SACRED SEXISM
http://catholicity.elcore.net/CoreOnOrdinatioSacerdotalis.html A Defence of the Idea that John Paul II used papal infallibility to declare female ordination impossible
FOREWORD
The Church says it has no authority from God to ordain women to the priesthood. Any attempt to ordain women would not work. The result would be only a pretend priest not a real one.
The Church says that men and women are equal but have different roles. It says women do not have the role of priesthood and so it is not discrimination to exclude them from ordination. The Church might as well say that women should not be doctors as say they should not be priests. The roles excuse does not hold water in relation to the priesthood. It is sexism pure and simple.
Tradition says women cannot be validly ordained. Constant tradition is infallible for Jesus promised the gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church. Thus we plainly see that tradition is proved fallible by the exclusion of women. It is also proven uncharitable.
It is said that the Church oppresses women. The Church replies that women are the most devoted servants of the Church so that can
’t be true and nobody forces them to be Catholics or stay Catholics. That is no answer. It is like saying men do not oppress women when most women live as if they were subservient to men! It gives validity to that horrible chauvinism!That women would support an organisation that degrades their very sex is worrying. It shows that there is some kind of addiction present. It bolsters the thought that religion preys on people
’s vulnerability. It shows that people are dangerously irrational. Religion can only be dangerous in the hands of irrational people who care more about what they want to be true than what is true.
Index
BIBLE KNOWS ONLY OF MEN MINISTERS
OBJECTIONS TO THE SEXISM FACTS
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
Most Christian Churches have an ordained ministry. The ministry is trained to counsel the flock, give it sacraments such as baptism and communion and preach the word of the Church which they arrogantly like to call the word of God. In Protestantism, the ministry is often thought of just as a service but in Catholicism the ministry of the Catholic priest is so much more. The priest must be a man who is ordained by a bishop who has the magic power to make him a priest and give him the power to turn bread and wine into Jesus and forgive sins and save the dying from Hell by rubbing ointment on them.
Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis, an apostolic letter dated
This
fulfils all the criterion for papal infallibility as
given in
Yet there different approaches to the infallibility of the statement.
Some say the pope used his power to teach without error.
Some say he didn't but just declared this teaching infallible on other grounds.
Some say he did both. This answer makes the most sense. When the pope proclaims a doctrine infallible and uses his infallibility, he is merely RECOGNISING that the teaching is already infallible. A teaching is infallible before the pope proclaims it as infallible. That is why infallibility is described as the pope defining a doctrine in faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. Defining means making known.
Those who
deny the statement's infallibility say that it cannot be infallible because of Canon 749:3.
This Canon
decrees that only clearly infallible teachings are infallible. These
people say the pope did not make it clear enough that it was infallible so it
was not.
A reply to them issued in October 1995 says that the declaration was based on the word of God and was infallible as far as the teaching authority of the Church goes. Some have objected to this on the grounds that the reply was issued by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith which was not infallible. But the reply must have been made under the guidance of the pope. If it had been wrong and issued by mistake the pope would have said so. The pope took responsibility for it and was part of the production project.
The doctrine of papal infallibility requires
the pope to research before he does an infallible statement and he can do that
through others as well as by himself. If
he does not do his homework he will not be able to issue a valid infallible
statement. His infallibility will not
work. The pope can make an infallible
statement to the Church through others.
A statement like that is infallible from the moment he makes it just as
the Immaculate Conception dogma was made infallible before Pius IX proclaimed
it at a ceremony in Rome. The ceremony
was only the proclamation of an already infallible teaching. This means the pope could
infallibly see a doctrine is true as a result of his research and lie
about this in public and pretend that he found that the direct opposite of it
was infallible truth! Faith in the
dogmas of the pope that he proclaimed on his own is really just faith in the
pope and not in God. No man has the
right to ask for that amount of trust.
