TED Conversations

Woody Dunkin

This conversation is closed.

Catholicism opposes the equality of women

Catholicism opposes the equality of women. How can men, especially men with a wife, daughters or sons, be members of the catholic church and claim to believe in equality for women?

- Nuns/women are not allowed to own property; Priests/men can.
- Nuns take a vow of obedience. Priests do not.
- Women are not allowed to hold high office within the catholic church. Only men can be priests, pastors, bishops, cardinals or pope.

If actions speak louder than words, what is Catholicism saying about the value of women?

Fair and equal treatment is a requirement of ones perceived value; especially from authority figures.

If, "...we as men, good men, the large majority of men, we operate on the foundation of this whole collective socialization.", how can we be good men and indoctrinate our sons and daughters into an influential community that practices and perpetuates the inequality of women?

  • thumb
    Sep 11 2011: Well, making woman out of a man's rib is definitely not a good start.
  • Sep 11 2011: The "Moral" list of 10 Commandments states the following for the final commandment:

    'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

    Fortunately, the slavery part has no grey area and therefore can't be hidden as easily in the religion. Unfortunately, the idea of reducing a man's wife to his property to be viewed in the same way as his house, ox, or donkey can be hidden more easily.

    I agree with the people who have said that no religion truly teaches equality of gender. Some religions are obviously more extreme in their views than others.

    I saw that mother of Jesus was brought up as a shining example of how women are held in high esteem in the Catholic religion... I wonder how the story of the "other" Mary, Mary Magdalene, would be described by those who support the Catholic Church and argue that women are viewed as man's equal in this religion? I find it ironic that just about the time that the Koran was being "revealed" to Mohammed, the Pope at the time was calling Mary Magdalene a prostitute---600AD was certainly a better time to be born as a male than a female. This view of Mary Magdalene was not officially rejected by the Catholic Church until 1969---proof that things are getting better as far as gender equality goes, but it does seem like too little, too late.

    The references to gender IN-equality in religion seem to be endless.
  • Sep 10 2011: Hi there! This may be a very interesting debate! On one side of the coin, you have devout Catholics. Other side of the coin, you have non-Catholics. We as humans must strive for equality for both genders. I myself, find it very difficult to take the Catholic religion serious. I have a feeling, I am not alone in this. No dis-respect to the Catholics out there. It is very hard to take such a religion serious, with all that has happened in that religion. Which, continues to happen. You have chosen a very good debate. I will be surprised, if anyone takes you on!! With respect!!
  • thumb
    Sep 9 2011: I agree with you Woody, Catholicism does oppose the equality of women. If you truly are a faithful Catholic you probably favour a more traditional lifestyle anyway.

    What I think is important to keep in mind here is that Catholicism is by far not the only religion that the sentences above apply to.
  • thumb
    Sep 10 2011: To my knowledge no religion ever promoted equality of women but opposed always.
  • thumb
    Sep 10 2011: Bien señor Muntean, ya que usted habla español podriamos dialogar acerca de un punto en particular que seguramente comprende, pero en el que esta equivocado, se lo digo con todo respeto, ya que la religion catolica no es para acceder a un estilo de vida ni tiene nada que ver con tal idea, que solo se desprende de una falsa interpretacion. Stilus significa la punta de algo, digamos un iceberg, pero bajo esta punta o stilo existe una enorme masa invisible que lo soporta Al Catolicismo no le importa como lo vean, lo esencial es lo que lo constituye y que con frecuencia es invisible. Esto mismo pasa con todas las religiones. El asunto no es si las mujeres tienen o no, "igualdad", lo que es una forma erronea de plantearlo, ya que hombres y mujeres somos diferentes. Y es necesario aclarar que la religion, la fe y la iglesia son cosas diferentes. El tema propuesto se enfoca incorrectamente. Y debo decir que si alguien es importante en la fe catolica es la mujer, ya que Maria, madre de Jesus es mujer y su veneracion y reconocimiento es ancestral y extensivo como respeto a todas las mujeres, aunque no sean catolicas. Estas preguntas son mas provocaciones que cuestionamientos legitimos en esta era de confusiones.
  • thumb
    Sep 20 2011: @Woody Dunkin

    As far as I can tell there is no injustice, but merely you wanting there to be one and have something to rally against. Essentially your arguing against parenting. Why even allow for the existence of parents if we collectively can butt in and tell them exactly how they are to raise their kids? Shall we police what language they can use, what clothing? I mean heaven forbid these "ignorant" parents might prejudice their kid against the latest political cause celebre!

