Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!rutgers!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: 4 Jun 91 02:42:45 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 120 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Re: Marty Helgesen In article MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet writes, in response to my article: >Brian, You say Blacks were not allowed into the Catholic priesthood until >the last two or three centuries. That is contrary to fact. Hi, Marty! Your reply isn't the only response that I've gotten to this effect; a short while ago, I admitted that my mistake was in error... I shall do so again, to make matters clear. I was *indeed* incorrect in stating that blacks were not allowed as Catholic priests until the last 3 centuries (though, by the way, I *am* less than convinced about Augustine, who has been portrayed as white in every representation that I've ever seen, and about the others; a North African origin does not necessarily imply black skin--nevertheless, your point is well made). However, I must insist that my statement was not terribly far removed from fact. Black priests seem to be a trend that died out before the middle ages, and *stayed* "dead" until the last 3 centuries or so. This leaves an immense block of time to account for. My point, originally directed at the assertion that "God simply isn't calling women to the priesthood", is that one could easily make the same claim about blacks; 500 years ago, one could easily have said, "Oh, well... it seems that God has *stopped* calling blacks to the priesthood for some mysterious, divine reason!" I doubt that such a statement would gain much credence today... which is all the more reason that I find the parallel assertion about women priests distressing. >You say further that God sent the Messiah to Earth in a male-dominated >area and in a male-dominated culture. God chose the Jews. If He had >wanted to choose a matriarchal society for the birth of the Messiah, He >could have done so. He probably would have had to create such a society, >because so far as I know there is little if any solid evidence that there >has ever been a truly matriarchal society, but He could have done that if >He had wanted to. I must caution you, sir, against such statements as "God could have done [X] had He wanted to." One could also say that God could have created a world that was as challenging and fulfilling to humans as THIS one is... but WITHOUT the tragic deaths of innocent people (due to storms, floods, earthquakes, et cet.). In addition to our failure to comprehend omnipotence (i.e. Can God create a married bachelor?), one is under no obligation to think that God WANTS to do everything that He's *capable* of doing. As a Catholic (I assume... forgive me if I'm mistaken!), you know that the Church respects the view that humanity did indeed evolve from lower forms of life (there are several good books and articles by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on that subject). Likewise, the Church respects the view that humans developed socially, psychologically, and spiritually over a long period of time; thus, the Church also respects the idea that humanity was, 2000 years ago, significantly less socially mature (relatively speaking) than people of today are (and that God, for whatever reason, did NOT interfere with this process in any abrupt way). Given this, it becomes easier to accept the idea of God's "choosing" the gender of the Messiah to fit society, rather than radically altering society to fit a prearranged gender of the Messiah. Another explanation, though not one I enjoy, is the idea that the gender of the Messiah was completely random... that there was a probability (p) of the Messiah being male, and probability (1-p) of the Messiah being female. >More to the point, the Church very quickly expanded beyond her Jewish >base to encompass many Gentiles. Priestesses were not at all uncommon in >pagan religions of the area. If Christians, who had ceased to observe large >parts of the Jewish ritual law, had ordained priestesses, the pagan converts >would have seen nothing unusual about it. I fear that this is an overgeneralization. The mere fact that pagan priestesses existed (and I'm skeptical of the claim that they were "not at all uncommon"; does this mean that they were common?) in some pagan sects says *nothing* of the Gentile "community" as a collective whole. For instance, the Romans (a significant addition, as of 324 A.D., with the confirmed conversion of Constantine) were certainly not ones to allow priestesses in the formal capacity that Catholic priests act in today (i.e. as social spiritual leaders of worship, counsel, et cet.). Likewise with the Greeks (the area which was the focus of most of Paul's letters, by the way), the Phoenicans, the Babylonians, the Syrians, the Goths, the Egyptians, and many more. Actually, the only nations that I've heard of that clearly used priestesses were Egypt, Carthage, and perhaps Ethiopia. So in that sense, the "pagan converts" that WERE in the early Church were not the ones that you speak of; even among these, the attitude was predominantly patriarchal. In response to your other comments, early Christians did NOT, in general, forsake a great deal of Jewish ritual law... and certainly did not forsake the deeper traditions of Judaism such as Patriarchy, celebration of Passoverm and so on. Only the "picayune" social rules of etiquette were forsaken, along with discrepancies that were not official Mosaic law to begin with (such as the practice of calling one's contribution to one's parents KORBAN (dedicated to God), thus "releasing" one from the obligation of supporting one's parents). >Incidentally, you ask, "Is the Trent-ian teaching of 'God is indeed provable >from natural science' infallible?" Where did the Council of Trent teach >that? [...] Perhaps you are thinking of the First >Vatican Council's definition that the existence of God can be known by unaided >human reason (NOT by natural science). Yes and no. Yes, I did indeed mean to say "Vatican I". No, the first Vatican Council did indeed insist that God was knowable THROUGH NATURE. More specifically, (not a direct quote) "Man's reason can establish the certain truth of monotheism by proving it from nature." (in refutation of Immanuel Kant, Louis Bautain, and Louis de Bonald) My apologies for the goof-ups and misunderstandings. ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu