Ordination of Women (was Re: Women Deacons)
James Hynes
Cindy Smith wrote in message <009BC4CD.0...@dragon.com>...
>Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, says in Q. 39 Art. 2 Suppl.:
>
<big snip>
>As to the idea that women are in a state of subjection: Again, I disagree
>with Thomas because of the conferral of grace by Jesus Christ to men and
>women. The wages of sin is death. However, by the grace of Jesus Christ,
>we are given eternal life. Is that the only gift conferred by grace? Eve
is >punished by God for eating the forbidden fruit by making her subject to
>Adam. However, by the grace of Jesus Christ, we are no longer punished for
>our sins, and therefore women are no longer subject to men.
>
>The Catholic Church does not (unlike some of our Separated brothers and
>sisters) use the Timothy passage quoted by Saint Thomas to prohibit female
>Sunday school teachers; neither should the Church use the passage to
>prohibit the conferral of Orders on women. The idea of a male only
>priesthood is, like celibacy, not a doctrine but a discipline.
I think that Thomas Aquinas can be used as an ally in the argument in favour
of the ordination of women, not (obviously) by taking at face value his
objections as you have quoted them, but by looking at his deeper theological
method.
Aquinas was a radical and innovative theologian in his own day, and was
regarded as a bit suspect. In fact his teachings were banned for a while,
and some time later he was declared a Saint and a Doctor of the Church. His
innovation was to bring into Christian thought the newly rediscovered
classical Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle. Aristotle was
suspect because he did not really believe in God; however Aquinas and his
fellow early Scholastics used him in a very creative way, which in the short
run was challenging to the Church, but in the long run was fruitful and
beneficial.
A modern parallel would be the theologians who have engaged with modern
ideas regarded as suspect by the Church, such as Evolution, Marxism,
Feminism and (most recently) Post-Modernism. Of course, such theologians
must not be uncritical of these ideas, and must have a good grip on the
traditions of the Church. But they can learn from these other ideas, and
incorporate the truths they find within them into the living tradition of
the Catholic Church, which is in fact what Aquinas did in his own day.
Aquinas did not claim that his views were definitive: he knew that many were
speculative, and other theologians in the future might find fault with his
arguments and come up with better ones.
In my mind, this openness to other ideas and dialogue with the contemporary
world, while having an understanding of tradition, is the distinguishing
mark of Catholic theology at its best. This distinguishes it from either
Biblical Fundamentalism on one hand, or the style of Catholic theology which
appeals to the authority of the Church or the Pope in a similarly uncritical
way. It also distinguishes it from a liberal "anything goes"
wishy-washiness. My name for the approach I favour is "Theology for
Grown-Ups".
So, from a "Theology for Grown-Ups" point of view, the basic argument
against women being ordained is the presumption (found in the Bible and in
Church tradition) that women are inferior to men and therefore cannot hold a
position of authority. This idea has been refuted (by Feminism?) and even
accepted by the Church (in Pope John Paul II's Letter to Women in 1995),
therefore all arguments against women's ordination, including that of
physical
resemblance to Jesus, vanish in a puff of logic. However, it will take the
Church a little while to realise the full implications of this.
On your two points above, it is certainly so that the harmony between men
and women was disrupted in "The Fall", but Christians should not accept this
as the status quo, but seek to establish relations of justice and harmony
between them as befits the Kingdom of God.
Secondly, if you are a Biblical Fundamentalist (it appears to me that ) you
are stuck with a prohibition on female Sunday School Teachers, if you cannot
critique the Biblical text without the whole thing coming unstuck. However,
as a "Theology for Grown-Ups" Catholic you can say, 'In this passage it is
not God speaking, but Paul (or whoever) uncritically reflecting the
ideologies of his own time and culture' because we know from other reliable
sources that women are not inferior to men.
Jim Hynes
Hobson, John
> James Hynes[SMTP:james...@VIRGIN.NET] wrote:
>
<snip>
> Aquinas did not claim that his views were definitive: he knew that
> many were speculative, and other theologians in the future might find
> fault with his arguments and come up with better ones.
>
Just to follow up on this thought, let me give you one of my favourite
bits from Augustine (On the Trinity, 1.5):
Whenever you are as sure about something as I am go on with me; whenever
you are stuck seek with me; whenever you have gone astray come back to
me; or if I have gone astray, call me back to you. In this way let us
walk along the path of love together, seeking for him of whom it is
said, "Look for the Lord in his strength, seek to serve him constantly."