    The only thing I see is you have a problem that a certain society has only male priests. If you don't like Catholicism, don't be Catholic and don't raise your kids to be Catholic. All you are doing is mandating people be like you and conform to your personal political bias simply because they don't fit your vision for how societies aught to be.

    @Jason Kather

    If I saw a couple hitting one another, man hitting woman or woman hitting man, I'd maybe interject and ask why they were fighting but, honestly is it my place to tell them how to run their lives? Plus I don't know what started the fight.

    Second, this isn't exactly comparable as, 1 example is someone attacking someone, another is an institution nobody mandates anyone be a part of.
    • thumb
      Sep 21 2011: Thank you again for sharing. This debate is about the unequal treatment of women and how the Catholic organization contributes to the perceived value of women in our society. I encourage you to read through the earlier comments. You should see "..only allowing male priests" is not the core issue being debated. If interested, please watch the TED talks that motivated this debate to help you understand the field of debate.

      Also, can you please point out the mandate you reference? If anything was interpreted as a mandate it should be addressed; others may have misinterpreted my position as well.

      Finally, parenting can be a whole separate debate. But, aren't you arguing against parenting, as you said, "Children, when they grow up, can decide to leave their family and their families culture all they like. Until then I suggest you butt out..." ?
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2011: I contest the notion that there is any unequal treatment and if there is, that it is worth caring about.
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2011: James I'm a catholic jesuit priest, and I submit the concept that our faith and cult, and also the practices inside are derived from solar cults or mithologies if you want. In lunar cults the woman are the principal focus but not in solar cults. You are right with your appreciation. The notion of equality is nt the same than equilibrium. Men and woman are not equal. In our theological status the Canon is very clear about. So I dont see the problem.
      • thumb
        Sep 26 2011: I disagree on lunar cults, for example in Japan they worship a Sun Goddess. In some neo-pagan circles the moon is associated with a female deity.
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2011: James you can disagree on everything you want.
  • thumb
    Sep 19 2011: Why not then, not be Catholic if one does not like Catholicisms rules and culture?

    So only men can be priests, and to be a nun one must take special vows different then that of what a priest would take? That does not imply some grave sexism but instead differing roles for differing people which are not even mandatory for every Catholic.

    This reminds me of the conflicts between feminist groups and Orthodox Judaism. Reform/Conservative Judaism has entirely embraced feminism and in fact a majority of Jews adhere to those latter two sects, but for Orthodox Jews still adhere to older rules which Feminists decry as sexist. For example only Male Rabbi, Cohen, Kantors, and the gender specific seating and the rules around what men can do and what women can do. Feminist groups wish to change and regulate the Orthodox, however the Orthodox are not requiring anyone to join or be in their community... and why focus on attack a small group instead of empowering ones own?

    I say, if you don't like Catholicism, start your own church.
    • thumb
      Sep 20 2011: You are correct - thousands of adults have left the church as you suggested. But what about the children who are indoctrinated at birth? Do they have the ability to make that choice?

      This debate was started in support of correcting the unequal treatment of women in society. Because it is systemic we need to ask ourselves why is it happening? By highlighting how just one influential organization perpetuates the unequal treatment of women hopefully will raise the awareness and lead to a correction. Cultural shifts take time and no one organization is to blame, but each one should be held responsible.
      • thumb
        Sep 20 2011: I question the "systemic" nature of said alleged unequal treatment and would be quick to point out that likewise men get a raw deal in many ways that benefit women. First off I contest the notion that it is unequal, or that it has to be in accordance with post modernist cause celebre notions of "progress."

        Children, when they grow up, can decide to leave their family and their families culture all they like. Until then I suggest you butt out and leave people alone.
        • Sep 20 2011: "Children, when they grow up, can decide to leave their family and their families culture all they like. Until then I suggest you butt out and leave people alone."

          Would you walk on by if you saw a woman being abused by a man in the street? Would you sit idly by as, day after day, you witnessed a co-worker was being sexually harassed in the work place? Would you not do anything to help those around you who were being mistreated? By your "butt out" comment, I am assuming you would do just that and not involve yourself in their business. I call that being an immoral coward.
        • thumb
          Sep 20 2011: James - one of the values of this debate forum is to "butt in" and speak up against injustice.

