FIRST POL-AM CATHOLIC (?) PRIESTESS

US-born Milwaukee-raised Janice Sevre-Duszyńska has become the first Polish-American woman "ordained" to the Catholic priesthood. The unsantioned ceremony was performed in Lexington, KY by a Father Roy Bourgeois in contravention of Canon Law which specifies that only men may be ordained and only bishops are authorised to perform ordinations. Both face excommunication.

Father Adam Boniecki, the editor of Poland's leading Catholci weekly Tygodnik Powszechny, said Sevre-Duszyńska has doing a disservice both to the church and the women's cause.

She has agitated for female ordinations for over a decade and was arrested on one occasion for causing a disturbance in an Atlanta church.

Catholic religion does not allow women as priests, therefore she is just a woman... not a priest.

Next Ms. Janice will say she is a lesbian, and that it should be allowed in the church as well.

This is what happens with stupid feminists.

Why not?

Death to them all - they give women a bad name!!


"Their's not to reason why, Their's but to do and die” We have nuns ;

"In the Church's latest statement on this matter, Pope John Paul II, using his full authority as the successor of Peter, states categorically that the Church cannot - not will not, but cannot - ordain women, now or in the future. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets it out clearly, quoting the decree Inter insigniores:

Only a baptized man (vir) receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible. "

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0001.html

That does not make a lick of sence to me, nothing about the church does but thank you for going to the trouble of finding it out.

Now when someone asks me why not?, I can look them square in the eyes and say
"I have not got the foggiest notion".
When I was a kid I was told it was because it was Eve that first bit the apply in the garden of Eden and then seduced (poor) Adam to do the same.

Thank god I am an Atheist.

what wasnt clear? Men can only appoint men, like the apostles were all men, they can only name similar male successors.

I remember hearing about the Eve being "unclean" story, but dont recall if that was a story for kids to make religion simpler, or true basis.


I believe that most atheists are that way because they are too lazy to follow a religion, and its easier to follow no rules. Or perhaps they seak to show off something, like they are unique. SeanBM I hope you know this isnt an attack at you, I'm just speaking in general on my view of atheists.

Well that is the bit that is not clear.
The question is why can't women become priests and the answer given is because men appoint men so the question goes unanswered, no?.
It makes no sence to me but as I said before none of it does, is this were the trick of faith comes in?, that we are just supposed to take it for granted and blindly follow with the very vaguest of understandings?.


That by any standards, is a terrible thing to teach a child.


I do not see it as an attack at all, thank you.
But I can tell you 100% that
a) It is much harder to be an Athiest in Poland (or Ireland when I was growing up) than to just blindly follow the religian of your parents because they were born in a specific place and time.

b) I do follow rules, moral rules but morals do not come from any Bible, as the example of children being told that Eve was "unclean" points out.

I personally think that it is far too easy to blindly follow the religion of your birthplace and time.
In fact the whole idea of blindly following anything is beyond me, religion asks not to be questioned, that it is God's will but that is just blowing smoke.

---

And Krakowianka, I am not attacking you and I promise not to give any kind of abuse on this matter, if you or anyone else wishes to continue this subject.

Some of what I say may be shocking depending on your programming but the long and the short of it is this " There is no God, no consciousness that has a divine plan and looks at you as a sinner or a saint, there is no great creator or Architect."

The reality is far more beautiful and uplifting than anything that could be attributed to a God, using reason logical scientific method is the true way we can "step out of the cave of darkness".

It's truly amazing how easily people presume that if someone does not follow their rules / religion he does not follow any.

In general I agree that the catholic church should stick with its rules and provide some kind of solid benchmark. However its logic never stops surprising me. For well over a thousand years it did not oppose deacons and diaconesses fulfilling similar duties and now it's seems to be some kind of ultimate blasphemy...

Lets not confuse those who say they believe a particular religion, but do not practice it. Saying you are catholic, and not following the rules/sacraments doesnt count as being religious. You can certainly question the religion, there are sound responses for each of your questions. I most likely cant answer all of them, but I know priests who surely can.


Perhaps you do not know the roles of a deacon versus a priest? Research it before you go calling it blasphemy.


When I said "following no rules", i meant not following the rules of the church/religion, not moral per se. And definitely not MY rules, but of the religion a person choses to be.

well with all the pedofiles something should change.. god didnt say thou should play with young boys either.. they said they were catholic/baptised and took a oath to god !


that is why some choose to not keep interpreting things as they are written because the book was at one time called the old testament then it became the new testament.. pretty soon it will say.. versions 1 thru 500

I have my beliefs, but each parish/priest does have their own ways of teaching and rules to how things should be within this community.

its funny how you cant even get your own family history without sending a good amount of money and some priests are nice and do the respectful thing and some will snub you.. so I dont know how these men who are ordained get ordained when they are not fully capable of being around the public.

thats why my mom never went back.. so many things change to suit.