If a reader says, "This is badly written, I cannot understand it," he is
criticizing what I have said, not the faith; and it may be that the
meaning should be clearer. But what writer succeeds in being understood
all the time? If you feel this and find others more expert in such
things, put my work down or even throw it away and study books that you
find more intelligible. If someone says, "I understand your meaning
well enough, but it is not true," I would ask him to state his position
and refute mine. If he does this sincerely and without malice, and
informs me of his views (if I am still alive), then I count my efforts
well rewarded. If he cannot let me know, I would be delighted if others
profit from his views.
I meditate on the law of the Lord, if not all day and night, at least
whenever I have a moment to spare; and I write my thoughts down, in case
I should forget them. I hope that God in his mercy will help me never
to turn my back on teachings which I believe to be true. But if any of
my convictions are wrong, I trust that he himself will make it clear to
me, either by secret warning and inspiration or by his own clear words
or by the conversation of my brethren. This is my prayer.
--
Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea; massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. -- Gene
Spafford
John Hobson (hob...@mail.cai.com)
Computer Associates, Lisle, IL USA
John Medaille
At 11:34 AM 10/29/97 -0000, James Hynes wrote:
>So, from a "Theology for Grown-Ups" point of view, the basic argument
>against women being ordained is the presumption (found in the Bible and in
a
>position of authority. This idea has been refuted (by Feminism?) and even
>accepted by the Church (in Pope John Paul II's Letter to Women in 1995),
>therefore all arguments against women's ordination, including that of
>physical
>resemblance to Jesus, vanish in a puff of logic. However, it will take the
>Church a little while to realise the full implications of this.
The case for a male only priesthood is *not* based on the notion of
inferiority of women. If this were true how could you note that JPII
doesn't believe in that inferiority and yet proclaims the male priesthood?
It is based on the notions of complimentarity in the role of the sexes, on
the imagery of the Church as bride of Christ and the priest acting in the
place of Christ. I am not here arguing the correctness of these positions,
only that you should first learn what the argument is before attempting to
refute it.
John C. M=E9daille=20
jo...@medaille.com
http://www.medaille.com
Habe caritatem et fac quod vis.
halsall
John Medaille wrote:
>
> At 11:34 AM 10/29/97 -0000, James Hynes wrote:
> >So, from a "Theology for Grown-Ups" point of view, the basic argument
> >against women being ordained is the presumption (found in the Bible and in
> >position of authority. This idea has been refuted (by Feminism?) and even
> >accepted by the Church (in Pope John Paul II's Letter to Women in 1995),
> >therefore all arguments against women's ordination, including that of
> >physical
> >resemblance to Jesus, vanish in a puff of logic. However, it will take the
> >Church a little while to realise the full implications of this.
>
> The case for a male only priesthood is *not* based on the notion of
> inferiority of women.
*Which #case#?*
The issue of ordaining women to priesthood was only discussed
rarely in the past. There was, before the current debate of the
past twenty or so years, nothing new on the issus after the
scholastic period [where the issue came up repeatedly because of
the habit of writing commentaries on Peter Lombard's _Books of
Sentences_ - the comments of Aquinas on the issue, although
presented as part of the Summa Theologiae are in fact taken from
his commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences]. There can be
little doubt that this Scholastic tradition does indeed form the
content of the tradition about women as priests.
And that argument is indeed based on the inferiority of women.
Here, since it is online, is Aquinas:
"I answer that, Certain things are required in the recipient of a
sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament,
and if such things be lacking, one can receive neither the
sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things,
however, are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but
for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and
without these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of
the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is
required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in
the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object
of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive
Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but
the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental
actions; thus it was stated above (32, 2) that in Extreme Unction
it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the need
of healing."
[here is the good part!]
"Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to
signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of
subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of
Order. Some, however, have asserted that the male sex is
necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the
sacrament, because even in the Decretals (cap. Mulieres dist. 32;
cap. Diaconissam, 27, qu. i) mention is made of deaconesses and
priestesses. But deaconess there denotes a woman who shares in
some act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies in the
Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a widow, for the word
"presbyter" means elder."
