please do research and study people....it's really not that hard.
Abhaya Budhil wrote: I don't think that when it was decided women couldn't be priests it had anything to do with psychological differences. Women were just seen as inferior. It was plain old sexism that the Catholic Church has chosen not to challenge for its entire history.
Women weren't seen as inferior, Mary magdalene? Mary mother of G-d? Priscilla? Claire of Assissi? St Nino? Martha, Anna, Mary of Bethany, St Juliano of Lazavero...I can literally go on and on and on about the reverance and the voice women had in Christian history, they were respected. I dare you to say that to a Serbian Christian. When the order of the priesthood was established there was almost a major bias towards women, they were treated as strong and a force to be wreckoned with. It was established as a male path of servitude and devotion. It wasn't because they felt the women to be inferior. The servant is thought to be inferior, no? Well the presbyter was the servant of the eucharist, a servant to the people, that was a view that was held in the catholic church( yes, even in rome) for over 800 to 1000 years. It still continues today, as seen in the Catholic church of the other four holy sees.
As far as the Pope and Catholic doctrine being unchangeable, he has already said that their doctrine is out of date and needs to be reexamined. Didn't he just recently say that hell isn't a physical place that people go to? That's new for the Catholic Church.
Doctrine in the catholic church is pretty flux in comparison to even older forms of protestantism, look at the papal infallibity, second vatican and so forth doctrines. The doctrine itself is pretty relevant considering the function of the church and when he was saying it was outdated, it was really an address to deal with traditionalism and sede vacantism. It had nothing to do with women, gays, hell or the priesthood.
I should've said canon and dogma ( I did say dogma, not canon) which in the roman catholic church is center on their ideology and history, the reasons may be distorted but they still remain. Dogma and canon in this point of time, cannot be touched and the revisions made on canon never really change anything except translation, which is heavilly reviewed for change in dogma. Now the idea he presented of hell is actually apathetic theology and was originally present in the early church, including the church of Rome. By the catholic and apostolic church ( both in and outside of rome) this isn't a new philosophy, this is actually fairly ancient and kinda reinforces canon and dogma. The Catholic church held this view for longer than the current mythology of hell.
