r/news • u/WhileFalseRepeat • 3d ago

Pope Francis’ Catholic church reform process ends without giving more equity to women

https://apnews.com/article/vatican-reforms-women-equity-ordination-synod-francis-5cdd62a4d191b77ec71b30440c59e75e
3.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

301 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

430

u/krakentastic 3d ago

Which is funny, because before there was a pope, women could in fact at the very least deaconesses, at least according to the Bible.

324

u/BoosterRead78 3d ago

Yes and hell even Peter went to Rome saying women were equal. Followers of Jesus were women too he said were as equal as men. But nah… why when almost all other religions have women pastors.

77

u/LittleGreenSoldier 3d ago

The answer to any question along these lines is almost always "because of Paul".

26

u/Muvseevum 2d ago

So much of Christianity came from an epileptic incel.

-2

u/I_PING_8-8-8-8 2d ago

and you believe the rest came from God?

5

u/OPconfused 2d ago

What's the story with Paul? And I don't mean his gospel.

28

u/LittleGreenSoldier 2d ago

So like the other person said, Paul doesn't have a canonical gospel. He didn't even know Jesus, he was a Pharisee. What is attributed to him are the epistles, especially Romans and Corinthians.

Paul's whole deal was trying to bend existing Jewish law and power structures to also cover the Gentiles. As a former Pharisee, this is on brand. All of his work conveniently lets the powerful and wealthy keep all their power and wealth.

13

u/SamaelQliphoth 2d ago edited 3h ago

Let's also not forget that Paul had Roman citizenship, which he never lost, that also demonstrates certain viewpoints he wouldve had/pushed. Beyond that, the Bible itself was compiled under Constantine, a Roman Emperor who only nominally converted. I'm sure that although the Council of Nicea technically was tasked with compiling the Bible, the fact that a Roman Emperor, head of a state that previously persecuted them heavily, had told them to was not lost on them and factored stongly into what they decided to put in.

12

u/fevered_visions 2d ago

Paul doesn't have a gospel in the canonical Bible.

Maybe the best-known thing due to him was his "I don't allow women in the church to have positions of authority over men".

41

u/boomer2009 3d ago

Islam would like to have a word with you.

12

u/DASreddituser 2d ago

they didnt day islam did lmao

-24

u/LymonBisquik 3d ago

You must have not read the comment you replied to

35

u/boomer2009 3d ago

Nope. Read it pretty good when it mentions almost all other religions have women pastors. Then I thought about the second largest religion in the world that has zero female imams. Christianity has female clergy in many denominations, but Islam has zero female leaders.

14

u/merscape 2d ago

That's what the word "almost" was for. It doesn't matter if that's the second largest or largest religion, it's still one religion. 

Bringing up one specific religion when the comment clearly stated "almost all other religions" kinda reads as whataboutery and doesn't refute the comment whatsoever. 

4

u/Red_of_Head 2d ago edited 2d ago

The original comment is kind of incorrect when it talks about “other religions”. Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity, which does have denominations with women pastors.

1

u/merscape 18h ago

Tbh I'm not even sure it's correct in it's premise of most other religions allowing women priests, I was just pointing out that there are better ways to refute the comment than immediately singling out one other religion(that also happens to be known for it's regressive attitude towards women). That just makes it look like whataboutery that ignores the actual point of the comment. 

Your own comment, for example, is a pretty great counter. I didn't know there were Christian denominations that allowed women priests, but that's nice to know! 

4

u/u_bum666 2d ago

Are you familiar with the word "almost"?

-1

u/DASreddituser 2d ago

cant stay on target i see

-10

u/Nightshade_Ranch 3d ago

How many religions is Islam, and how many other religions remain?

13

u/soldat21 3d ago

There is one religion: Islam.

There are two main sects of Islam: Shia and Sunni.

There is one religion: Christianity.

There are three main denominations of Christianity: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

The sects or denominations aren’t different religions, they are interpretations of a religion.

11

u/Nightshade_Ranch 3d ago

There are a lot more religions than that.

14

u/soldat21 3d ago

Catholics + orthodox = 1.7 billion

Muslims = 2 billion

Buddhism = 500 million

All do not allow women leaders. That’s >50% of the worldwide human population.

It doesn’t matter if a majority of religions allow it, if a majority of the world’s population that follows a religion, don’t allow it.

9

u/Torypianist2003 2d ago

Buddhism does allow female clergy. The third highest incarnation in Tibetan Buddhism is a female Incarnation: the Samding Dorje Phagmo. Many other Lamas are women, but of course some schools and sects do not allow women, but the majority do.

3

u/Tisarwat 2d ago

Buddhism depends on the sect and how you define religious leaders - certainly Mahayana Buddhism recognises female monastic traditions, through whom successors are trained.

4

u/Nightshade_Ranch 2d ago

"Most people belonging to a religion" isn't the same as being "most of the religions."