Others
have argued along the lines of Dominican theology that the pope cannot validly
be infallible unless he checks what the Church of the past and the present
believed or believes. But many theologians say that this checking is not necessary
for a doctrine may take time before it is understood properly. The checking can’t be necessary for the Church
infallibly said Christ was God at the time of the Arian controversy though most
did not believe it. But that is only if
you assume that the Church or pope are able to be
infallible at all. If you believe in
infallibility you have to believe that the Church or pope has to check what the
Church believes. Infallibility
concentrates on what the beliefs of the early Church implied by its belief or
what it believed for infallibility is only invoked to silence the parts of the
Church that come to doubt a traditional teaching. So the earliest most accurate teaching is the
teaching that is to be accepted. So if most Roman Catholics believe that women
can be ordained now that does not give the Church the right to say that this
means the ordination of woman is infallibly approved by God.
Many would give you
the following thought. The pope
has to discern what the Church should or does believe in order to declare a
belief infallible. The pope meets with
all his bishops personally and their beliefs would be enough. It is what those who think most and pray most
and who are most qualified think that comes first and would give the pope the
freedom to say that the dogma that woman cannot be ordained is thereby made
infallible by the majority belief of the bishops.
With Fr
Peter Chirico S.S. who wrote in The Furrow in
1996, I agree that what the pope wrote was an infallible statement and cannot
be changed without departing from the faith.
To me it proves that the faith is anything but infallible and people
should pick and choose from it and perhaps even ordain priests themselves!
The Redemptorist
magazine, Reality, regards the pope’s statement as infallible in the sense that
it stated that the ban on women priests was part of the faith and the Church
would cease to be the true
The fact
that women priests would have been needed in the past and were never authorised
and the fact that ordination is a sacrament that leads to salvation but was
still restricted to men is enough to show that if the Church has the Holy
Spirit the Holy Spirit does not approve of women priests. The pope then had strong reasons assuming the
Church was true to do what he did.
So the
statement is infallible from every possible avenue of infallibility and is one
of the most thoroughly and strongly reinforced dogmas of the Church.
The Church stated in a document in 2010 that the attempted ordination of women and child sex abuse by clerics were grave evils. Some say that the Church equated the two sins and others said that the attempted ordination of women is worse than clerical sex abuse. The truth is that the Church says that valid priests have power to give grace and so discourage sin supernaturally through the sacraments which are the normal means of giving grace. This implies that an invalid priest is worse than a child-abusing one. So ordaining women is the bigger sin. Also, the Church says that to sin is one thing but to repudiate the faith is another and is more serious for the faith tells you what sin is. This means that the person who is a heretic and ordains women is worse than the paedophile priest who sins and repents frequently.
UNFAIR TO
OPPOSE WOMAN CLERGY
Many
Some women argue that they have a right to
be ordained. This is bad theology for
ordination is a grace and grace is undeserved, something to which we have no
right. The Church insists that nobody at all has a right to be ordained for all the blessings received from
God are undeserved and it is the blood of Jesus that takes away sin
and makes you clean.
If you
are forgiven by God, it is not because you deserve it. So nothing from God
comes as a right so the Church argues from that that
women cannot complain if Jesus does not want them as priests. Everything comes from the generosity of God. So
though the Church refuses to admit it, God is more generous to men then than
women! The Church may say he gives other
blessings to women in its place that make up for it. But no
two people are blessed alike. One woman
may be a very good person and have a mediocre and unlucky life while a nasty
lady can have a better life. Life has
let the good woman down but God may have blessings he would like to give her but
other things get in the way. But nothing
can stop him from giving the grace of the sacrament of order so there is no
excuse. To say God does not ordain women
because women have no right to be ordained is the exact same as saying that God
has no right to ordain a woman though she would make a great priest meaning he
has no right to have this great priest.