Because in the end they are just men; fallible.

I think they (priests) should be allowed to get married and have fun combined with misery just like everybody else... :)

Yep, the oft repeated argument:

Those who do not believe that moral values come from the Bible or that they be based upon God's moral instruction argue that they have a better source for values: human reason.

It utter nonsense that reason always suggests the good.

or maybe they have their own mind and don't need constantine's rules to tell them what's what?

let's stone this lady, she's unclean. bible says she needs to go.

Where does the Bible say she "she needs to go"?


Right...

Reason without God is left wanting.... There are a number of issues where reason fails one such issue happens to be that people are basically good. You have to believe that people are basically good in order to believe that human reason will necessarily lead to moral conclusions.

Perhaps you would like to check the roles performed by deacons through ages? Taking anything for granted in today's church and giving the reason "it is as it is because the Apostles and Christ said so" results in terrible oversimplyfing. Ignoring the fact that the Church has been shaped through milllenia, that it is a result of permanent transformation and has extremely interesting history, proves that I'm not the only one here who needs to do some research.

Also, the Apostles required their successors, today known as bishops, to be married. Their ability to take care of the parish was judged on the basis how well their children were brought up. The Church has always been really good in adopting only some of the rules from the set left by Apostles and Christ and ignoring or changing the others. That is probably the reason why it lasts so long.


Immoral rules are the rules as well ;)

Ok but they all still go along with what they are told.
It is more difficult to be an atheist because you must break your own programming.


And what makes you think he has all the answers?.
Honestly he can't.


I know this was directed at someone else but I see you are not talking about moral rules, so what rules are you talking about, confession and goin g to mass? those type of rules?

And most people do not choose their religion, they are indoctrinated into it by the place and time of their birth.


You have a point about the church covering up some hanious crimes committed by priests. It just shows priests are just people, no special powers or knowledge, week and frail ad the rest of us.



Good points.
I have been to some very good church masses but they did not talk so much about God and Jesus, more about what they are doing in Somalia and wht terrible atrocities are being committed there.


How do you reason that out?.


Possibly but I would think, that having been brought up in a family and having neighbours would be reason enough not to go out and kill people.

Of course it still happens but a reasonable person would not do such a thing.
But indoctrinate them while they are young, reinforce the belief that you are doing the work of some all powerful being, minus any ability to reson (Faith)

And wham! ytou have a crusade.


If anything the Bible (especially the old testament) is not a good source for moral conduct.
Imagine how traumatised Isac would be, had his father Abraham tried to kill him today, until, and let me be clear on this, the voices in his head (not a god) told him to stop.


Not true at all.


Any idiot can clearly see that this is not true.
Where is the reasoning behind such a fictitious statement?.


No you don't, you have to reason that it is in everyone's best interests not to kill each other or not to steal from me or my neighbour.

---

Again let me state my discussion clearly, There is no God, it only exists in people's imagination.

---

I know for some people this is a very bad thing to say but I am not tring to attack any single poster on here.

I would very much like to continue this discussion in a civilised manner, as it has been going.

You have no idea about the old testament vs the new testament, yet you think your some expert on why the reiligion has it downfalls? Those are two separate sections of the bible. One written before Christ, one after. They were not renamed! Maybe your mom "didnt go back" because she didnt know much about the religion to begin with. Its rare that a person knowing the religion very well step away. Its usually due to ignorance of what it truely is, and laziness to find out. It's easier to say bah humbug


They are God's rules, do you know of the 10 comandments??


Yes he can. Not all priests are the same. Some more devoted to Christ, some just fulfilling the duties assigned. The more spiritual priest, the more educated priest can explain all the logics behind the bible and God. God does exist, no matter how many times you write here he doesnt, or try to convince yourself its imagination. It may be your imagination that he doesnt, but he does. If you are a strong atheist, then surely you shouldn't be scared to go talk to a priest who can answer the questions or thoughts you have on why you try to disprove his existance. I know I'm a strong enough Catholic that I can duke it out with an atheist and not worry my faith is not strong.


If you go once in a while, you hear a limited selection. They relate items in the bible to current events, is that not acceptable?

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Celestial teapot by Bertrand Russel

Prove it.


I hope we can continue this discussion.


I do not go at all now.


Church is exceptable, the way a community hall is exceptable the only difference is that a community hall does not tell everyone that Santa or fairys or god is real.

An excellent quote.

Dude i thought youd be on the third beer in Krakow by now. Im on my sixth, hee hee.

