Originally Posted by EPluribusUnum

You might try reading this:

Galatians 3:28 ESV - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there - Bible Gateway

Re the notion of "original sin" and Genesis:

That's the Roman Catholic position on the matter of original sin and its consequences. As you can see, the Mother of All Living is not mentioned.

By the way, they also likely understood, even though they did not know human reproductive biology as we do, but they nevertheless likely gathered that it would be hard to claim that women are inferior given that God Incarnate once resided in the womb of a woman. Some of the Roman Catholic faith would additionally argue that since the claim is that Mary was a virgin at the time, that it was one of Mary's eggs that was used along with a divine sperm cell, so the male was excluded from playing his part in the reproductive process that was the incarnation. For folks like Toxic Avenger, not saying that he believes this, but he did say that Jesus came into the world without original sin, and so for folks like that, the process would work, in line with points (1) - (3) above, that since Adam, the male was responsible for all this, the taint is passed through Adam aka the male, and so it was by elimination of Joseph's sperm from the process that Jesus was born without original sin, i.e., the taint of original sin is transmitted via the male.

Lastly, perhaps as a non-believer, you might refrain from expounding on the meaning of the works in question and from expounding on church dogma as well.

I once trained to be a Catholic priest. It seems natural to comment.

Read Gen 3:16; a consequence of the fall is that husbands would rule over wives.

And, by the by, Augustine derived the doctrine of original sin more from Paul then from Genesis.

The whole thing is, of course, a nonsense but it has had a profound influence on our culture.

Originally Posted by Cato

By the way the Catholic Church will not ordain physically handicapped people either. One must be a celibate, baptized male, but one must also be whole in body, to be considered for ordination.

Sixty years back you also had to have been born in lawful wedlock, to a respectable family.

Also you'd never have got into a seminary if you weren't deemed capable of doing the job of a priest.

For example you'd have to be deemed as having the intelligence, strength, temperament, and the sort of voice that would enable you to stand in a pulpit and preach a solid lengthy sermon - and in those days that was without any microphones or amplifiers.

Oh, the splendour and the glory that was Rome.

Mind you, the whole thing was financed from the profits made out of orphanages, workhouses and the rest.

Originally Posted by Old Mr Grouser

Sixty years back you also had to have been born in lawful wedlock, to a respectable family.

Also you'd never have got into a seminary if you weren't deemed capable of doing the job of a priest.

For example you'd have to be deemed as having the intelligence, strength, temperament, and the sort of voice that would enable you to stand in a pulpit and preach a solid lengthy sermon - and in those days that was without any microphones or amplifiers.

Oh, the splendour and the glory that was Rome.

Mind you, the whole thing was financed from the profits made out of orphanages, workhouses and the rest.

The lawful wedlock issue was constantly cast against Dev after it was known that he was rejected from joining the priesthood! Apparently he was given the standard let down letter - You were mean't for greater things!

Originally Posted by Andrew49

Santa Clara University theology professor says Church had long history of ordaining women that ended because of “virulent misogyny”. Gary Macy, a professor of theology at Jesuit-run Santa Clara University, told attendees at a Monday night lecture at the Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville, Tennessee, there is little room for historical doubt that women were ordained in the Catholic Church until about the end of the 12th century.

According to Macy, until about the mid-12th century, women were ordained as deaconesses, served as bishops, distributed Communion and even heard confessions. “Women were considered to be as ordained as any man… they were considered clergy,” he said.

By the middle of the 12th century a profound change occurred in the Church’s understanding of the concept of ordination, largely as a consequence of political considerations as the Church sought to protect its property from feudal lords by inventing “a separate clerical class.” Theologians came to view women as “metaphysically different from other people,” so that, by the mere fact of being female, women were considered incapable of being ordained. Canonists adopted the position, “Women were never ordained, are not ordained now, and can never be ordained,” said Macy. ..... he change in Church thinking on women’s ordination poses a dilemma for theologians, said Macy, because, if the ordinations of women during the first 1200 years of the Church were “not real,” then “the men weren’t ordained either.” .... He said the shift in thinking on the question occurred as the consequence of a “virulent misogyny” influenced by Aristotle, who held that “all women are mistakes.”

California Catholic Daily

The borderline case of hermaphrodites:

who cares??

Tis a shocking pity that they didn't have a means of stopping the father Brendans from joining in the past! The way they would perceive it as unfortunate is it would mean they wouldn't be shelling out a fortune in legal fees and compo!
Of course the current ban on gay men entering seminaries is merely a pathetic effort to confuse the issue by trying to link in their eyes "evil" homos with paedos! There's as much a link between those to groups of humanity as there is between civilized urban people and the most evil stomach churning rednecks!

Originally Posted by And So I Said

who cares??

Those who want the Church to stop treating women as second class citizens.

It's also very ironic that while officially condemning the practice of castrating prepubescent males to preserve their voices, they were the major employers, perhaps the only in the later years of it, of such unfortunate lads! Indeed by doing so they were clearly enabling it!

Originally Posted by Dame_Enda

Those who want the Church to stop treating women as second class citizens.

Actually I always wondered given the type of women who attend Catholic services and the very conservative nature of Irish women in the past (Magdellan Laundries clearly in the back of the genetic memories of Irish women from my generation, with massive sexual inhibitions as a consequence) would a Catholic church overflowing with lady priests be an even more conservative institution than one which has been traditionally overflowing with redneck men as priests at least in the context of our great little country!

Originally Posted by Cato

I once trained to be a Catholic priest. It seems natural to comment.

Read Gen 3:16; a consequence of the fall is that husbands would rule over wives.

And, by the by, Augustine derived the doctrine of original sin more from Paul then from Genesis.

The whole thing is, of course, a nonsense but it has had a profound influence on our culture.

Really Cato? I had wondered.

Originally Posted by Dame_Enda

Those who want the Church to stop treating women as second class citizens.

The majority of people at a mass are women.
In what way are they being treated as second class citizens - please don't tell me that the ban on women priests is the only justification you have for that statement.