Plus even if you sin and you cannot get rid of the sin except a blood
sacrifice like Jesus dies for your sin to earn you the possibility that God
will restore your good relationship with him it is not your fault that you
could not get rid of the sin so you would have the right to blessings from
God. You would have the right to be
ordained if you have the basic qualities that are required. Bad theology as always then
makes good commonsense. Not
ordaining women implies that women have no rights. No matter how bad you have been in the past,
to say you have no right to a grace that will help you make others and yourself
live holy lives is wholly contradictory.
Everybody has a right to be helped to become a better person and the
sacraments of the Catholic Church deny that by pretending to be free gifts from
God that are not and cannot be earned.
When ordained, despite all the Church says, there is no denying that a man ceases to be equal in value to other people but becomes a superior being. When that is seen, it becomes totally clear that to deny the priesthood to women is to deny that women are equal to men. It even denies that men who are not ordained are as valuable as men who are.
The Church will say that priests are treated with greater respect than ordinary people but they are not better than they are. Don’t be taken in by this. They are trying to prevent you from seeing the snobbery of clericalism and priestcraft. It is a mistake to imagine that saying all people are considered equal makes this clericalism all right. It is how people are treated that really matters. There is no point in saying people are equal if some are going to be treated like they were gods. People who are treated as gods have no problem saying that all are equal for it makes no difference to them. They wouldn’t mind if people believed that people who were richer than them or smarter were better as human beings than they were as long as they got keeping their golden egg. So bragging about recognising the equality of all people achieves nothing.
We live in a world that treats people better the higher their position in society. That is the way things are. But God has no need to limit the power to change bread and wine into Jesus and to forgive sins to priests. Why does God restrict this power to validly ordained priests? The Church might reply that the reason for the limitation is to protect unity and solidarity with the papacy and the bishops. In other words, having officials with authority is better for the power of the Church. If that is the reason, then why didn't God make a rule that the congregation can turn the bread and wine into Christ along with the priest instead of the priest doing it for them? That would serve the alleged purpose better!
Laypeople should be able to absolve sins under certain conditions. The absurd limitation of this power to the priest
definitely makes the priest out to be a god or a human being that God regards
as more valuable than a layman. In this
light, women must be the inferior sex when ordination is not an option for
them. In this light, it is better for
twenty good men to be put to death when it is the only way to avoid the death
of a priest for the priest is more valuable.
It is the priest’s duty to consent to such things. Another thing is this. When laymen cannot forgive sins which is the most important job there is and since the priest can
it follows that where priests are scarce it is better for a whole village to
give its life for the life of the priest.
That women cannot have this prestige is a further indication that they
are not human beings but semi-humans.
Is it
rational to say that women can’t be priests because their bodies aren’t male?
That is
like saying that people will a different skin colour from yours shouldn’t be
allowed to be secretaries. That is not a
reason. There is no reason why women
cannot serve as priests. If they can do the job then why not?
It is
blasphemous to suggest that God wills women to stay out of the priesthood
because they are women and then to criticise anyone who says that a man should
not wash clothes for that is a woman’s role.
It is not right to impose roles on people that they might not have. If women can do the job of being priests then
it is sexism to use the role excuse to say they cannot be ordained. The Church says would be discrimination to
forbid women priests if God allowed them but he does not. This is a sexist suggestion for what is to
stop people from thinking that women have no role or vocation from God to be
teachers? It is illegal to say women
should not be teachers so it should be the same to say that they cannot be
priests. It is sexist to say that God
determines what woman can or cannot do and not her nature. I repeat, a woman’s
nature can enable her to serve as a priest therefore God is discriminating
against her and so is the Church by suggesting otherwise.
It is
blasphemous to reason that it is sinful to make a woman a priest. That
reasoning is
accusing God of condemning as wrong what cannot be wrong. Not everybody that is made a priest is called
to be a priest though they think they are so you cannot say it is a sin for
women are not called for that is an insufficient reason because it cannot be
proved.
If there
is a reason then it must be that woman must have weak minds and are dopey which
disqualifies them. This is nonsense
too.
Did Jesus frown upon the idea of female
ordination?
