Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bbnccv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!bbncca!bbnccv!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marchionni on women priests
Message-ID: <387@bbnccv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 13:22:50 EST
Article-I.D.: bbnccv.387
Posted: Tue Feb 19 13:22:50 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 20:16:43 EST
References: <1580V6M@PSUVM>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 40

Vince does a very good job relating official R.C. Church positions, but I
would like occasionally to hear his own opinion (that is, if it ever
differs.)  It is important to realize that when we discuss the possibility
of ordination of women, we are not treading on issues of faith and morals--
we are discussing custom.  The customs of the Church can change.  They are
open to dispute.  The history of the Church, is, often, the history of
such disputes, proposed by people of good will, people who care about
the Church.  

It is well known that the "official position" of the Roman Catholic Church
on the ordination of women is a subject of great controversy for many of its
members.  Vince relates it pretty succinctly, but it certainly does not 
provide an airtight argument.  One can invoke "tradition" as often as one
wants, but that is to beg the question.

If "tradition" is so overwhelmingly powerful, why did John XXIII convene
Vatican II?  If "tradition" is such a guiding force, why then is the
Tridentine Rite for the Mass no longer observed?  Even the recent dispensation
by the Pope for its occasional use is simply a "bone" thrown to hard-core
traditionalists.  If "tradition" is so powerful, why then are we not bound
to the same traditions and practices which were in use back in the fifth
century A.D.?  The fact is that the Church is NOT static, that it changes
as the needs of its members change, on matters unrelated to faith and morals.

Even the issue of "representation" seems weak to me.  Why choose one's sex
as the discriminant?  Why not insist that all priests wear long hair and
beards and sandals?  What is it in "priesthood" which is truly
representative of Christ?  This is a far more important question than the
present perfunctory arguments advanced by those in the Church who are
unhappily pressed to give an answer.  

It is clear that ministry by women was completely outside the realm of
the possible up until this century.  I feel that our sister Churches,
especially the Lutherans and Episcopalians, whose liturgy we share, are
serving a Prophetic role in showing us what is feasible and possible in
today's Church.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA