their vision of "fairness."

For example I would imagine most people who think it "unfair" that women cannot be Catholic priests do not raise an eyebrow that women in the police and military have much, much lower entry standards than men in the same position. Their "standard," is merely that there be a quota for women in these male-dominated organizations. They usually do not have such a quota for men in female-dominated organizations in their view of "fairness." They will never fight "ladies night" nor any other one-sided benefit bestowed on whoever they think the victim of "unfairness" is.

Point being that "fairness" is not a valid argument to change any policy whatsoever. Life itself is unfair and everyone's perception of fairness is different. To ignore the specifics of something because it violates some broad, ill-defined, capricious characteristic like "fairness" is foolish.

There are solid theological groundings for the non-ordination of women. Theology plays a large role in how the Catholic Church administers itself. Holy Orders is specific to men based on the principle of apostolic succession. That women could, theoretically, perform the practical functions of the priesthood is irrelevant. There are many options for women in the Catholic Church, and as I said before, women are the backbone of many of the organizational positions in the church. If women are the directors of any of the Church's various ministries but the only exclusion is the priesthood based on theological traditions, I find the argument the Church is misogynistic to be absurd.

Priests are not the only leaders of the Church, they are merely the spiritual guides for the laity and are bestowed with the terrible (for human beings) burden of hearing and forgiving sins. Much of the Church's outreach and ministries are led by women directors and female laypeople of all kinds. The priesthood (and by extension the diaconate) is the only position that requires a specific gender because it is theologically bound to do so. Holy Orders is a Sacrament that is to be freely chosen and followed for life. How many priests ever get to the level of upper level Vatican officials? In a Church that spans the globe, not very many at all. To suggest people become priests to peddle power and influence is to display a shocking level of ignorance and paranoia.

I don't pretend any human being is perfect, in fact my mother does not like our pastor very much at all because of his very human failings in dealing with others. However, I do despise arguments from ignorance, or worse, prejudice in regards to the Catholic Church.

 

[cantab]

For example I would imagine most people who think it "unfair" that women cannot be Catholic priests do not raise an eyebrow...

I for one am not one of those people. I've already mentioned I think physical requirements should not differ depending on gender. And I have noticed that there are numerous women-only organisations and positions that are tolerated, whereas if there were male-only equivalents I'd expect public outrage. These things are forms of "positive discrimination" - and there's nothing positive about discrimination. (On the other hand we have the issue of whether private organisations should be allowed to discriminate; that's an issue I'm unsure on).

Life itself is unfair and everyone's perception of fairness is different.

This is the Perfect solution fallacy. That we cannot create a 100% fair society does not mean we should not seek to reduce unfairness.
And fairness is "a valid argument". What it's not is a trump card. As you say, no ideological principle should be allowed to override everything. But neither should we discard such ideals. If a situation is unfair, then those wishing to defend the status quo should justify it. (In this case, there are theological arguments that one can use to do so).

 

[popemobile]

Point being that "fairness" is not a valid argument to change any policy whatsoever. Life itself is unfair and everyone's perception of fairness is different. To ignore the specifics of something because it violates some broad, ill-defined, capricious characteristic like "fairness" is foolish.

THEREFORE, things like Universal Health Care and Affirmative Action and giving women the right to vote and the like are stupid policies that have no bearing in society because they rely on the argument that life needs to be "fair". Furthermore, bootstraps, the end.

 

[vonFiedler]

This is the Perfect solution fallacy. That we cannot create a 100% fair society does not mean we should not seek to reduce unfairness.
And fairness is "a valid argument". What it's not is a trump card. As you say, no ideological principle should be allowed to override everything. But neither should we discard such ideals. If a situation is unfair, then those wishing to defend the status quo should justify it. (In this case, there are theological arguments that one can use to do so).

That's... actually a pretty fair fallacy to bring up. And surprisingly idealistic.

Anyway, while it's nothing new, I'm sure women will be able to be priests some day. The catholic church is already one of the more progressive religious organizations in spite of its overwhelming level of organization. I wouldn't be surprised to see female priests relatively soon even.

 

[drifblim70]

Ok then. Tell me why society/the world/life is unfair. I can think of several reasons: economic, political, religious--the nature of the world's limited physical resources (the existence of poverty/destitution/hunger/uncured diseases); a handful of people controlling a given political process/government, however they might be selected (representative democracy, which, while imperfect, seems to function well enough); gays/transexuals not afforded equivalent/comparable marriage rights or respect as human beings (hospital visits, whatever tax incentives for marriage there may be, etc) due to the existence of tradition alongside a few flimsy logical arguments like whether a child needs a male and female parent to successfully grow up. All of these injustices exist, along with many others. Now, what do any of them have to do with women being awarded positions as priests? Why shouldn't they be able to be ordained in the Catholic tradition? It is not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of logic: if there is no rational reason why not, it ought to be permitted, as the default, at least until we learn why it should not be.