Women
priests serving paganism were all over the place so though the Jews wouldn’t
have liked it, Jesus would have ordained women if he had any regard for women
or considered them to be as intelligent as men.
Jewish tradition would not have deterred him for he was eager to break
it all the time anyway (Mark 7). The Law
of Moses restricted the priesthood to men but Jesus was starting his own so it
could not stop him from raising women to the priesthood and as long as the
women were observed and bossed by male priests the divine order that man is the
head of woman and the superior sex could be maintained. God could have corrected what was wrong with
ordaining women before Jesus or perhaps it corrected itself.
Consider this argument, “Jesus might have declined to ordain women for some purpose
way back then which doesn’t imply that he doesn’t want them ordained today.”
But we
can’t depend on it too much for we have no evidence that he has such a purpose in
this. It may not be unlikely that he has
a purpose. But it
looks unlikely to us for the Son of God has power over all things and could
have seen to it that the ordaining of women would assist his plan.
If Jesus
did forbid the ordination of women then he was not the Son of a good or
sensible God.
WOMEN
PRIESTS BAN SEXIST
Arguments for women being priests comprise:
Sentimental - I would like to see Mary as a priest for she is so nice
Utilitarian - Mary has the qualities that makes a good priest
Political - Mary is equal to any man and so should be ordained if she wants to be
The Church says these reasons are valid but they are overridden by the fact that scripture and tradition say women cannot be ordained validly ever. This is a clear instance of putting faith before people. That is discrimination so how can the Church ask us to believe that Church teaching is not sexist?
Opponents of women being ordained priests or clergy
say they believe that men and women are equal.
They deny that their strange teaching that women cannot be validly
ordained is misogynistic and sexist for women are not called to the priesthood
for they maintain that women have a different role than men have.
A role is
only a specific duty that you are suited for and which you have for the
betterment of the world. Chaos would
follow without roles. The priesthood is
supposed to be a man’s role or job. This
could be fair enough it if is true.
Under
extreme circumstances you cannot think about maintaining roles. For example, the role of motherhood is
presently confined to women. But if women
all died out then science would have to enable men to carry babies and give
birth. Then it would be man’s role. Roles change to suit the circumstances. The Church is saying that we were all made
for so-called roles instead of saying the roles were made for us. Her doctrine is dehumanising.
Priests claim to be able to save people from Hell,
the place of eternal torture from which there is no escape, by giving them the
sacraments and forgiving their sins and teaching them the saving gospel. The pope and other
Christian leaders are against women
priests even if there is no other way to get priests. God
miraculously could turn women into men so that they could be ordained for the job of saving souls from Hell by bringing them
absolution. The Church doesn't want that so its attitude can only be out of hatred for women. When people going to Hell
is preferred to ordaining women to save them what else can it be? If Jesus approves of this fanaticism he is
far from respectable. The pope needs
priests and yet he will not ordain women or married men so he prefers to let
the flock suffer. This has cataclysmic
consequences particularly in the
Protestants just use ordained ministers for communion. Apart from that they are superfluous. The way Paul says we break and bless the communion in the Bible suggests that
the clergy can be lived without even for communion and most Churches accept
that. It is an insult to women to say
that they cannot be authorised to consecrate bread and wine. A good God does not make arbitrary rules. Protestants don’t really need ordained
ministers at all so for them to forbid women clergy is a terrible scandal.
The
Church claims that men and women should not have equal opportunity for they
don’t have the same roles. They then
point to some things that women can do that men can’t like having babies as
evidence. The fact that men and women
have some roles laid upon them by nature does not mean that their roles are
different in anything else. It is as
arbitrary to suggest that women that women should obey husbands and not be
priests as it is to say that a man should not wash his own clothes but get a woman
to do it.
To say
that a woman can never have a priestly role is to state that she is inferior to
man. If Christianity is true then
priesthood is the ultimate caring profession so the implication is that women
are not as nice as men. If they can’t
qualify for that caring role how can they qualify for any other?