By the way god exists, ive seen a ghost. OK maybe not god but somebody out there aint playing straight. I seen a ghost plain as day. Scared the living crap out of me..

ha ha ha the ramblings of a drunk ha ha ha, good man :)

I am heading out in a while, in Krakow in a couple of hours.

Have you seen the exorcism of emily rose? must admit that film spooked me considering ive seen ghost and all.

I have. Did you know that a headace used to be considered a possession by an evil spirit and the "cure" was to crack the skull of the patient with a stone to "release" the spirit. People actually survived this atrocious behaviour. It would certainly cut the NHS's cue.

My point is that this does not prove or even show in any way the existance of a god.

It is also very important to remember which god you are talking about.
Here is a list: ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm

Mythology - Gods and Goddesses

Take your pick, all of these were believed to be true.
People were sacrificed and slaughter in their name.

You are all just one god away from being atheists.

Im assuming you laughed most of the way through...


No I didnt, im still getting my head around the last fact you through at me, vicious notes from SA. Love it.


I dont believe in God all i know is what i know and that is that nothing makes sense the minute you look up. I have seen a ghost, and i know what i saw. That proves to me that all is not as we are believed to think it is.

Think about this:

Something got me, you and our loved ones here on this spec of a planet in this split second of a time. Well the way i see it that same thing can just get me somewhere else, I'll be a professional snowboarder next time please...

I dont think were supposed to talk about such things.

Good man :)

Babinich: It utter nonsense that reason always suggests the good.


What if in Nazi occupied Poland a Jewish family knocks on a door of a home asking the homeowner to hide his family?

Suppose the homeowner, on rational grounds, decides that the moral thing to do is hide the Jewish family.

Will this homeowner act on this decision at the risk of his life and the lives of his family? Not if reason alone guides him. People tend not to risk their lives and the lives of loved ones for strangers based on reason.

People tend to risk their lives for strangers based on faith; faith in something that supersedes reason.

Babinich: You have to believe that people are basically good in order to believe that human reason will necessarily lead to moral conclusions.


Sorry, when it comes to a moral question, there is no such a thing as a straight forward rational answer. What is the purely rational view on the morality of abortion, the war in Iraq, or capital punishment for murder?

Babinich: that people are basically good.


Nice parsing.... This is not my contention and you know it.

My contention is that there are times when it can be rational to do what is wrong and that there are times when it can be rational to do what is right.

One has to believe that people are basically good in order to believe that human reason will consistently lead to moral conclusions.

This is not true,
You can reason that the Nazis want to kill the Jews and want to protect the hypothetical family from the Nazis based on several different logical reasonings.

1) It is wrong to kill and you do not want to be a part of it.

2) You can empathise with the family and imagine if it were you and help.

3) Using reason does not mean leading lambs to their slaughter.

What about all the people who were killed in the name of your god?
And it is strange that you talk about Nazis with regards to the church.
For it was the church that closed it's doors to the Jews in the second world war and NEVER condemed what the Nazis did!.

Pope John Paul the second (Who was a great man) had to apologise for this.


All debatable :) glad to see you are getting the picture, honestly.


Something the church has never had a problem with.
But you are right in this statement, attitudes do change, desperate people do desperate things.
But to live a good life, a moral life and to be free, truly free you do not need a god.


I will put my own hypothetical situation with this.
Open up the prisons, sack all the law enforcers, close all the court houses, then tell me people are good.

Sorry, it is not wrong to kill; it is wrong to murder.


If you think it is reasonable to put your life and the lives of your family on the line for a stranger I'd question your reasoning.


I have no idea at where you're going here...


I must have missed the entire message of the New Testament. People can claim all sorts of reasons for murdering others; religion is often used as the reason for murder.

What about those that killed based on something other than religion like Hitler, Mao, & Stalin? They felt they were being reasonable.


Are you saying that if a person does not explicitly condemn an oppressor that this very same person becomes incapable of helping the oppressed?

Sorry, he may have never condemned Hitler outright for fear of retaliation. It sure is harder helping others when in jail or in the grave.

Dr. Joseph Nathan, who represented the Hebrew Commission, addressed the Jewish community and expressed gratitude to those who protected and saved Jews during the Nazi occupation. "Above all," he stated, "we acknowledge the Supreme Pontiff and the religious men and women who, executing the directives of the Holy Father, recognized the persecuted of their brothers and, with great abnegation, hastened to help them, disregarding the terrible dangers to which they were exposed."

At Pope Pius XII death in 1958, Golda Meir sent this message: "We share in the grief of humanity. When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the pope was raised for its victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out about great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace."

amazon.com/Myth-Hitlers-Pope-Against-Germany/dp/0895260344/ ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1231008620&sr=11-1