I will tell you that the lack of citation with your assertions is certainly boring.

I think it is clear that feminists like to sling around terms that they redefine to mean anything they want it to mean.
Examples please?
Clearly, the church does not hate women.
That is almost certainly true, but not germane. The doctrines of the church, coupled with its structures of power, make it clear that women's voices and ideas are ideas that are not valued.

Millions upon millions of women in the Catholic church are quite frankly bored by such allegations.
By all means provide some sound research that supports this claim.

Feminists, on the other hand, seem to hate anyone who does not think like them and then start calling them names. and declare them to be enemies of the people.
This is very similar to the Christian tendency to cry persecution and declare that there is a war going on between the Church and the World whenever Christians don't get their way.

Do you really think your issues with feminism can distract from the basic issues here? I think its clear that the Church has a very obvious, out in the open, no attempt to disguise it history of treating women as subordinate and not equal to men, though I guess there's the tiniest bit of window dressing sometimes in saying that men and women have "different roles." And to this day, women are denied any place above the bottom in the hierarchy of the church. That's problematic enough even leaving aside any issues of doctrine that seems aimed at controlling women's reproductive health and sexuality.

You've brought up more than once the fact that there are many women in the Church. So what? That doesn't mean that the Church treats men and women equally, anymore than Hasidic/Orthodox Judaism treats men and women equally, or various brands of Islam.

Could you please explain to me why those protestant denominations that have women priests are also the ones that are collapsing and virtually imploding?

That is not the question under discussion. If there is one true correct approach to Christianity, be it Catholicism or some other denomination, certainly we would not measure it by the rate it is growing or shrinking. Jesus did not say, "By their growth rate you shall know them."

The issue is the position of women in the Church and in the world as seen by Catholicism. The issue is whether the Church sees women as subordinate to men. As I understand the teachings of the Church on gender, the Church does indeed see women as subordinate to men. It seems to me that the Catholic Church views women pretty much as it did when the old (1912?) Catholic Encyclopedia was written. The statistics for shrinkage and growth of Christian denominations or world religions tells me nothing about how the Church views the role of women. Doing the right thing is not necessarily popular, so a denomination that ordains women and loses members is not necessarily guilty of going in the wrong direction theologically just because it is losing members.

The Catholic Encyclopedia said the following:

Therefore, the social position of woman remains in Christianity that of subordination to man, wherever the two sexes by necessity find themselves obliged to supplement each other in common activity.

Does that reflect the position of the Catholic Church, or does it merely reflect the attitude of the men of the early 20th century who wrote the Catholic Encyclopedia?

Fredx2

I won't be Catholic, (I once was), but I will feel free to criticize any aspect of the Church that I feel is open to critique.

"You want to interpret the fact that the church does not have women priests as "does not value women much" That is a shallow sound bite sort of thing that is beneath you.'

How could it value women much? They have no voice in the organization. Catholic men, decide what women should do, or not do with their own bodies. How is it shallow to notice this?

"Do you know what women's concerns are?"

I know what some women's concerns are, because I actually listen to women. However, I am not a sprawling organization of whom half my members are women. If I was such an organization, I would want women in positions of leadership, because I would want their perspectives and voices helping guide my organization.

"First of all, I would think it would be not to be called idiots. Yet that is what you do to the millions of women who are happy in the church, and do NOT see the fact that they can't be a priest as the most enormous slap in the face to humanity, ever."

Nothing I have said could be construed as calling women in the RCC idiots. If I thought they were idiots, I would say so. They may be happy in the church, and not want to be priests , and may not see their preclusion from being priests as a slap in the face. That does not change the fact that RCC leadership fails to value the perspective of women enough to involve them deeply in the inner workings and direction of the church. Glad they are happy, but that doesn't change the fact the church doesn't really care, ultimately if they are or not. How do we know this? Because they occupy not one meaningful position of power in the RCC structures of power.

"Most don't care, because they do not have a rigid. political insistence in equality at all costs."

How do you know this? Have any citations? Or is this just your gut instinct here?

They need the church to focus on their spiritual growth and comfort, and look to it to be wise when they are not."

However the Church can intrude on their physical lives too,

They realize that the church is a voluntary organization, not a government, and they are free to go whenever they want."

It is not as easy to leave for everyone. Children are stuck engaged in church whether they like it or not, at least until the parent tires of forcing the kids (though some parents are insistent). Nor is it always easy for a woman who is married to a catholic man to simply leave the church. These are not the simple cut and dried matters you make them out to be.

"Who are you to say who respects the minds of women? Or their bodies?"
I can say, any organization that denies, systematically, some portion of their members from having a say in the governance, interpretation and implementation of rules for its members, specifically the excluded members, does not respect minds, or perspectives of the group being shut out.

You who want them to fill their bodies with chemicals?" I don't want women to do anything. If a woman wants to be on the pill, that is cool by me. Its their body. And the pill is quite safe.
"That the WHO has said is carcinogenic?"
Scientific citation from a respected medical journal please.

Leave women alone to decide for themselves what they want and what they believe. The sheer arrogance of you guys on this issue is appalling.

All I am doing is voicing my critique. Any woman listening can factor this critique into their analysis. There is no arrogance in my position.

So, Joseph Smith's revelations have some validity then? Mohammed's? Jim Jones'? If you grant it for one, you must grant it for all.

Lunacy is generally quickly recognized as such and discarded by the vast bulk of people, who are rational. Revelation seems to have some inherent validity to it, and people are drawn to it.

Didn't you just complain about twisting people's words in another comment? Where did M. say women in the Catholic Church were, "too dumb to know what is good for them?"

That's fine. But you should at least admit, that your rules don't value women, or their voices. This is a problematic model given that half the people in the church are likely to be women, and half the potential convert population are likely to be women. And given that women tend to expect more of institutions in this regard. Remember, Episcopalian's may be in decline, but the RCC isn't doing incredibly well either. Attendance is in decline, Catholic Identity is in decline.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/03/13/strong-catholic-identity-at-a-four-decade-low-in-us/

Again, a slap in the face of the milions of faithful Catholic women, who you say are too dumb to know what is good for them.

You want to interpret the fact that the church does not have women priests as "does not value women much" That is a shallow sound bite sort of thing that is beneath you.
Do you know what women's concerns are?.First of all, I would think it would be not to be called idiots. Yet that is what you do to the millions of women who are happy in the church, and do NOT see the fact that they can't be a priest as the most enormous slap in the face to humanity, ever. Most don't care, because they do not have a rigid. political insistence in equality at all costs. They need the church to focus on their spiritual growth and comfort, and look to it to be wise when they are not. They realize that the church is a voluntary organization, not a government, and they are free to go whenever they want.
Who are you to say who respects the minds of women? Or their bodies? You who want them to fill their bodies with chemicals? That the WHO has said is carcinogenic? Leave women alone to decide for themselves what they want and what they believe. The sheer arrogance of you guys on this issue is appalling.
It's a voluntary organization. It decides what it wants to do based on its interpretation of scripture. That's called freedom. If you don't like it, don't be a Catholic.