          Please find the courage to reflect back to when you were a child; vulnerable, impressionable. How easy is it for you to leave behind the prejudice and bias you were subject to? Are you even aware of them? By the time you are an adult it takes extraordinary awareness and intelligence to "leave the family's culture" you suggest.

          We have a responsibility to the next generation (and ourselves) to coach forward. Surely we can do better than being indifferent toward injustices. Shouldn't generations co-exist rather than being a passive witness to injustice and butting out?
  • thumb
    Sep 18 2011: Hi Woody,thank you for that you are here calling equal treatment for women.Inequality of women have been a big issue throughout history and in different cultures (religious or not).I think the idea of masculinity and femininty that are blended int)o cultures has a lot to do with that inequailty. (women are not give the opportunities to do "what men are good at").and i think people who share that belief regardless of how they identify themselves (Catholics,Christians, Vegetareian )are more likely to inflict inequality on women(even self inflicted). In a period of chinese history , women warp their feet intentionlly to make it smaller(very painful process)becuz they believe that make they feminine.
  • Sep 14 2011: My point was 'deviation from the Bible' which states there is now no more distinction between Greek or Jew, Slave or Free, Woman or Man. That seemed to open up a worm hole on Old Testament scripture that I can't seem to communicate IS PAST AWAY.
  • Sep 14 2011: REDACTED: (passing comment on slavery) :REDACTED :-)

    And the fact that it is scripture attributes the source of its inspiration to God, meaning that you may interpret it all day long, but it cannot be rewritten - an interesting fact: not even by God Himself. The very thought of rewriting the words of an existing and reigning Authority brings condemnation from that Authority upon the rewriter. God is still on His throne. After that changes you may rewrite at will without effect.
    • Sep 14 2011: Make all of the excuses for slavery that you want...it doesn't change the fact that "your God" says it is ok to own people. He says that people can be bought and sold like cattle, beaten with rods for disobeying their earthly masters as the master sees fit as long as the beating is not so severe that they die in the same day. He says children of slaves shall be slaves. He says anyone can be a slave as long as they are not a Jew from Israel.

      "At the time, slavery was like a low form of all expenses paid employment - not a bad thing then if you were poor."

      That is a sick, twisted thing to say, in my opinion. Do you feel that we should go to Somalia and bring all of the starving children to our region to be used as slaves?---beaten and raped as we see fit? I find that disgusting.

      I won't continue this conversation with you other than to say that Slavery is just one topic of contention contained in your Bible. The list of condoned atrocities goes on and on. Making excuses for them is one way of saying that they are wrong and not to be done anymore. This is rewriting the scripture...If it was good enough for God then, why is it not good enough now? According to your own reasoning, you are either one of the most immoral people I have ever had an internet conversation with or you are going to hell for denying scripture.
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2011: Antonio - these are interesting quotes but they're not addressing the debate posted here. Or are they? If they are intended to, please feel free to add to them and address the topic directly.

      Would a separate debate be more relevant for your comments? E.g. Is God the author of the Bible? Antonio's Rationale for Slavery?
    • Sep 14 2011: I said i would not reply to you anymore, but your acceptance of slavery has me a little fired up...

      Quote: "My point was 'deviation from the Bible' which states there is now no more distinction between Greek or Jew, Slave or Free, Woman or Man. That seemed to open up a worm hole on Old Testament scripture that I can't seem to communicate IS PAST AWAY"

      The quotes that you and I provided are from THE NEW TESTAMENT!!! Jesus clearly has no issues with slavery.

      You're blind acceptance and rationalization of such things sickens me. You said Slavery is a good thing!?!?
      • Sep 14 2011: That didn't come out right (nor was I promoting rape and violence!). You are right about slavery being bad. I also oppose slavery. I realize that that comment was just to try to respond to all your points. It has been redacted. I have zero experience of or with slavery nor was I alive at the time and place those words were written. I apologize and thanks for the correction.
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2011: (Was anyone else tempted to quote Nietzsche here?)
      • Sep 14 2011: ...I do rather feel like washing my hands.
  • Sep 14 2011: @Jason Kather (continued) -

    26 For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.

    27 For as many [of you] as were baptized into Christ [into a spiritual union and communion with Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah] have put on (clothed yourselves with) Christ.

    28 There is [now no distinction] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male [b]and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    29 And if you belong to Christ [are in Him Who is Abraham's Seed], then you are Abraham's offspring and [spiritual] heirs according to promise."