Let me think of reasons why women, perhaps, shouldn't be priests: Maybe they're not as charismatic/believeable as priests as men are? Perhaps we are too accustomed to the image of the balding man with glasses donning the robes to accept a female in the position. What would we call them, for that matter? Father wouldn't work, that would be silly, and if something is silly, it shouldn't happen. /// Okay, now let me list some reasons why they should be: It will give the Catholic church a little more respect as an institution; they'll be viewed as more accepting/tolerant/progressive (and I know how some of us hate that word progressive, forward-oriented, but I use it purely in its social context here.) The pool of potential priests dwindles every year, and even the Church knows this; they're still bamboozled by what the hell they should do to counter the problem. I have you a solution: let women in. Call them "Mother" if you have to, who gives a damn, God shouldn't be considered to have a gender anyway, so who cares what gender his staff are?. I'm sure--certain, actually--that our just God would not express his holy wrath over letting chicks lead Mass now and then.

 

[Jorgen]

It is not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of logic: if there is no rational reason why not, it ought to be permitted, as the default, at least until we learn why it should not be.

Bear with me, this is just a pedantic peeve of mine: the tossing of the "use logic, you idiots" line as if it's that simple to just intuit the solutions to all the world's problems or to show the validity/invalidity of any opinion. Even if you didn't mean that by those words, it still comes across like that (at least to me), so... yeah.

Anyway, I shall, as you said, give an elegant, logical argument as to why we shouldn't allow women to be Catholic priests:

1) The Christian Bible is a very influential work that is perceived as factual and/or allegorical for many Catholics.
2) In the Bible is a depiction of woman (Eve) driving mankind into sin by being the first to accept the serpent's temptation.
3) Some religious people may not be comfortable with allowing a potentially sinful individual to be a spiritual leader.
4) We ought not do what might make people uncomfortable.
5) Because of (1), (2), and (3), some Catholic people might be uncomfortable with allowing a woman to be a Catholic priest or other spiritual leader.
6) Because of (4) and (5), we ought not allow women to be Catholic priests.

Now, the above "logical" argument is valid, and at first glance it seems sound, especially with a confirmation bias. Yet the conclusion is repugnant and many people disagree with it. Why? It is logically valid, elegant even, and it offers a deductive proof as to why we shouldn't allow women into the Catholic priesthood!

The problem is the false sense of certainty offered by a simple, elegant logical argument. This argument fails to take into account many other aspects of the issue, such as the virtue of equity in society, for one. If you take into account more aspects of the issue, you've suddenly got a much more complex problem that no longer has a deductively provable solution without making radical assumptions. Then what you get is a bunch of opinions and stubborn people saying "just use logic, it's so simple!" because people will opt for the more elegant proof that only looks at a small portion of the issue, as opposed to the uncertainty and inconclusiveness of the complete issue with all of its facets taken into account.

Still, decisions have to be made, and I'd say that if you have to make a truly informed decision on an issue you really care about, you specialize in it as much as you can and get all the facts that you have time to gather. Otherwise you're only working with a good understanding of a small part of the story, which leads to oversimplifications a la above. This means that you can never make truly informed decisions on every possible issue on your own, but that's why people collaborate.

Conclusion (woo!): There's an oft-heard saying: "The simplest explanation is often the best." I feel that this is a gross generalization. The best explanation often has complexity proportional to the problem at hand. Obviously, you wouldn't use a Rube Goldberg machine to tie your shoes (unless you liked the aesthetic of it). At the same time, to apply a simple, elegant proof to an issue with a broad scope and many sub-issues is often going to yield gross overgeneralizations that fail to take into account every facet. Specialized knowledge, rather than intuition, is necessary to make the best judgement on a complex issue, and it's inadvisable to make statements that imply (or from which people can infer?) otherwise.

In retrospect, this might just be a super-long in-depth rambling about what cantab said earlier regarding how no ideological principle should be allowed to trump all others. Oh well.

 

[vonFiedler]

In regards to #3, everyone is potentially sinful. Well, everyone sins anyway. Even priests. So it's not really a logical argument by any means.

 

[popemobile]

in regards to #4, that's a terrible argument for anything and you should be ashamed for using it

 

[Jack Jack]

However, the whole argument is logic and elegant. The fact that the arguments are unnacceptable do not tarnish the elegance, not does it undermines the logic.

