In article >, zxcvbob
> wrote:

> St. Paul was against women priests. The pope (any pope) doesn't have
> much descretion in that matter; while the qualifications for a church
> leader are subject to a *little* interpretative license, it's clear that
> women are disqualified -- I don't know why, that's just the way it is.
> The women were (are) free to participate in most other capacities, which
> was kind of radical in that era.

It's largely because the priest acts In Loco Christi, and Christ was
a man.

> I have no idea where the RC gets it's position on celebacy.

St. Paul and the passage about spiritual eunuchs from Jesus. As I
understand those passages, they support convents and monasteries, and
even some celibate priests, but not an enforced celibacy in the
priesthood. That contradicts directly I & II Timothy, Titus, and church
tradition as the Orthodox church has always had married priests.

> John Paul I was kind of a free thinker and perhaps was going to change
> the church policy on birth control. You see how long he lasted.

I guess I don't see why they need to change their position. All
people are free to change their church, religion, or worship and nobody
has to be Roman Catholic.

Regards,
Ranee

--
Remove Do Not and Spam to email

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

See my Blog at: http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/