Dear TBC,

Part of the problem is the tendency on the part of
many church leaders and more conservative Catholics
to blame forces outside Catholicism for the church's
failures. The primary responsibility for the church's
failures lies squarely within its own structures and
with its own leadership. As Dr Paul Collins tells us
in his book, "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism
have a future?", "The church is its own worst enemy...
It deludes itself that external social forces or an
internal "faith collapse" are to blame when the
primary cause lies within itself. This is not to claim
that external forces are not important. Contemporary
post-modern society is not an easy context in which to
live the spiritual life of a committed believer...
But the greatest threat to the church comes from the
lack of creative leadership at a diocesan and national
level, as well as from the failure of the papacy to
acknowledge the ministerial crisis facing local churches
like Australia..."

Collins insists that papal ministries consistantly refuse
to confront the internal issues facing Catholicism.
The shortage of priests is a major issue - yet the ordination
of women continues to be ignored. A central problem is
that many bishops feel that their sole line of
responsibility is upward to Rome, because the Vatican
appointed them. There is no or little consciousness that
they are responsible to the local church and that they
must answer to priests and laity.

I'm not as pessimistic as others may be, and I still believe
that there is hope. As Dr Collins confirms, "Fortunately,
Australia still has a majority of bishops whose orientation
is essentially pastoral and whose primary care is their
dioceses..."

Fingers-crossed that with time they will listen to their
parishes and Rome in turn will listen to their bishops.

Dear Foxy
I realised later my post may have come across as a bit abrupt especially as I have great respect for women like yourself,Pynchme and many others who do have faith in a more positive future for the Church.

I should have clarified the "put up with part" was more to highlight what you outlined about hope and change from within rather than an acceptance of the status quo.

Apologies if I offended. :)

Sonofgloin
You certainly have a way with words. I agree the premise in Christianity and indeed with Islam is to place women as secondary to men (or complement to as the generous interpretation), as per the orthodoxy. It just doesn't sit right that women are viewed in this way which for me as an atheist is further evidence that these religious texts were products of the imagination of man rather than a kind and all-powerful supernatural force

pelican,
Your premise; "I agree the premise in Christianity is to place women as secondary to men (or complement to as the generous interpretation), as per the orthodoxy. It just doesn't sit right that women are viewed in this way which for me as an atheist is further evidence that these religious texts were products of the imagination of man rather than a kind and all-powerful supernatural force:"is nonsence as no second class person is viewed by Christ.

"IN THE CHURCH THERE IS NEITHER MALE OR FEMALE, SLAVE OR FREE" Galatians 3: 28
The doctrine for the Christian Church has a historical setting and was written to reflect the best of culture of the time in the Greco-Roman world to teach respect and love for each other. I suggest you read the life of Christ in the Gospels and his relationship with wemon who were in the local culture considered second class - John 4 is a prime example.

For you as an atheist I suggest you look rather at the culture of women under the Taliban and you might have a campaign worth fighting for. Women in Australia are not supressed or denied equality.

pelican:>> It just doesn't sit right that women are viewed in this way which for me as an atheist is further evidence that these religious texts were products of the imagination <<


May well have been the product of the imagination of man, but I defend the status quo when it comes to who staff the church. I base that position on history and current sentiment. If an “all women’s club” of any description was forced to take on male members I would defend their right to their status quo based on history and sentiment.
Pelican you see a gender discrimination issue in the current policy, but I see a historical tradition being followed faithfully.

Although Jesus’ mum is not big to the Anglicans, she rates second to the two boys with the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox faiths, and those churches were the first broad umbrellas that united the faithful under the name of Christianity.

Foxy... I see why you adhere to Collins.

He sounds like a reasonable person.

But he too is ignoring what your own mob are saying.

There can be no 'reform', or movement from, the Word of God.

It is simply not possible, ever, is it?

I too would think that the Vatican might wish to move with the times, and adapt to changing values, since, of course, I believe that all they hold as 'magical' is but the word of man, imposed by men, for power, but I do realise that others seem to believe that a 'mystery' said it all.

But if you are a 'real' Roman Catholic, then you would also reject the ordination of women outright, and gay marriage, and all the other ideas the Pope believes in, including that condoms spread AIDS and are going to be the downfall of humankind, and so on.

That you look to heretics like Collins, and see some decent humanity peeking out, and support that glimmer of hope, shows that you are of a doubting faith, rather than the true one.... like some of the other posters on this thread.

The problem is this... if God said no women can ever be priests, as He clearly did cos the Pope says so, and the Vatican agrees to make them priests, then the Vatican is suddenly in league with Nick.

continued....

from above...
So you need to put Collins down, and take up your Pell & Pope, and return to the one-true-fold.

Although I believe there should be change, you cannot, you are not allowed to, in fact, you have no right to think so, because to do so, is to challenge the very foundations of your faith.

Believing in female priests, for a Catholic at least, would be as wrong as not believing in the resurrection.

And if you don't believe in the resurrection, then you cannot be a Christian.

Since all the structures are man made from imaginations, there should be no problem with moving out and imagining a new church that covered all bases.

Let the old one wither and die, and regard your actions as no more than those of a good gardener, pruning off the deadwood, and letting the new growth come through... the role of the gardener is exalted by God (so I'd imagine, others can find quotes supporting or denouncing that claim), and part of His plan.

We all live and die, and so should all human institutions.

The Vatican gang is getting on, and may well have reached its use-by date.

Time to ease it into respite care, before pulling the plug when the brain waves start flat lining, as they seem to be these days.