To say
that women cannot be made priests or ministers betrays a conception of God as
malignant for he invents sins and lies for he condemns some acts as well as
evil when they aren’t.
Those who
are against female clergy attempt to promote sexism and then conceal their
bitterness. They seek to prevent the
Church from being genuinely against it.
It has to pay lip service to equality.
BIBLE
KNOWS ONLY OF MEN MINISTERS
The Bible
says that only men can be made ministers or bishops.
1 Timothy
3 says that a bishop and then a deacon must be a man and a married one at that
for experience of family life is required to serve a spiritual family. Ordained women argue that it may just have
been the rule in
There are
deaconesses mentioned in the Bible but these were women who did charity
work. The deacons had the same job
originally. When the Timothy passage
states that the deaconate is for men it shows that the office was changed and
evolved into a spiritual ministry. They
were probably preachers now and the fact that women could no longer become deacons shows that women could not become priests or
preach. Tradition has it that the role
of the deacon is to preach and help the priest but the deacon can only give one sacrament,
baptism. They can officiate at marriage
which is a sacrament that the bride and groom bestow on one another.
Loyalty
to the Bible commands opposition to female clergy or preachers but loyalty to
goodness commands opposition to this revolting male chauvinism.
The
Catholic Church is addicted to power. It
would gain more of it than it could handle if it ordained women. But to ordain women now would be admitting
that past tradition was heretical and that she is neither infallible nor
Catholic. A truly Catholic Church could not ever have believed that women
are excluded from holy orders. Catholic
means open to all and accepting of all.
Apologists say that the Church is Catholic for it cannot admit everybody
into the ministry. The fact of the
matter is that it is not Catholic if it debars unjustly. The true Catholic Church has to be Catholic
so Roman Catholicism is non-Catholic.
MAN, THE
HEAD OF WOMAN?
The truly modern and mature person believes in
sexual equality. It is awful whenever
such people praise the Bible for it claims that women are just creatures to be
dominated by men.
The mere
fact that the New Testament affirms the Old Testament claim to be the word of
God is sufficient proof of its anti-woman stance.
Genesis says that God made the first man the master of the first woman to punish her for leading him astray. Some say that does not mean that the same is to be true of all women but only married women. They say Adam and Eve were husband and wife and God was decreeing that the man must be boss. But why would God punish just married women? All women are to be punished by being submissive before men. When God made the punishments like painful childbirth and all be passed on this punishment of obeying the man was to be passed on too. Genesis spelled out only the two punishments for woman.
Christians who think that Genesis does not forbid equal rights for men and women centre on Genesis 1 where God tells the first man and woman to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth and all on it and conquer and control it. But Genesis says later that the man and woman later sinned and lost God's blessings and then God turned nature against them and ordered the woman to accept the man as her master and be his slave. Man then is to subdue and conquer woman as well. The command to control and subdue all on earth didn't apply any more in those changed circumstances. This would indicate that the promise of equality would depend on man and woman being faithful to God. If a rebellion happened, God could render women obedient to men.
Adam and Eve were not literally married. If they were innocent and never
sinned they didn't need to be. Marriage is only necessary if people do wrong.
Thus a case can be made for saying the story means all women must submit to men.
It would be strange if God punished woman and decreed punishments that apply
only to married women or women during childbirth. The submission thing is
the main punishment and applies to all women.
The punishment of
submission to men was for all women.
The Bible
says that man is the head of woman for Eve was made for Adam for none of the
animals were suitable partners for him (Genesis 2). Paul says that women were made for men and
Adam was made first to show supremacy just like Genesis says (1 Corinthians
11:9, 10). It says man and not just
husbands, which makes it worse.
Paul is not
just saying that wives were made for husbands – though he brought Genesis up to
defend this view – for it makes no sense to say a wife is inferior to a husband
and that women are not inferior to men in other things for the other things are
not as serious as marriage so he is saying that women in general are made for
men and made to serve them.
Wives are
told to submit to their husbands for they are as inferior to husbands as the
Church is to Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5).
The man loves his wife as his own flesh but she is not told to love him
as hers so her body is as much his as his own.
The love the Bible commands for wives does not mean that the husband is equal
to or inferior to his wife but his wife only has value in so far as she is his
body. The husband gives the orders which gives him the advantage, the control inferring
that women must be dopier than stupid husbands.
But the smartest person should be allowed the final decisions if mutual
agreement is not possible. It is
impossible to imagine that the ordination of women could be allowable when you
read all this.
WOMEN
BARRED FROM MINISTRY
“Let a woman learn in quietness, in entire
submissiveness. I allow no woman to
teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain in quietness and keep
silence [in religious assemblies]. For
Adam was first formed, then Eve; And it was not Adam
who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and deluded and fell into
transgression. Nevertheless they will
be…saved…through the Child-bearing” (1 Timothy
The
original Greek says that the man and women here are married to one
another. It is husbands and wives it is
about not males and females.
The verse
most likely means that women are not allowed to teach
religion to their husbands. And Eve
manipulated Adam so it is taken by the Church nowadays to refer to manipulative
teaching and authority and that these are being condemned. The word for “have
authority over” is authentein which denotes using sex
charms to get one’s own way. But
when the verse says women will be saved by having children and not by teaching
in a godly way which it would do if it allowed that it follows that the text is
saying that all female authority and preaching is manipulation and is
forbidden.
It is
ridiculous to suggests that women were just banned
from teaching heresy to men for it couldn’t have just been men that were led
astray by women. Women lead other women to
heresy too. And heresy was not even
mentioned.
Why would
the author stress Adam being made before Eve as proving that women should
not be preaching in Church unless he believed the Genesis account that Adam
being made first showed that Adam was more important and that the woman was
only made for the animals were unsuitable companions meaning that it was Adam
God wanted to make and not Eve? It was
Adam God wanted to have a relationship with and not Eve so only men can speak
for God. The author has proved that he
thinks that all preaching by women is heretical or manipulative simply because
it is not a woman’s place to preach and God does not like it. There is no reason to think that by women
manipulating men with sex-charms he means women stripping off and tantalising
men in an obvious brazen way. He knows
that men like women and even in seemingly chaste and unsexy
situations female sex-charms still work on men and are always manipulation for men
have to think clearly and not be influenced by their liking for women at
all. Even just a woman looking for a few
seconds into a man’s eyes would count as authentein
in his logic for it is that.
The writer
says that Eve was a transgressor and was deceived unlike Adam and that yet
woman meaning the women born since and who are yet to be born
will be saved by bearing
children if they continue in great virtue.
The passage is saying that women are all Eves and since they lead men
astray though the men would not normally be deceived you cannot let them into
positions of trust such as into the clergy.
He clearly indicates that Adam was not fooled but the woman was and
beguiled him and that all women are the same that women are a danger to men and
need to be occupied with babies and good works to keep them out of
mischief.
Despite
being Eves, women will be saved by bearing children. By saved he means saved from evil rather than
sin for only repentance saves from sin.
The evil they are to be saved from is being out of place in God’s plan
so having babies and not teaching is their job.
If the
Bible says that men and woman are to pray everywhere as some translations have
it at 1 Timothy 2:8, 9 then there is no conflict with women not being allowed
to say anything in Church. The verses
are not concerned about Church services.
It may say everywhere but that may not include Churches. There was no need to insert “but not in
Churches” for those familiar with the laws would have known that it meant
everywhere but the Church during a service.
Anyway women were expected to pray silently in Church so there is no
problem.
There is
not a single instance of ministering women in the Bible and nothing that says
that women have a right to teach religion.
There were prophetesses who let God speak through them but who did not
speak for him but that is all. Priscilla
and her husband
Were
women urged to say nothing in Church and debarred from the ministry to please a
sexist society until times would change?
