Sunday, March 25, 2012

Why Does Jimmy Carter Care About Female Ordination?

H/T: Donald McClarey
Catholic Culture reports that President Jimmy Carter argued with Pope John Paul II on a number of issues, among them the treatment of women:
The former president said that he complained to the Pontiff about the Church’s “perpetuation of the subservience of women” while Blessed John Paul II was visiting the US in 1978.
One can only assume that Carter was referring to the ban on women's ordination.  I generally don't care what Jimmy Carter has to say about anything, but I found this Baptist's protest over the treatment of women in the Catholic Church so bizarre as to be notable.  Carter is only one of many non-Catholics who criticize the Church for disallowing women's ordination, but I cannot imagine why.  Why should non-Catholics care about the internal affairs of the Catholic Church?

Non-Catholics condemning the Catholic Church for not ordaining women makes as little sense as Catholics condemning the Anglican church for making women priests.  Sure we might criticize the Church of England for abandoning its traditions, which originate in our own, but we don't care nearly as much about the existence of Anglican women priests as liberals care about the nonexistence of Catholic ones.  The Anglican's priesthood is not a real priesthood so their ordination of women is silly but it probably isn't evil.

Christians have even less reason to criticize most practices (not the theology) of other religions.  Until the 1970s the Mormon church banned blacks from the ministry, and though this was wrong I don't care too much because I'm not a Mormon.  Nor am I a Muslim, so it doesn't bother me that Islam requires women to cover their heads outside the home.  I object to the Islamic practice of killing homosexuals, but that's because such a practice is a wildly disproportionate use of violence against private vice.  Anyone who thinks that a woman has a basic human right to become a Catholic priest is clearly insane and ought to be institutionalized for his own good.  Come to think of it, the 1970s would have been a lot better if Jimmy Carter were occupying a straightjacket instead of the oval office.


  1. "Come to think of it, the 1970s would have been a lot better if Jimmy Carter were occupying a straightjacket instead of the oval office."

    Great one! Couldn't agree more. The peanut farmer went nuts along time ago.

  2. Patrick, I am sure you've heard the old saying, "If I knew then what I know now". Well as one of those who believed his claims in 1976 that he was pro-life, I supported him in the Iowa Caucuses. & while I can't change the past, I also realize I did what looked best at the time. The 1 good thing that came out the the Carter era was the election of President Reagan. & no I am not, like some, going to make it sound like he was perfect. he didn't do everything right. But he was much better.
    This is all about Carter trying to justify his actions that he knows were & are wrong as well as play to the Democratic base. As I point out in my post on it, there is no way to justify his attack, especially to put Blessed Pope John Paul & the Ayatollah Khomeini in the same category. He is doing it to divert attention from his part in the Ayatollah coming to power & his subsequent actions while ignoring Pope John Paul's role in Poland overthrowing communism.
    Yes, he should be locked up in a padded cell. The trouble is, there are too many others out there that agree with him & should be as well.

  3. Al: Well we won't hold it against you for voting for Carter. Just don't do it again! It is absurd that Carter compared JPII to the Ayatollah. I don't recall the pope ever calling for public stonings.

  4. Very true Patrick, that we can't comment on other religions rules,..we do however have to comment when they violate natural law...

  5. Marco: You are right about protesting violations of natural law. That is what I meant by the comment about the Islamic practice of killing homosexuals.