He did say that his argument was grossly oversimplified.
Was it some kind of parody?

 

[Eraddd]

1) The Christian Bible is a very influential work that is perceived as factual and/or allegorical for many Catholics.

Agreed.

2) In the Bible is a depiction of woman (Eve) driving mankind into sin by being the first to accept the serpent's temptation.

Agreed again.

3) Some religious people may not be comfortable with allowing a potentially sinful individual to be a spiritual leader.

Someone didn't read the scriptures properly. We are ALL SINFUL under God's eyes EQUALLY. Don't try to feed us the bullshit that some are less sinful than others.

4) We ought not do what might make people uncomfortable.

Oh shit, that means we shouldn't have freed the slaves back in America because slave owners/racists would feel uncomfortable about having black males as paid workers! That's a bullshit argument.

5) Because of (1), (2), and (3), some Catholic people might be uncomfortable with allowing a woman to be a Catholic priest or other spiritual leader.

#3 is a moot point, so thus, #5 is also a moot point.

6) Because of (4) and (5), we ought not allow women to be Catholic priests.

Ditto.

You really don't know the bible do you?

I can see the reasoning behind not having female priests (thanks to Deck Knight's rarely seen enlightening post), but I can also see the arguments for how female priests should be ordained and allowed. Although I think that the Catholic Church has offended many people with their ruling, I can't say that I disagree with their ruling.

 

[popemobile]

However, the whole argument is logic and elegant. The fact that the arguments are unnacceptable do not tarnish the elegance, not does it undermines the logic.

He did say that his argument was grossly oversimplified.
Was it some kind of parody?

the argument is logical but it isn't sound, therefore it is invalid

 

[Obsessed]

2) In the Bible is a depiction of woman (Eve) driving mankind into sin by being the first to accept the serpent's temptation.
3) Some religious people may not be comfortable with allowing a potentially sinful individual to be a spiritual leader.
4) We ought not do what might make people uncomfortable.

In regards to 2 and 3: Are priests not allowed to speak to women? After all, Adam was deceived by Eve. So if all women are potentially sinful, then all women have the potential to corrupt men. Therefore, any contact with women should be seen as undesirable for a priest. That is not the case as far as I know.

In regards to 4: That could have been/can be used to justify a lot of things such as not integrating the army, not freeing the slaves, not allowing women to vote, not allowing interracial marriage, etc....

 

[moot]

3) Some religious people may not be comfortable with allowing a potentially sinful individual to be a spiritual leader.

Someone didn't read the scriptures properly. We are ALL SINFUL under God's eyes EQUALLY. Don't try to feed us the bullshit that some are less sinful than others.

someone didn't read the point properly. the idea of a logical setup like that is to acknowledge each point individually with no regard to their interaction until the very end. you're jumping to a conclusion assuming that point #3 has any biblical interaction whatsoever, rather than being a general observation (which it is)

 

[Deck Knight]

THEREFORE, things like Universal Health Care and Affirmative Action and giving women the right to vote and the like are stupid policies that have no bearing in society because they rely on the argument that life needs to be "fair". Furthermore, bootstraps, the end.

One would think the abject failure of universal healthcare (cannot innovate new treatment methods, gives the least adequate care to the sick and elderly because the standards are based on healthy individuals, etc.) would be an argument against it, since the only argument for the group determination of individually variant health decisions is indeed that it is "fairer" for a group of self-described experts to determine that all people should get equally poor care regardless of their means.

It's the same with mandated racial quotas, as distinctly held from a selection bias that an employer choose a minority given two equivalent candidates (though candidates are rarely that equivalent).

Universal healthcare and Affirmative Action are stupid policies on their merits, and arguing about suffrage for people impacted by the decisions of a given government is not an appeal to fairness.

When the only argument FOR something is that "it would be fair," with no actual specifics as to the merits, it's little more than intellectual laziness. So yes, if the only argument for something despite all of its negative impacts is that you think it would be "fair," it is probably a stupid policy. I for instance don't think it's fair that all those poor people have to suffer with the incompetence and innovation irrelevancy of the NHS in Britain. I also don't think it fair that America is used as the overflow valve for Canadian universal health care's abject failure to treat its own citizens.

But if my only argument against either was "it isn't fair" rather than the real drawbacks and costs of each system, you'd probably think I was pretty damn intellectually lazy.

To tie this back to the OP, the Church has its own theological reasons for keeping its religiously established positions only of one certain gender. Those are positions that require the role to be filled by a specific gender based on theological tradition. Any Catholic who had seriously studied their theology would know and respect this and not seek out the priesthood when there are so many positions that are not religiously established. The Priesthood is a sacrament in the Church and bound by the Church's theological determinations. So essentially by saying "the sacrament isn't fair!" you're saying that you have a better understanding of the Church's religious obligations than its members do.