    - Galatians 3:28 (expanded in context to 19-29)
  • Sep 13 2011: Modern day Catholicism no longer follow the Bible because they believe their mortal Pope has the authority of the imortal God to change anything any day (with resulting human error). That is a reason why there are so many "protestant" Christian religions that break away from the Roman Catholic church only to correct those man-made mistakes made in the name and face of God - and contrary to his Word. Many people use Catholic errors like this incorrectly also to blast all Christianity when true Christians teach and follow the Bible directly:

    "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28, the New Testament, the Bible

    I was raised in a Catholic school. I am a Christian, not a Catholic. The head of my local church is a woman, the global head of my protestant church is a woman.
    • Sep 13 2011: I am not religious. Due to this, I feel that I can look at the benefits of having a Pope compared to not having a Pope more objectively.

      The quote from the Bible you picked is quite pleasant at first glance. What is it really saying though? Obviously there is Greek and Jew, Male and Female, so there must be Slave and Master as well? Just because Jesus loves everyone does not make the idea of owning slaves permissible. What about some other quotes?

      "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

      "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

      It is a benefit to have a modern human be able to take some of the archaic ideas out of the Bible. Islam could learn a lot from that in my opinion. I could go on all day with disgusting examples from the Bible. Exodus and Leviticus are quite full of them.

      I feel that if the Papacy were secular, had a system of checks and balances, and were democratically elected every four or so years, Catholicism would be a much better religion. :)
      • Sep 14 2011: (This reply is continued above) I think the expanded text answers all that:

        "19 What then was the purpose of the Law? It was added [later on, after the promise, to disclose and expose to men their guilt] because of transgressions and [to make men more conscious of the sinfulness] of sin; and it was intended to be in effect until the Seed (the Descendant, the Heir) should come, to and concerning Whom the promise had been made. And it [the Law] was arranged and ordained and appointed through the instrumentality of angels [and was given] by the hand (in the person) of a go-between [Moses, an intermediary person between God and man].

        20 Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person]. Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both].

        21 Is the Law then contrary and opposed to the promises of God? Of course not! For if a Law had been given which could confer [spiritual] life, then righteousness and right standing with God would certainly have come by Law.

        22 But the Scriptures [picture all mankind as sinners] shut up and imprisoned by sin, so that [the inheritance, blessing] which was promised through faith in Jesus Christ (the Messiah) might be given (released, delivered, and committed) to [all] those who believe [who adhere to and trust in and rely on Him].

        23 Now before the faith came, we were perpetually guarded under the Law, kept in custody in preparation for the faith that was destined to be revealed (unveiled, disclosed),

        24 So that the Law served [a][to us Jews] as our trainer [our guardian, our guide to Christ, to lead us] until Christ [came], that we might be justified (declared righteous, put in right standing with God) by and through faith.

        25 But now that the faith has come, we are no longer under a trainer (the guardian of our childhood).
        • Sep 14 2011: Antonio,

          All of this only says that it is permitted to own slaves. A promise of heaven to everyone, including slaves, does not address the act of slavery in any other way than to condone it. Evil, wicked, immoral as seen by our current society, but in the time in which it was written, slavery was widely accepted. This reinforces my belief that scripture must be not only reinterpreted, but rewritten as time goes if it has any chance of surviving.

    1) The Priests also have a bow of obedience.
    2) A large amount of priests have a bow of poverty that dont allow them to own property.
    3) The situation with the male office have a deep teological explanation
  • thumb
    Sep 11 2011: So does the pope have heaps of nuns obeying him? who is this god they worship?
    Feels like that childhood story 'the emporers new clothes' and i am saying look his naked to a crowd of people.
    Personally I think nuns are responsible for their own beliefs, even though its easy to say look men did this, if im accepting responsibility so you can too.

    If all those women believed in equality would they still be there? you say religion is male dominated..why the support? dare i say its harder to be dominated by someone else's beliefs than stand up for your own?
  • thumb
    Sep 10 2011: I am truly uncomfortable with singling out any religion as being more woman hating than another. Why would you choose Catholicism? Would you also like to discuss that women have half the value in Islam as men do (and I cannot imagine that there are many female Immans) or the monks of other religions. My guess is that this question is generated from Protestant propaganda. Am I mistaken?
    • thumb
      Sep 12 2011: I don't agree with your categorizing Catholicism as "woman hating". Their unequal treatment of women is a poor example to show impressionable young boys and girls.