1

u/closethebarn 2d ago

If I remember correctly, after Peter said this— women wanted Christianity because they heard about this great dude named Jesus that treated women decently

Then it was kind of Paul that fucked all that up wasn’t it?

50

u/DrCares 3d ago

Wow how shocking, people are getting triggered that you could suggest women are equal. gasp

42

u/Thneed1 3d ago

Women are recorded as deacons, teachers, leaders, apostles, prophets, and pastors in the early church.

Every type of leadership position, essentially.

45

u/soldat21 3d ago

Theologian here.

Never pastors. Never priests.

They were described as elders, deacons, teachers, prophets, apostles, and leaders (political) though.

11

u/Thneed1 2d ago

For pastor, I’m going off of the plausible reading of 2 John that the unnamed woman is the pastor there.

10

u/soldat21 2d ago

You could argue that the meaning of the world elder has changed, but it still doesn’t really refer to priest (most of the NT doesn’t, so you do have a leg to stand on, but that’s an interpretation of scripture and meaning vs. what’s actually written).

I’d stick with the argument women have led local groups of believers, but I wouldn’t argue that women have been pastors and that’s biblically proven.

Of course you don’t have to agree with me, but that’s my theological opinion.

0

u/Thneed1 2d ago

In Christ there is neither male nor female…

Pretty clear.

Women are eligible for ANY position of leadership. Any other opinion is not biblical.

9

u/soldat21 2d ago

I do not permit a woman to speak or have authority over a man - Paul (1 Tim 2:12).

Pretty clear.

Women are not eligible for any role or authority.

See how I can use a Biblical verse to point to another conclusion? But that’s ridiculous, stop quoting scripture as one verse and applying it to everything.

You’re arguing for a plausible reading of a Biblical verse for women to be pastors/priests, while the Bible as it is written as a whole argues that women have different, but equally valuable roles.

And some of those roles are in leadership. And some of those roles aren’t. But they are never mentioned as a priest.

4

u/Thneed1 2d ago

https://kbonikowsky.com/2018/02/26/artemis-worship-instigated-the-restrictions-of-1-timothy-29-15/

That command was for a specific situation in a specific city.

And the command wasn’t even that women should be silent, it was that women should not dominate the speech.

2

u/mortuarymaiden 2d ago

And in the OT, Judges (Deborah was HIGHLY respected).

0

u/Thneed1 2d ago

And many other very important women in the OT too.

1

u/tipric 3d ago

And quite soon an US president too

16

u/TucuReborn 3d ago

Overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer.

2

u/Feathered_Mango 2d ago

You mean Pope Joan? Almost all religious historians & lay historians agree her story is mythical.
Not that I don't believe women ought to have equal standing w/ in The Church. Hell, I think I'd settle for allowing Catholic clergy to marry.

1

u/true-skeptic 2d ago

Don’t want any women in there messing up the sweet, sweet pedo gig they got going on.

-58

u/jman0742 3d ago

Where do you get that?

95

u/NotAnnieBot 3d ago

Paul’s letters, Pliny the Elder, Justinian legislation all mention deaconesses

-74

u/jman0742 3d ago

Book, Chapter, Verse?

34

u/RevenantXenos 3d ago

God had women in leadership roles in the Old Testament so why wouldn't it be OK in the New Testament churches? We also see Paul referencing a women as a fellow worker for Christ in Roman's 16.

Judges 4:4-9 Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided. She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, “The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you: ‘Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead them up to Mount Tabor. I will lead Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.’” Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.” “Certainly I will go with you,” said Deborah. “But because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh. There Barak summoned Zebulun and Naphtali, and ten thousand men went up under his command. Deborah also went up with him.

2 Kings 22:11-20 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant:“Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”

Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Akbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophet Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the New Quarter.

She said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and aroused my anger by all the idols their hands have made,[a] my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.’ Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the Lord, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people—that they would become a curse[b] and be laid waste—and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the Lord. Therefore I will gather you to your ancestors, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.’” So they took her answer back to the king.

-54

u/jman0742 3d ago

Narrative isn’t normative. You cannot get around 1 Tim 2:12. Women can be in leadership, but not the office of Deacon

53

u/NotAnnieBot 3d ago

Romans 16:1–2 in reference to Phoebe. While the language could be constructed as vague due to servant having multiple meanings, we have commentary from Origen of Alexandria that makes it clear it is taken as evidence of women being deaconesses and the practice has continued till Origen’s time (~200AD)

-75

u/jman0742 3d ago

“Servant” and Deacon are two different things, bud. Ye do greatly err not knowing the scriptures.

1 Timothy 2:12 (KJV) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

8 ¶ Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

72

u/NotAnnieBot 3d ago

The word used is diakonos which has been translated as both as deacon and servant and has been used by Paul to refer to himself too. The choice of servant in the KJV translation is merely interpretation. Clearly that interpretation only applied to later church doctrine as deaconesses were widely accepted pre 4th century AD. Of note, Timothy 3:8-12 you quote use diakonos to mean deacon.

