Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bralick@fangorn.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: ambitious women may approach the altar now ... Message-ID: Date: 30 May 91 04:17:16 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Self-similar Lines: 96 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes: | Re: Joseph H. Buehler | ... | the Pope has "sovreign authority" over the moral teachings of the | Church, and is answerable to no human for his decisions in such | matters... | | > There is also ordinary infallibility to be considered. It is | >a fact that women have *never* been allowed to be ordained in the | >Roman Catholic Church. This is of moment in Catholic theology. Whether | >it can be changed depends on why the traditional practice is what it is. | | First of all, "ordinary infallibility" is a vague concept, at best. | No one is quite certain WHAT falls into that category... hence, the | formalization of the "statement Ex Cathedra" doctrine; no one would | have NEEDED such a doctrine, had there been no doubt as to what was | infallible and what was not. We Catholics are obliged to follow the ordinary teachings of the Church in the areas of morality and doctrine (as if they were infallible). For example, Humanae Vitae provided clear moral guidance on the use of contraceptives and abortion, but it wasn't promulgated "ex cathedra." Moral teachings are not pronounced "ex cathedra," but that doesn't mean that it becomes a matter of personal taste. Remember, "Roma locuta, causa finita. And that doesn't only obtain when the Pope speaks ex cathedra. | Consider: how many of the teachings of the Council of Trent are | infallible? Even assuming that ALL of them are... how are we [fallible] | humans to interpret those infallible teachings without error? I wouldn't use the word "infallible" here, rather I would say that the teachings of Trent like those of Vatican I, Vatican II, Nicea, etc. are all authoritative. So, the short answer to your question is that we fallible humans can rely on the authoritative teachings of the Church. | ... | Consider further: blacks were not allowed into the Catholic | priesthood until the last two or three centuries. That's odd, I had always thaought that St. Augustine was black. Wasn't he from North Africa? | ... | > Why did the predecessors of the current | >hierarchy not ordain women through so many centuries? The reasons have | >to be completely understood. If the reason(s) are such that they are | >unaffected by time (as I believe they are), then women cannot be | >ordained in the 20th C any more than they could be in the 19th. | | And if the reason(s) are merely a social/cultural bias that | was prevalent in ancient times (as I believe they are), then | women could easily be ordained in the 20th century... and, moreover, | SHOULD be. Needless to say it is unimportant what _we_ think (or what the theologians (especially the current crop of them (!)) think, for that matter), since the Church is not and will never be a democratic institution. Anyway, I believe that there are very few bishops who advocate women's ordination. Like it or not, the Catholic Church has to consider more than the political sensibilities of North European and North American liberals. So even if it is a human (rather than divine) tradition, the Church would have to be willing to endure another major schism as well as putting off any hope of reunifying with the Eastern Orthodox churches for a long time to come. | ... | God sent the Messiah to Earth in a male-dominated era, and in a | male-dominated culture. In order for God's Messiah to be taken | seriously by such a culture, it could well have been the case that | a male Messiah was chosen [for that reason]. Likewise, had | Jesus talked about "God the Mother", it would have contradicted | centuries upon centuries of Jewish thought (bad idea, if one | wishes to gain acceptance). | In that sense, the titles of "God the Father" and "God the Son" | could well have been dependent upon the opinions of men: the men | of 1st century Judea. This whole line of argument has always struck me as rather secularized, viz. it smacks of the idea that man created God in his image rather than the other way around. The idea that God almighty would have to conform Himself to the social structure of His creatures evidences a failure of appreciation for the concept of omnipotence. Perhaps a more appropriate view is that due to the nature of God and the nature of created mankind, the Messiah would necessarily be a male and thus society would necessarily be male-dominated at the time and place He was to arrive. Succinctly, perhaps the male domination of the culture was intended to serve God's interest, not man's. Best regards, -- Will bralick@cs.psu.edu with disclaimer; use disclaimer; Not to seem aposiopetic, but