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: bralick@fimbrethil.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: ambitious women may approach the altar now ... Message-ID: Date: 5 Jun 91 04:10:24 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Self-similar Lines: 198 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes: | Re: Will Bralick | | In article , | bralick@fangorn.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes, | in response to my response to Joe Buehler: Mr. Coughlin's caveats accepted and understood, but deleted to conserve bandwidth... | >... 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. It is important, but not key. | 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. I think that there is profound disagreement among theologians and between certain (pro-women's-ordination) theologians and most bishops (some few bishops have called for women's ordination, e.g. I think that the bishop of Albany supports it) not about whether women _should_ be ordained, but whether they _can_ be ordained. I am given to understand that the question is whether the sacrament would "take" if administered to a woman, not whether it is a good idea. In short, the "philosophical and moral implications of an all-male clergy" are not really important until the question of validity is resolved. If the sacrament is invalid if administered to a woman, then the implications are irrelevant. If the sacrament is valid, then the implications _are_ relevant. | >> ... | >> 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? Some would say that none of us are INNOCENT. This also seems to suggest that death is the worst thing. It isn't. Whether one dies from any of the above natural disasters or disease or automobile accidents doesn't change the fact that we all, from the most holy to the most sinful, will eventually shuffle off this mortal coil. The truly important question then is, "what is the state of each person's soul at their death?" The answer to this question might very well be dependent upon which way that person turns under the pressure of different spiritual challenges: unearned suffering, unearned wealth, etc. | 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!") But it isn't impossible that there may well be a purpose behind that "innocent suffering." Even apparent arbitrariness can be purposive when God engages in it. I merely suggest that to look at a sacrament that has never been administered to women in the 2000 year history of the Church and attribute it to mere cultural bias ignores the equally valid point that arguing _for_ women's ordination may just as easily (if not moreso) be percieved as merely a cultural phenomenon of _our_ times. It is a fallacy (at least) to think that just because something is more _modern_ then it is necessarily better. | To ask such questions is to misunderstand omnipotence , IMHO. Which were different from what I suggested, anyway. | As Job was taught, it is not our right to ask why God does what | He does, and HOW God does what He does. Of course, those who argue that the masculinity of the Messiah and the reason He chose only male apostles was due to the ambient culture are also doing precisely that. They attempt to answer the question in such a fashion that it serves the conclusion that they wish to reach, viz. that things are different now; now we can be more _modern_ and _progressive_ and admit women to the priesthood. I do not think that this question is closed, but I expect that the Church will spend the greater part of the next couple hundred years attempting to discern whether this is a sacred or human tradition. | 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. So do you presume that the "natural progress of humanity" begins with "male domination?" ;-) Or do you suggest that "male domination" is derivable from the "natural law?" :-) | >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, Why? I don't see the purpose of such invective. I am suggesting a possible alternative which, even though it seems to be | ... *terribly* "convenient" for Catholic males to think. doesn't make it wrong. I admit that it is speculative, but it covers the facts at least as well as the alternative. | 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. Of _course_ it doesn't apply to women priests. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith repeatedly refers to the ordination of men to the diaconate, priesthood, and bishoprics. It doesn't use gender neutral terms at all. In the case where the general discussion concerns "cultural benefits" in a _pastoral_ document is contrasted with a specific discussion of the ordination of men in a _dogmatic_ document, I think that a reasonable interpretation is that Gaudium et Spes was referring to nonecclessial institutions. Another point to consider, is that the above covers _rights_, and it seems to me that women have just as much _right_ to be a priest as men have, i.e. none at all. It is primarily not a question of human rights, but of divine will and it is the job of the magisterium to discern that. | But I *do* wish to stress that your proposed idea | of "God wills that man dominate woman" DIRECTLY contradicts | this passage. I, of course, didn't say that. First, I dislike the loaded word "dominate" in this context, because it serves the "feminist" argument by presupposing that the culture was "dominated" (rather than, say, "lead") by men -- I only used it because it had been used. Because the word choice is significant, I will say "male-lead society" hence- forth. Second, if you read what I _did_ write, you will find that I used that past tense. I suggested that it might have been the case that males lead the Jewish society and culture of the day because it served God's interest. That is not to say that today's secular society and culture _should_ still be male-lead, although I am not willing, at this time, to argue the converse either. | 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". Once again, by using the present tense you have mischaracterized my _speculation_ (not _hypothesis_). Are you intentionally misrepresenting my statements? | You are more or less alone in that view Yes, since _I_ didn't even say it, it must be a very lonely view to hold. Regards, -- bralick@cs.psu.edu with disclaimer; use disclaimer; Not to seem aposiopetic, but