Prostitution

[Varg]

Why did the person who wrote the bible make Mary Magdalane a prostitute? Pretty stupid, don't you think?

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Varg' post='1922574' date='Jul 17 2009, 03:07 AM']Why did the person who wrote the bible make Mary Magdalane a prostitute? Pretty stupid, don't you think?[/quote]
Yeah.. stupid in a merciful redemptive way.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Varg' post='1922574' date='Jul 17 2009, 07:07 AM']Why did the person who wrote the bible make Mary Magdalane a prostitute? Pretty stupid, don't you think?[/quote]
Because the bible is filled with stories of real sinful human beings with all their faults and virtues.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Varg' post='1921852' date='Jul 16 2009, 04:36 PM']Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, wasn't she?[/quote]

She did not persist in her sinful ways.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' post='1922574' date='Jul 17 2009, 05:07 AM']Why did the person who wrote the bible make Mary Magdalane a prostitute? Pretty stupid, don't you think?[/quote]
Yes, pretty stupid that even the worst of sinners can be saved by Christ. Doesn't make any sense at all.

[CatherineM]

Mary Magdalene was mis-identified as a prostitute by Pope Gregory the Great in a homily in 591 AD. She was the woman that Jesus drove the 7 evil spirits out of.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1932486' date='Jul 26 2009, 02:04 PM']Mary Magdalene was mis-identified as a prostitute by Pope Gregory the Great in a homily in 591 AD. She was the woman that Jesus drove the 7 evil spirits out of.[/quote]

I wouldn't say that he misidentified her.

I agree with his identification of Mary Magdalen with the "sinner" in Luke and with Mary of Bethany.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1932540' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:03 PM']I wouldn't say that he misidentified her.

I agree with his identification of Mary Magdalen with the "sinner" in Luke and with Mary of Bethany.[/quote]

Mary was identified by name several times in the bible. Why do you suppose that she wouldn't have been in Luke?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1932549' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:13 PM']Mary was identified by name several times in the bible. Why do you suppose that she wouldn't have been in Luke?[/quote]

She was probably still alive when St. Luke wrote his gospel. Maybe he didn't want to defame her.

[CatherineM]

When a woman in that age and culture was identified by her hometown rather than as the wife or daughter or mother of someone, it was usually because she was well known, and probably had property. Many scholars believe that she was one of the individuals who financed Jesus' ministry. The only one defaming her, are those, like yourself, who continue to assume she was a fallen woman without a single concrete reference to that assumption.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1932560' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:33 PM']The only one defaming her, are those, like yourself, who continue to assume she was a fallen woman without a single concrete reference to that assumption.[/quote]

The gospel for the Feast of St. Mary Magdalen is the passage from Luke about the "sinner" (Luke 7:36-50). It seems clear that the liturgy of the Church is saying that St. Mary Magdalen is the "sinner" from Luke.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Resurrexi

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1932607' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:30 PM']The gospel for the Feast of St. Mary Magdalen is the passage from Luke about the "sinner" (Luke 7:36-50). It seems clear that the liturgy of the Church is saying that St. Mary Magdalen is the "sinner" from Luke.[/quote]

Well that is certainly slam dunk evidence. I guess you have a video of her going into a brothel as well. It must be nice to know every single thing in life, without question, and with no quarter given to those who see things from a different perspective.

By the way, is that passage used in the one year lectionary that you traddies like, or in the current 3 year lectionary. I'm much too tired being a heretic to look it up.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1932717' date='Jul 26 2009, 06:46 PM']Well that is certainly slam dunk evidence. I guess you have a video of her going into a brothel as well. It must be nice to know every single thing in life, without question, and with no quarter given to those who see things from a different perspective.

By the way, is that passage used in the one year lectionary that you traddies like, or in the current 3 year lectionary. I'm much too tired being a heretic to look it up.[/quote]

I was talking about the EF lectionary since I do not have as much experience with the OF as I do with the EF.

N.B., The EF lectionary [i]is[/i] the current lectionary. The OF lectionary is the current lectionary too. Both the EF and the OF are two forms of the same, living, Roman rite that exists today.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1932717' date='Jul 26 2009, 07:46 PM']Well that is certainly slam dunk evidence. I guess you have a video of her going into a brothel as well. It must be nice to know every single thing in life, without question, and with no quarter given to those who see things from a different perspective.

By the way, is that passage used in the one year lectionary that you traddies like, or in the current 3 year lectionary. I'm much too tired being a heretic to look it up.[/quote]

Catherine isn't that a bit out of line. He made a case. It is a case you disagree with but he did not make any kind of statement to warrent that. This is the debate table, he is debating there is no need to be snide about it.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1932560' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:33 PM']When a woman in that age and culture was identified by her hometown rather than as the wife or daughter or mother of someone, it was usually because she was well known, and probably had property. Many scholars believe that she was one of the individuals who financed Jesus' ministry. The only one defaming her, are those, like yourself, who continue to assume she was a fallen woman without a single concrete reference to that assumption.[/quote]
Well we have Gregory's identification of her. I think Gregory the Great was probably pretty well versed in scripture, but maybe I am wrong, perhaps he was just an oppressive woman hater who wanted to take one of the important women of the Bible and make her a whore. I am sure he thought Christ would approve of defaming one of his financiers.

Isn't the fact that the Tradition of the Church that she was indeed the woman in Luke an argument that she was. Or in the 15 years since I was seminarian has Tradition been through out as a source of Truth?