Now, if you want a logical proof more in line with the Catholic Church's teachings (a good effort Jorgen, but a bit off):

1) Jesus Christ is the author of the Catholic Faith, fully human and fully divine, and incapable of sin or error.
2) Jesus had no scruples in challenging the beliefs and culture of the established religions and governments of the time.
3) At the time of Jesus gender and familial roles roles were extremely important paradigms. The role of the father especially took on an important emphasis in his parables.
4) Jesus selected only men to be the teachers of his faith (Apostles), even given extensive contact with and respect for female disciples, many of whom were better morally than the 12 he selected. This was done on the basis that they were granted his divine powers through his Father, God Almighty.
5) Because of 1) it can be assumed whatever choices Jesus made during his ministry were to be followed in perpetuity by Peter, whom he entrusted with the keys to the Church.
6) Because of 2) and 3) it can be reasonably assumed Jesus only wanted men to be his Apostles.
7) Because of 2) and 4) it can be reasonably assumed that the priesthood is an all-male position because it is supposed to be a transference from The Father to all humanity. Fatherhood is supposed to be symbolic of Almighty God, thus why all priests are referred to as "Father."

Jesus' disciples were of all genders. They would be the functional equivalent of his laity. Jesus only selected men as his Apostles. Furthermore his instructions were that they rend themselves of all power and status to follow him, so sociopolitical influence would not be a factor in his decisions. All of the Apostles he chose had serious human flaws. Peter was extremely prone to anger, one of his Apostles was a tax collector, universally hated at the time. Thomas even doubted his return. If Jesus was going for the popular vote he would have failed miserably.

 

[popemobile]

One would think the abject failure of universal healthcare (cannot innovate new treatment methods, gives the least adequate care to the sick and elderly because the standards are based on healthy individuals, etc.) would be an argument against it, since the only argument for the group determination of individually variant health decisions is indeed that it is "fairer" for a group of self-described experts to determine that all people should get equally poor care regardless of their means.

except that these aren't failings of universal health care and you're making them up, sorry.

It's the same with mandated racial quotas, as distinctly held from a selection bias that an employer choose a minority given two equivalent candidates (though candidates are rarely that equivalent).

Do you even understand why those quotas are put into place?

Universal healthcare and Affirmative Action are stupid policies on their merits, and arguing about suffrage for people impacted by the decisions of a given government is not an appeal to fairness.

Except that women haven't had suffrage for the majority of human history, so it isn't just any given government, it was the majority of them.

When the only argument FOR something is that "it would be fair," with no actual specifics as to the merits, it's little more than intellectual laziness. So yes, if the only argument for something despite all of its negative impacts is that you think it would be "fair," it is probably a stupid policy. I for instance don't think it's fair that all those poor people have to suffer with the incompetence and innovation irrelevancy of the NHS in Britain. I also don't think it fair that America is used as the overflow valve for Canadian universal health care's abject failure to treat its own citizens.

And I don't happen to think it's fair that poor people in America should die because they aren't able to afford health care, but then again Universal Health Care goes beyond the area of "fair" and into the area of "common sense" when you value human lives. But that's not the point of this topic.

Now, if you want a logical proof more in line with the Catholic Church's teachings (a good effort Jorgen, but a bit off):

1) Jesus Christ is the author of the Catholic Faith, fully human and fully divine, and incapable of sin or error.
2) Jesus had no scruples in challenging the beliefs and culture of the established religions and governments of the time.
3) At the time of Jesus gender and familial roles roles were extremely important paradigms. The role of the father especially took on an important emphasis in his parables.
4) Jesus selected only men to be the teachers of his faith (Apostles), even given extensive contact with and respect for female disciples, many of whom were better morally than the 12 he selected. This was done on the basis that they were granted his divine powers through his Father, God Almighty.
5) Because of 1) it can be assumed whatever choices Jesus made during his ministry were to be followed in perpetuity by Peter, whom he entrusted with the keys to the Church.
6) Because of 2) and 3) it can be reasonably assumed Jesus only wanted men to be his Apostles.
7) Because of 2) and 4) it can be reasonably assumed that the priesthood is an all-male position because it is supposed to be a transference from The Father to all humanity. Fatherhood is supposed to be symbolic of Almighty God, thus why all priests are referred to as "Father."

Well if you assume jesus and god to be the same, then #1 gets thrown out right away because killing is a sin and god killed a ton of people. Rest of the argument falls out of place after that, not that the assumptions you made were entirely sound anyways.