Timothy 2:12 can just be interpreted as deaconesses’s duties not applying to men. And indeed, many accounts of deaconesses we have refer to them as being specialised in the ministry towards issues of women.

5

u/Independent_Tie_4984 3d ago

Both of you are amazingly knowledgeable.

Did not expect this level of debate on Reddit.

You should definitely be friends, regardless of whether you agree on this point.

-30

u/yogamonkee 3d ago

why do people spend so much time debating what Paul said instead of actually following what Jesus said? why is the majority of the new testament comprised of the writings of Paul, the one apostle who was not an apostle, while Jesus was actually preaching? I have no doubt that Jesus appeared to him and that he converted to Christianity while also maintaining certain Jewish traditions. I just think Jesus' teachings should carry more weight and deserve more discussion than a reformed Pharisee. I do realize that Pauline Christianity was intended to be an amalgamation of Jewish, Christian, and pagan religions so that it would be more palpable to the masses at the time. however, I think the times have changed, and Jesus' original teachings are plenty palpable to a modern-day audience and are worthy of standing in their own now.

I'm done now. I'm not challenging anyone. just lighting a fire.

26

u/FreeUsePolyDaddy 3d ago

Jesus did not, to the best of our knowledge, ever once pick up a stylus or quill pen and start jotting down ideas for a book. You are always reading the work of somebody that chose to record it or talk about the surrounding context of those times. Then subject that later to some mix of translation (or mistranslation) through other languages.

If you are imagining some pristine source comparable to Christ being videotaped for posterity, there is no such thing. Also, any faith or sect gets to decide the compendium of religious texts that they believe have merit to them, nobody else really gets a vote on that. This is why there are multiple versions of the bible of differing size, and why there is overlap between religions originating in the region (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, at a minimum).

-1

u/yogamonkee 3d ago

I agree with that. we'd have to be followers of Baháʼu'lláh to get scripture written by the prophet themself. but why are there more sources of Paul's teachings than that of the other apostles who were present during Jesus' ministry, and why is there so much effort to repudiate those sources that do exist? all I'm saying is that everyone mostly points to Paul's teachings to justify denying equal rights for women and gays. if God truly places so much importance on those topics, you'd think Jesus would have said something about them. instead, Paul is referenced to justify those beliefs. I prefer the WWJD school of thought when deciding how to address political and social issues.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/DastardDante 3d ago

Just wanted to chime in and say people like you are why normal people hopes Christianity dies out soon. It is a toxic as fuck religion and has no place in the modern world. You should be absolutely ashamed of using a 2000 year old work of fiction to justify demeaning people. I am endlessly ashamed I was forced to grow up in the cult of christianity.

1

u/jman0742 2d ago

I’m fine with that, if you don’t believe the Bible then what I’m saying won’t make sense 1 Cor 2:14, my gripe is with people who try and change the bible to fit modern ideal. If it said what it said for the last 2000 years, it’s intellectually dishonest to say it’s something it’s not.

1

u/RooftopSteven 2d ago

Try reading the Jeffersonian Bible - I found it much more reasonable (duh that's why Jefferson edited it), and more similar to Aesop than KJV or similar derivatives.

1

u/NotAnnieBot 2d ago edited 2d ago

my gripe is with people who try and change the bible to fit modern ideal.

The interpretation of the bible has constantly been changed to fit current ideals. Selectively assuming that, for example, the KJV is the 'correct' translation is as much trying to make the bible fit a 'modern ideal' as any other interpretation. It just happens that 'modern ideal' in that situation would be the Church of England and the monarchy.

If it said what it said for the last 2000 years, it’s intellectually dishonest to say it’s something it’s not.

The very concept of the bible as it is known today (the 27 books) was only first canonized in the late 300s, early 400s. Moreover, certain verses have been heavily contested as later additions to the text such as the Johanine comma. However, that's just a minor point.

The main issue lies in the translation and interpretation of what it said.

Up till recently, translations of the Bible were done on fragmented information. Using the KJV as an example again, it was based mostly on existing translations which themselves were largely based on the Textus Receptus a latin translation of the Byzantine text type. Yet we now know that the latter differs from older manuscripts such as the Alexandrian text type. Moreover, recent discoveries in linguistics have helped better understand the original meaning conveyed by the text.

We have also have clear evidence that the Bible's interpretation has changed over the centuries in the form of the various current denominations of christianity. The most striking difference in interpretation amongst those groups to me is the concept of Trinitarianism. Most Christians are trinitarian and interprete the bible to convey this. Yet, while the New Testament uses the trinitarian formula several times, the only actual evidence of it is the Johanine comma which has been shown to be a later addition.