I have no great stake in this matter, I have no devotion to St. Magdalen, nor do I have any desire to defame a Holy woman. I just don't like rivisionist history in my Church anymore than in my History books. If you are going to Make a claim that 1400 years of tradition is not Tradition with a a Big T then I would like more evidence than a rather weak contention about how women are discussed. I am fairly sure I can find exceptions to that beyond St. Magdelan.

[thessalonian]

Governments have a responsibility to regulate what is best for society. Sin is never best for society. Prostitution destroys families and leaves children in fatherless homes. It leads to abuse of women. Again it can never be tolerated in a right ordered society. Lounge Daddy I am surprized at your response. Laws must have a moral basis to be good laws.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1935941' date='Jul 30 2009, 08:10 PM']Governments have a responsibility to regulate what is best for society. Sin is never best for society. Prostitution destroys families and leaves children in fatherless homes. It leads to abuse of women. Again it can never be tolerated in a right ordered society. Lounge Daddy I am surprized at your response. Laws must have a moral basis to be good laws.[/quote]

Regular fornication is bad for society too, as is adultery. Maybe we should make laws against those things too.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1935944' date='Jul 30 2009, 09:13 PM']Regular fornication is bad for society too, as is adultery. Maybe we should make laws against those things too. [/quote]

So is cursing and people staying up to late at night.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1935941' date='Jul 30 2009, 09:10 PM']Governments have a responsibility to regulate what is best for society. Sin is never best for society. Prostitution destroys families and leaves children in fatherless homes. It leads to abuse of women. Again it can never be tolerated in a right ordered society. Lounge Daddy I am surprized at your response. Laws must have a moral basis to be good laws.[/quote]


True enough there is some level of "tolerance" that the governement allows simply because it does not have room in the prisons. A part of this tolerance as well is the old frog in the boiling water of course. I saw a video clip the other day about a man living in the 1800's bring brought forward to today and going to a regular pg 13 movie. He came out of the theatere screaming to stop the move.

Some of those limits depend on the current state of depravity of a society. Certainly the legality and promotion of contraception is not something desired by the Church. Did the Church advocate it being repealed when it was? I suspect not. Does the Church ever support the removal of laws on the basis of morality? I don't know of any. Especially when it involves mortal sin. Adultery used to be illegal (and should be) in pretty much every state. Are you against regulation of pornography? Quite honestly I think ithe production of it should be illegal.

The problem of course with laws is that people will not follow them and there is only so much prison space. Not whether there should be a law or not. The solution to all of this is Jesus Christ and so that is why the Church does not always speak out. Laws will never solve the problems. The worse society is and the less the regulation of these things based on right thinking, them more society needs the Church and so I guess that may be where Aquinas is coming from. Your defense sounds like advocacy to me and that is where these type of arguements lead. I can't ever see prostitution as being on the line where we should deregulate it. If the governement thinks this is good for society we have a truly barbaric, corrupt governement. To allow and promote the "use" of women in this way is truly a grave moral evil.

Keep your rolleyes to yourself.

Edited July 31, 2009 by thessalonian

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1936466' date='Jul 31 2009, 09:06 AM']True enough there is some level of "tolerance" that the governement allows simply because it does not have room in the prisons. A part of this tolerance as well is the old frog in the boiling water of course. I saw a video clip the other day about a man living in the 1800's bring brought forward to today and going to a regular pg 13 movie. He came out of the theatere screaming to stop the move.

Some of those limits depend on the current state of depravity of a society. Certainly the legality and promotion of contraception is not something desired by the Church. Did the Church advocate it being repealed when it was? I suspect not. Does the Church ever support the removal of laws on the basis of morality? I don't know of any. Especially when it involves mortal sin. Adultery used to be illegal (and should be) in pretty much every state. Are you against regulation of pornography? Quite honestly I think ithe production of it should be illegal.

The problem of course with laws is that people will not follow them and there is only so much prison space. Not whether there should be a law or not. The solution to all of this is Jesus Christ and so that is why the Church does not always speak out. Laws will never solve the problems. The worse society is and the less the regulation of these things based on right thinking, them more society needs the Church and so I guess that may be where Aquinas is coming from. Your defense sounds like advocacy to me and that is where these type of arguements lead. I can't ever see prostitution as being on the line where we should deregulate it. If the governement thinks this is good for society we have a truly barbaric, corrupt governement. To allow and promote the "use" of women in this way is truly a grave moral evil.

Keep your rolleyes to yourself.[/quote]

thessalonian you and I have known each other, here on phatmass, a long time. I will be honest, your post scares the hell out of me. Do you really think the only check on the power of the state toinforce whaat is "good" for people is how much prison space there is? What you seem to be advocating is a totalitarian sys0tem where the state simply passes what ever lawss it wishes because the are the "right" thing to do? We live in a world of secular states. we do not have a system of govenment where the state is subject to significant pressure from the Church. A Papal interdict does not mean what it once did. Since the state is secular it should be involved with only secular things. Its purpose is to protect its citizens/ subjects from physical danger, to protect their freedom and to regulate trade. Thats it. Now if you want to revolt and try and set up a Catholic state, well I'm okay with that, but as long as the state is not concerned with the teachings of the Church they should stay out of the enforcment of morality. Is the state going to give people bed times? I think this is as least as much an issue as prostitution, many many people die in car accidents becauses people are to tired whe they are driving..... How much regulation should we have?