Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: ambitious women may approach the altar now ... Message-ID: Date: 3 Jun 91 06:03:07 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 198 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Re: Will Bralick In article , bralick@fangorn.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes, in response to my response to Joe Buehler: >>> 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). Hi, Will! I must admit, I'm in an awkward position, here. Almost everything that you've written in your response is acceptable to me, and does indeed jibe with my understood (AND implemented!) practice of the Catholic faith. However, please understand that I was debating with Joe over *philosophical* items. This implies two things: 1) Since I wasn't debating you, my arguments weren't tailored to cope with your particular slant of questioning; thus, my article may have seemed unnaturally secular in nature, to you. 2) Joe and I debate philosophy, NOT actual practice of faith. He and I can debate this issue until we both turn blue, and it will not imply, in the SLIGHTEST, our attitudes toward actual religious life and practice of the Cathoic faith. I, for example, am completely loyal to the Pope and the total Catholic Magisterium, despite the fact that I fail to grasp the reasons for some Church doctrines. I cannot stress this enough, and I beg you to understand that. Despite all my debating, I do *NOT* approve of anyone going against the Church's current doctrines, and would consider such actions as non-Catholic, if not outright sinful. In such context, please understand that I would never urge others to disobey the Pope's wishes in this matter [of women priests]. > 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. That's quite true; again, I was NEVER advocating disobedience to the Pope. What Joe and I were debating was the POSSIBILITY that the Vatican could change the policy of having an all-male clergy, with that topic eventually spilling over into the langent topics of "are women worthy of priesthood", "should women be submissive to men", and so forth. >> 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. True. Again, Joe and I were debating the philosophy of the issue, not the practice. Though the idea of discussing Catholic teaching in a semi-secular, philosophical forum might strike you as somewhat offensive, please understand that this is for discussion's sake only. >> 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? If he was, this is the first I'll have heard of it. I can't answer your question for certain, but I've never seen Augustine portrayed as black; even in our chapel, the stain-glass caricature of Augustine is clearly caucasian... and just a few windows down is an obviously negro representation of St. Martin de Porres. It would strike me as odd that the window-makers would "whiten" one and not the other. On that subject, I have been made aware that my statement was not strictly true... I do apologize for that. However, I *am* certain of the fact that there was a span of well over 1000 years where blacks were strongly discouraged to enter the clergy, and WERE forbidden to do so in the United States until recently. I'll dig up references to this as soon as I have some spare time. >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. That, sir, is a key point. In my private searching for rationales of the "male clergy" practice, the ONLY rationale that I could discover is the idea of the Church being unready for such a dramatic change (i.e. such a change might WELL produce a schism of appalling magnitude). But once again, the discussion that you responded to was NOT one of actual practice; it was dealing with the raw philosophical and moral implications of an all-male clergy. As to whether I "like it or not", I agree that my opinions should not be viewed as equal to Vatican pronouncements. Nevertheless... in this controlled forum, where I've made it QUITE clear that I am only *discussing* the idea of women priests and NOT advocating Catholic rebellion... I have every right to express my opinions as I see fit... liberal, conservative, or otherwise. (I suspect that you don't have an argument with that; I mentioned the above for the sake of anyone who might be following this thread.) >> 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. I must strongly disagree. Rather, I believe that it is a *misunderstanding* of the concept of omnipotence that drives people to such conclusions. One example is the idea of "why didn't God create us with the ability to resist all temptation with ease? He had the power to do so!" Another is, "Why does God allow tragedies such as earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, and disease to kill millions of INNOCENT people? If He's all-powerful, can't He think of a way of carrying out His plan without all this innocent suffering?" (I remind you that the Catholic Church does *indeed* believe that innocent suffering exists; it does NOT take the fundamentalist position of, "Well, if they suffer, they deserve it!") To ask such questions is to misunderstand omnipotence , IMHO. As Job was taught, it is not our right to ask why God does what He does, and HOW God does what He does. Perhaps God simply doesn't wish to violate His own natural laws, or perhaps He doesn't wish to interfere with the natural progress of humanity. This view would easily allow for the idea of God's "fitting" the Messiah's gender to best suit the opinions of the time, in additions to allowing breathing room for the concept of an "omnibenevolent God who still allows innocent suffering". >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. This strikes me as a dangerously elitist way of thinking, in addition to being *terribly* "convenient" for Catholic males to think. Moreover, the Second Vatican Council wrote, in "CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD": "But forms of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language or religion, must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design. It is regrettable that these basic personal rights are not yet respected everywhere, as is the case with women who are denied the chance freely to choose a husband, or a state of life, or have access to the same educational and cultural benefits as are available to men." (Church in the Modern World, 29) Others have argued to me that this section may not apply to the specific issue of women priests; I'm in the midst of debating that now. But I *do* wish to stress that your proposed idea of "God wills that man dominate woman" DIRECTLY contradicts this passage. In addition, you'll find that virtually NO bishops, priests, or other Catholic authorities would agree with your hypothesis that "male domination serves God's interests". You are more or less alone in that view (that is, if you truly believe it; my apologies if you meant it in an ironic way). I hope this clarifies my position, a bit. ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu