CDN_Merlin wrote:I actually have no problems with your situation but you both have an understanding. That's the difference. According to that passage, the way I understand it is the wife has no say in how her life will be once you are married. She can't go out to work, she must stay home. In today's society, more and more men are staying home and taking care of the kids. Is this a sin in God's eyes?
Not at all; in fact, if anything, it's really the sign of a true vocation and dedication to one's family, something that I at least think that God would look very favorably upon. As I said above, gender roles are different now than they were at the time the New Testament epistles were written. Some aspects of this do not change, however. For example, the Church places an enormous amount of emphasis on the importance of the family in society, calling it the "cornerstone" of a stable society. In that context, the Church views the raising of children as one of the most noble vocations that anyone, male or female, can undertake. As such, the traditional role of a woman as mother and homemaker should not be disparaged as old-fashioned, but praised as a fundamentally important role in society; it's obviously quite a contrast to popular culture, where being a homemaker seems to be looked down upon by many female "professionals." In the example you provided, the stay-at-home dad would be fulfilling the same role as the mother; it's just a sign of changing social structure.
Regarding women serving as priests/deacons, I can at least provide a little insight as to why this vocation is restricted to males. Part of it is in the sense of tradition; Jesus' apostles, from whom modern-day bishops take their authority, were all males, as were the seventy-two disciples whom he sent out to minister; they can almost be seen as the forerunners of priests. Another part of it, however, has to do with the concept of vocations. At least in Church terms, a vocation isn't a job; it's a special calling to some service in life. Different people are called to different vocations; this in part reflects the inherent uniqueness of every person. In the sense of the priesthood and diaconate, these are vocations that are given to men. Women are called to different forms of service to the Church, including the sisterhood and lay service. (Interesting sidenote: the early Church actually provided a much greater sense of gender equality than did the Church of the Middle Ages up until relatively recently; the early Church did have a specific role for women that was roughly equivalent to that of a modern deacon. It's only in the past several decades that we've seen many more opportunities develop for women in lay service, including that of altar servers, lectors, ministers of the Eucharist, etc. Who knows, perhaps someday, female permanent deacons will be allowed; I can't really say that either way. At the present, though, I doubt this, if for no other reason than the fact that the permanent diaconate has seen relatively sustained growth recently.) This isn't really the best explanation; if there's enough demand, I'll do some research and try to come up with some better phraseology. Suffice it to say that part of the reason is because of the fact that priests have always been men, and part of it has to do with Christ's own selection of men as his appointed disciples and apostles, and indeed with Christ's own role as a male.
There's another point I should mention here: the term "Tradition" refers to something different when referring to the Church than it does in the popular sense. Snoopy briefly touched on this issue earlier. There are many fundamentalist Christian groups that follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible; in other words, if it isn't written in the Bible, then it isn't a legitimate belief. We as Catholics believe differently. For the Catholic Church, the teachings of the popes on matters of faith and morals, along with the Church councils and decrees of the College of Cardinals, are viewed as divinely inspired; they are classified under the role of Tradition. (Many people have a misconception about part of this, namely, papal infallibility. This doctrine does not state that the pope can do no wrong; it states that, when he is speaking with his full authority as the bishop of Rome in matters of faith and morals, his proclamations are considered without moral fault.) This gathered body of Church teaching, from the time of the apostles, carries equal weight with regards to faith as does the actual text of the Bible. This does require a clarification, though; as Snoopy said, all of these teachings were derived in some way or another from the teachings and actions of Christ, in the same way that the Church views the seven sacraments as each having been instituted by Christ. I hope this helps to clear up some misconceptions.
El Ka Bong, I think you've really missed the entire point of what the Church is and what Catholics believe. I don't wish to derail the thread any further, but we can take the discussion up in another thread if you so choose. I'll repeat something I've often said, however; true faith has nothing to do with being a "sheep," at least not in the sense that you mean; it does not entail blindly following decrees and rules. Instead, it is a constant challenge of evaluating your beliefs and struggling to implement them in your own life. I believe in what the Church teaches not simply because the Church says so, but because I also believe it to be the truth. And, as another side note, the discovery of life on Mars would have absolutely no effect on the Bible. In closing, if you insist on calling me a sheep, I'll just have to acquiesce; to use the oft-repeated joke, at least I'm following a Good Shepherd.
Edit: Looks like a few people snuck in before me. Guess that's the price you pay when writing long-winded posts.