The Christians were hated anyway (1 Corinthians
No real
woman would be a Bible Christian or a lover of the Bible God. She is a traitor to her sex.
THE
SEXIST OLD TESTAMENT
The Old Testament has a very low opinion of women.
God
approved of men having several wives at the one time for he could have said he
didn’t approve even if it was something he had to allow or tolerate. When God calls the second or whatever woman a
wife it is most likely that he thought that was what she was (Exodus
21:10). He could have limited sex with
the other wives but did not so they were real wives in his view. God never even tried to put Abraham or David
or Solomon off polygamy and they could have gotten away with having one wife which he
should have done if he couldn’t tell everybody that it was wrong.
God could
at least have forbidden sex between the man and the second or third or whatever
wife. God condoned adultery. God could at least have been honest enough to
tell men to have other women if they wanted and to make some kind of legal
contract with them but not to regard them as wives. To call a second wife in addition to the
first a wife is to say that plural marriages are valid. And the Old Testament does that many times.
God
apparently had tremendous trouble with his stiff-necked people and when he
forced so much on them – like the overused death penalty - that was unwelcome
he could have declared women equal to men.
Perhaps he could have ordered them to believe that women were equal and
let them treat them as inferiors for once the belief is changed the discrimination
will gradually be phased out. If you
believe in the Bible you must denounce the doctrine of sexual equality.
God is
evil if he has given men and women different roles and these roles were for making husbands
the masters of their wives (Genesis
The Old
and New Testament says that Eve’s punishment is given by God to all women
(Genesis 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:14,15). It is obvious that when childbirth was made
painful for Eve after her sin and all women suffer that the curse was meant for
all women. God punished Eve by saying
her husband must rule over her and said this in the context of dishing out
permanent punishment to Adam, her and the snake and to their offspring so it
means all women must be ruled by their husbands. You can’t have a woman minister or priest who
is ruled by the husband so women clergy are prohibited.
God could
have made us as hermaphrodite creatures which can have sexual relationships and
which only have babies if they are ready and by self-impregnation and only if
they are moral. It is wrong to create
roles where none are needed. That is
discrimination. To praise the Bible God
is to praise sexism. The current system
in which any nincompoop can be a father or mother is diabolical and clearly
proves that God does not like children.
If a man
lies with a married slave they are not to be put to death (Leviticus
Women
could not become priests under the Jewish Law.
And divorce was the privilege of the men.
A pair who
were married and divorced were not allowed to remarry
each other if the woman had married another man in between for it was an
abomination before the Lord (Deuteronomy 24).
The Law makes a difference between men and women so since it does not lay
down the same rule when it is a man who married someone else it is inferring
that it is okay for a man to do what the women did.
The rule is plainly absurd. Marriage
should be for life and marrying a previous marriage partner again is better
than marrying somebody new. The Law
forbids adding to its rulings meaning that it is a sin to make a rule allowing
women to divorce even if times change.
The Old
Testament demeans women by having one rule for the men and a harsher one for
the women.
ANTI-WOMEN CORINTH
When 1 Corinthians 14 says that women should not
speak in Church and ask questions at home instead for it is shameful when a
woman speaks in Church for the Law says that they should be subordinate to men,
it is being sexist. Especially, when it
says this is the rule in all the Churches.
There is no evidence that women were ever allowed to speak in Church so
then this is an absolute sexist ban. Chapter
11 permits women to pray and prophesy but only with covered heads. This does not mean in Church for Paul begins
to discuss conduct in Church afterwards (v17).
Paul never even hinted that only disruptive and chatty women were
forbidden to talk in Church but talked as if he meant all women. This was sexist for men with the same fault
were unmentioned. Paul believed that the
Law did not allow women to speak at worship.
This is true for they were not involved in
Many
meetings would have been comprised of tiny groups for some people prefer it
that way which proves that Paul was being sexist for he never said it was okay
for women to speak at small meetings.
The word
for the silence the women were to keep was sigao
which denotes total silence and since we are not told that just asking questions
was banned they were forbidden to open their mouths. If women were a nuisance with questions he
would have condemned their rudeness not their speaking. And pagan society had nothing against women
in religion so don’t think the ban was just a custom to please others it was a
law. If women were causing trouble and
altercation in Church the men would have been as bad.
Paul cuttingly asked women if the word of the Lord originated with them or reached only them (14:36). The Amplified Bible tries to say that Paul meant if the word started with the Corinthians. But when the Bible itself says men decided prophetically what the word of God is, that interpretation is unnecessary and quite wrong. Corinth would not have been the only place where women or anybody wanted to chat about God in Church and proclaim the word of God. Paul meant that women were disobeying the divine ban on women teaching the word of God and because they disobeyed he decides to be sarcastic.
Some say that what Paul is doing is giving a hint that the
women were claiming a monopoly on God which was why they were silenced by him. The Bible is clear that God did not give his
doctrine through women. So Paul meant
that only men get the word of God. If
that justifies Paul’s criticism then God does not like women. So, the reason Paul says women act as if the
word of God was theirs only is that he thinks they are doing what is forbidden
by God in speaking as if God allowed it.
If God
inspired Paul then it is a fact that God regards women as not being as
important as men.
OBJECTIONS
TO THE SEXISM FACTS
Does the Bible contradict itself on whether men and
women are equal?
Paul
declared that all were one in Jesus because all were baptised into him so that
there was no slave or free or man or woman (Galatians
Women
were chosen as the first witnesses to the resurrection. That does not prove that women are as good as
men because men saw Jesus later and men were the important witnesses or
apostles in God and the New Testament’s eyes.
It is the same with prophetesses like Deborah in the Old Testament. They had to prophesy and then male prophets
passed them, they examined and approved their prophecies, so it was all under the control of men.
The fact
that the Virgin Mary in her apparitions that have been “verified” by the
Catholic Church never says she is a priest, for you would expect God to have
ordained his mother, and condemns women priests indicates that it is wrong to
ordain women. The message this sends is
this: it is right to hurt women’s feelings over faith though there is no harm
in them functioning as priests. That is
hatred towards women and these apparitions should be given no credence. The Roman Church says that women are priests
and have the right to offer Mass but not as ministerial priests. The Church teaches the priesthood of all the
validly baptised so to say women are priests but cannot be ordained priests so
that they can consecrate the sacrifice that the priest together with the people
of God offer to God shows the intrinsic misogynism of
the Christian faith.
HEAD-COVERING
The early Christian Church decreed that women with
short hair or who prayed with no veils on were guilty
of unnatural sin.
Nowhere
does Paul hint that head covering is only necessary during public worship.
It is necessary all the time. He talks about women needing
their heads covered when they pray or prophesy and it is not until later (v18)
that he instructs about public meetings of worship.
CONCLUSION
The Roman Catholic Church is a cult for it would and
indeed does harm the rights of women. It
makes even men who believe that women are equal subconsciously adopt serious
forms of chauvinism. Christianity looks
down on women. The Bible does it and
therefore the Bible should be a banned book.
To revere the sexist Jesus is to revere the oppression of women for he
is regarded as an infallible being.
BIBLE VERSION USED
The Amplified Bible
WORKS CONSULTED
Eunuchs for the
Reality, Vol 61, No 4,
April 1996
The End of Silence, Karen Armstrong, Fourth Estate,
The Head Covering, Timothy Nelson, Mourne Missionary Trust, Kilkeel,
Co Down
The Woman’s Role, Dr Curtis Hutson,
Sword of the Lord,
Your Daughters Shall Prophesy, Rita W McCormick,
Outlook Press, Co Down, 1979
Note:
The Furrow is available from
St Patrick’s College,
Maynooth,
Co Kildare
24/10/2011