      You are mistaken regarding your propaganda assertion. All organizations that influence the youth of societies have a responsibility to promote healthy relations between men and woman.

      Fair and equal treatment is a requirement of ones perceived value; especially from authority figures.
      • thumb
        Sep 12 2011: Thanks, Woody. I was addressing what I perceived (upon too little information) to be your opinion that it was anti-woman. While there are examples of women hating behaviours among some members of many faiths, I am not willing to condemn the faiths this way. I also see that my guess that you were coming from a Protestant perspective was wrong. The guess arose out of hearing similar condemnations by Protestant believers.

        I love your final line:Fair and equal treatment is a requirement of ones perceived value; especially from authority figures.
        • Sep 14 2011: I would like to challenge that final line which I find erroneous in the fact that one does not define themself from without. A diamond stone does not need an approving eye to act like what it knows it is. The beauty of the Christian faith is that the only external opinion of the inner man we should accept is the Authority figure that made it - God - Who values you above His own begotten Son Jesus Who died to save you (John 3:16) and teaches "There is [now] neither [a need for distinction between] Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

          Now saying all are worth so much is worth listening to, but in the end it is what each believes despite opposition.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2011: IN response Antonio; I have cut and pasted the same argument from an Islamic debater on another TED question (and ask you if given the same different but equal place women hold in the Muslim world if you think that women are given a fair deal and are treated with dignity in reality under either system?)

        'In reality, and in Islam, the rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of man, but they are not necessarily identical with them. Equality and sameness are two very different things. I think you’ll agree that, for one thing, women and men are physically very different from one another, although they are equal to each other in other important ways.'
  • thumb

    E G 10+

    • 0
    Sep 10 2011: Somehow catholicism does something good by opposing the equality of women .
    • Sep 10 2011: I certainly hope you are being sarcastic. What good does Catholicism really do?
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Sep 10 2011: "What good does Catholicism really do?" It doesn't do too much good (for real) , I just don't like the idea of the woman-priest .
        • thumb
          Sep 10 2011: ...why not?
        • thumb
          Sep 10 2011: @ Eduard:Boooooooooooooooooo!
        • thumb
          Sep 10 2011: Mr Ghiur really in this topic, your tastes or preferences about what do you like or not are exclusively yours. Of course I dont reject your right to express your confussions in this public forum. But if you were well informed beyond your opinions maybe you find some surprises in history, that as we can see, you ignore absolutely. Please I invite you to be well informed and measured in your superficial critizism. Women are extremly important in the Catholic faith. Go to the books and be dare to study profoundly this matters before you express any prejudice about.
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Sep 10 2011: Because I'm a man...
        • thumb
          Sep 10 2011: that makes no sense. so am i, and the idea of a priest that is a woman is not offensive in the slightest. can you explain this?
        • thumb
          Sep 12 2011: true men are loving
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Sep 11 2011: I would like to quote my father who was an athiest in response to your rudeness here- "Profanity is the crutch of a conversational cripple";
          Boooooooooooooooo to you again, Eduard!
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Sep 11 2011: Stearling:
        It's simple: you aren't a man .
        • thumb
          Sep 11 2011: Boooooooooooooooooooo!
        • thumb
          Sep 11 2011: honestly, what are you on about? that was not an explanation or an answer to my question.

          making generalizations like that is a poor choice. you hold a certain opinion and are a man, since when does that mean that men who don't share your opinion... aren't men? that does not make sense.
        • thumb
          Sep 12 2011: with respect, women are human too.
        • thumb
          Sep 12 2011: @benny: ...yeah? of course they are. i never said they weren't.
        • thumb
          Sep 12 2011: @sterling gilbertine
          i was referring to eduards post saying quote"1 day ago: Stearling:
          It's simple: you aren't a man ."
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2011: oh! i just assumed you were replying to me, it doesn't really specify unless you do, for some reason. totally agree with you then.
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Sep 11 2011: I guess he (your father) was right Debra , if you had conversation with a kind of catholics before you would have understood my message.
        • thumb
          Sep 11 2011: I wouldn't listen to him debra eduard ghiur isn't your father. if you know what i am talking about you would have understood my message.
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Sep 13 2011: Hey Brainstormer , women aren't men and both are human beings , it's simple like that .
    • thumb
      Sep 12 2011: Can you elaborate your original response?
  • Sep 9 2011: As a moral principle the principle is sound. However, religion is not quite about democracy.

    This is the type of fundamental core issue that changes a religion for non religious reasons. There are many such issues and I doubt that many Catholics hold the 'official' Catholic doctrine anyway. In other words, Catholicism is not what it would officially purport to be. That applies to many issues besides this.

    In other words, there are many reasons to say that main stream religions and Catholicism in particular are more about belonging to a 'religious' organisation with a contiguous history rather than contiguous religious beliefs even though the hard core would like to profess the opposite.

    If you want to change your beliefs you do not have to remain Catholic.

    The serious question is whether there is a sound Catholic reason for changing the religious practice you want to change.
  • Sep 9 2011: I would like to point out that the equivalent to a nun in the catholic hierarchy is a monk not a priest. Monks take similar vows, such as the vow of poverty and in some cases more extreme vows, such as the vow of silence. To compare a priest to a nun is not a good comparison.
    • thumb
      Sep 9 2011: Nuns (and monks) are not allowed to be members of the clergy. The distinction is a man has the option. In the Catholic Church, only men are allowed to be members of the clergy - priests, cardinals, bishops, pope.

      I simply want to point out the inequality - women are not allowed to hold high office within the catholic church. Only men can be clergy; priests, pastors, bishops, cardinals or pope.

      A woman in the catholic church does not have the choice. The man can choose to be a monk or be ordained as clergy. The woman does not have the choice; hence the inequality.

      Should society respond if business organizational policy allowed only men to rise to management or executive level positions? What message would that send about the value of women?
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2011: While pointing out the inequality may be valid, I wish you had been more global in your perspective. Women need all the help we can get to take out rightful place in this world but slamming one religious group is seldom helpful.
        • thumb
          Sep 12 2011: Thanks for your reply Debra. I suspect others may be mis-characterizing my debate as slamming one religious group. My intention was to highlight just one of the many influential organization's policy toward women.

          Tony Porter's "A Call to Men" presentation is the motivation behind my debate. You are correct, there are so many organizations and religions perpetuating the inequality of women. We need to address them all. I simply wanted to debate what I've experienced. I do hope this encourages others to debate inequalities they witness and challenge them as well.
      • thumb
        Sep 12 2011: Thanks Woody for helping me to understand your position and your balance more clearly.
  • thumb
    Sep 9 2011: Sorry I am an outsider in this topic but may I ask you all that doesn't Catholicism offer pick and choose?
    • thumb
      Sep 9 2011: The leaders in the catholic church have chosen to deny women the right to serve in the church as equals. The inferior "choice" is poverty and obedience.
      • thumb
        Sep 12 2011: " The leaders in the catholic church" see you mentioned it not me neither anybody else.. Its the leader not the god himself. The leader is just a leader not the ultimate how can you bluntly say Catholic?
        • thumb
          Sep 12 2011: Thank you for responding. It appears we may have a communication gap that is leading to a misinterpretation of the core issue outlined in my debate.

          Thank you again for giving my debate your attention.
      • thumb
        Sep 12 2011: Please tell if I am wrong..
        • thumb
          Sep 12 2011: Sidharth - I can not say you are wrong; I just don't understand your response. I encourage you to read the exchanges and responses throughout this debate for clarification.
      • thumb
        Sep 12 2011: hmmm religion and inequality towards women? Its never written in bible so I am asking why slamming at the religion mine is simple..
  • Sep 9 2011: That's really not something new, Muslims and other partiatriarchal establishments are acting in similar manner, it is simply historical artifact of their organized religion system. Let's just start with they are full of bias and contradiction, I would not like to go further on what more I think of organized religion...

    Oh by the way, regarding the nun/priest property (if any), celibacy is there simply to channel wealth to "church" by preventing it's members production of offspring and thus cause annoynces with potential future legal inheritance competition. Nice business model?!
  • thumb
    Sep 9 2011: They do, yes. Has that anything to do with you?
    • thumb
      Sep 9 2011: Thanks for asking Frans.

      I grew up in a Catholic household (catholic school, church, altar boy) and I questioned then and now this inherent inequality. I have a wife, daughters and a son; I could not maintain my self-respect and integrity and be a member any longer.

      Unless we as a society question organizations that perpetuate the inequality of women under the guise of gods blessing, our wives and daughters will continue to have a higher probability of male victimization.
      • thumb
        Sep 9 2011: I do have the same background. Though I had more questions than this. You must choose what feels best. I think that your inner guide is wiser than any church.