For fuller text see, thanks to Kevin Knight
http://www.knight.org/advent/summa/503901.htm
So Aquinas, does indeed say a woman cannot recieve order because
she is unable to signify eminence of decree since she is in a
state of subjection.
One may of course reject Aquinas on this point - he is not
infallible - but when you do so you essentially reject the
*traditional* case for a male only priesthood.
Now people may have recently invented new arguments, but they are
in fact *new*.
> If this were true how could you note that JPII
> doesn't believe in that inferiority and yet proclaims the male priesthood?
Well he could be simply in contradiction.
Or, simply, one could argue this: that the Church teaches -
infallibly - that women cannot be priests and that, implicitly,
the church teaches that the female sex is inferior to the male.
> It is based on the notions of complimentarity in the role of the sexes, on
> the imagery of the Church as bride of Christ and the priest acting in the
> place of Christ.
Show the historical antecedants of this argument.
As a matter of demonstrable fact, the use of nuptiality as an
image of relationship between Christians and Christ, or between
Church church leaders and church congregations, has been applied
to men and women - many men are presented in both eastern and
western churches as brides [sometimes even bridegrooms] of
Christ!
> I am not here arguing the correctness of these positions,
> only that you should first learn what the argument is before attempting to
> refute it.
So should you.
PBH
James Hynes
Cindy Smith wrote in message <009BC50F....@dragon.com>...
> Saint Thomas Aquinas on
>
> Women's Ordination to the Priesthood
>
> A Response to
>
> Mary O'Connell
>
> Discovered and Compiled by
>
> Cindy Smith, Esq.
>
<lots of snips>
>
>Since we believe the same Christ rises
>within every baptized human being, regardless of sex, we should, as
>our Lord noted, "not worry about how or what...you are to say; for the
>Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you should say"
>(Mark 12:11b -- 12). Thus, neither males nor females actually teach
>in churches, but rather the Holy Spirit who dwells within each of us.
>Therefore men should not be concerned whether a man or a woman is
>teaching them or preaching to them or administering sacraments to them
>or holding authority over them, for it is neither the man nor the
>woman who teaches, preaches, administers sacraments, or holds
>authority, but the Holy Spirit of our God within them. We are a
>Sacramental Church.
>
This objection to the Ordination of women, or to their teaching or preaching
authority, is very similar to the 4th century heresy of Donatism. The
Donatists objected to those people they called 'traditors', which means
someone who under persecution "handed over" sacred books to the civil
authorities. The Donatists would not forgive them, and insisted that the
validity of the sacraments depended upon the worthiness of the minister, and
that the Church ceased to be holy, and indeed ceased to be the Church at
all, if it tolerated these unworthy ministers in its ranks. (These folks
were active in North Africa, and were a big headache for Augustine.)
The response of the Church to this was to argue that the sacraments derive
their validity from God, not from the minister. The person of the minister
varies, but God is always present. Therefore no one can object to a woman on
any grounds of unworthiness, since it is irrelevant to the reality of the
sacraments, which is the grace of God.
Jim Hynes
John Medaille
At 05:44 PM 10/29/97 -0500, halsall wrote:
>John Medaille wrote:
>>
>> At 11:34 AM 10/29/97 -0000, James Hynes wrote:
>> >So, from a "Theology for Grown-Ups" point of view, the basic argument
in
>> >Church tradition) that women are inferior to men and therefore cannot
hold a
even
>> >accepted by the Church (in Pope John Paul II's Letter to Women in 1995),
>> >therefore all arguments against women's ordination, including that of
>> >physical
the
>> >Church a little while to realise the full implications of this.
>>
>> The case for a male only priesthood is *not* based on the notion of
>> inferiority of women.
>
>*Which #case#?*
>
>The issue of ordaining women to priesthood was only discussed
>rarely in the past.
The requirement that a priest be male came up frequently. Almost daily, I
would say, with every ordination.=20
There was, before the current debate of the
>past twenty or so years, nothing new on the issus after the
>scholastic period [where the issue came up repeatedly because of
>the habit of writing commentaries on Peter Lombard's _Books of
>Sentences_ - the comments of Aquinas on the issue, although
>presented as part of the Summa Theologiae are in fact taken from
>his commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences]. There can be
>little doubt that this Scholastic tradition does indeed form the
>content of the tradition about women as priests.
>
>And that argument is indeed based on the inferiority of women.
Aquinas viewed feminine receptivity as an imperfection. He was wrong. But
then Aquinas is not the Church nor philosophy the faith. There is no
doctrine of the inferiority of women in the Church. Certainly not in a
Chruch that has acknowledges the Queen of Heaven. Mary has always been a
powerful force in the lives of the faithful and in the life, doctrine, art,
architecture and history of the Chruch. "Inferior" is not a word one
associates with her.
But you ignored the central contradiction that Mr Hynes brought up: that in
his view the doctrine was based on the inferiortiy of women. JPII has
denied this yet affirmed, in a definitive way, the male only priesthood.
Therefore, it must be based on some thing else, something you do not=
examine.
>> I am not here arguing the correctness of these positions,
>> only that you should first learn what the argument is before attempting=
to
>> refute it.
>
>So should you.
Once again, you are wrong. You are closed to any viewpoint but your own and
regard history as a proof-text. Does it never weary you as it does us?
John C. M=E9daille=20
jo...@medaille.com
http://www.medaille.com
"Your idea may be fine in practice, but it will never work in theory."
John Medaille
At 08:00 AM 10/31/97 -0500, halsall wrote:
>John Medaille wrote:
>> >> The case for a male only priesthood is *not* based on the notion of
>> >> inferiority of women.
>> >
>> >*Which #case#?*
>> >
>> >The issue of ordaining women to priesthood was only discussed
>> >rarely in the past.
>>
>> The requirement that a priest be male came up frequently. Almost daily, I
>> would say, with every ordination.
>
>have two testicles. But so what what? You were talking about the
>*case for a male only priesthood*.
IOW, all priests were male, but I can ignore the evidence of actual
practice because it clashes with my prejudices? Very well. This accords
perfectly with what you previously said about the Bible, that if it clashed
with your view of homosexuality, then it must be wrong (I will be glad to
provide the exact cite, if you so desire). But that being the case, how can
any of your "basic research" be taken seriously, when you admit to deciding
the answers beforehand, and openly ignore the contrary evidence? Such
"research" is, as you say, uninteresting.
>>
>> There was, before the current debate of the
>> >past twenty or so years, nothing new on the issus after the
>> >scholastic period [where the issue came up repeatedly because of
>> >the habit of writing commentaries on Peter Lombard's _Books of
>> >Sentences_ - the comments of Aquinas on the issue, although
>> >presented as part of the Summa Theologiae are in fact taken from
>> >his commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences]. There can be
>> >little doubt that this Scholastic tradition does indeed form the
>> >content of the tradition about women as priests.
>> >
>> >And that argument is indeed based on the inferiority of women.
>>
>> Aquinas viewed feminine receptivity as an imperfection. He was wrong. But
>> then Aquinas is not the Church nor philosophy the faith.
>
>It is true that Aquinas is not always right, but note this.
>Aquinas was given a quite special role in Church teaching - he
>was forced on seminaries, and the Thomist philosophy was pushed
>as *the* Catholic philosophy for some long period of time.
Yea, so? He is certainly worthy of that honor. Your complaint sounds like
professional jeolousy. Get over it.
>
>And Aquinas did argue that women could not be priests because
>they were inferior, and that was *the* case that was made until
>very recently. In fact I think you would find it hard to find
>any *other* case that was made on the subject [and even if you
>could, you could not avoid the overwhelming authority and
>preponderance of Aquinas' views.]
You are as usual wrong. There was no definitive statement that I know of on
the inferiority of women. Individual theologians must puzzle out the case
as best they can. Of course, since you confuse theology with faith, I
understand your pov. Too bad you can't understand anybody else's The male
only priesthood is and was a fact of faith. The reasons have never been
definitively laid out, and each is free to speculate and meditate as he (or
she) may. This model of true of *all* matters of faith. Christ gives them
to us as a fact, and we are left to puzzle them out. He gives us Father,
Son, and Spirit; we must work out Trinity. He gives us God and Man; we must
work out the intricacies of a dual nature. He Himself wasn't all that
concerned with it. Christ did not do as you insist must be done; he did not
elevate the theologian to a decisive position. Mostly he ignored them.
>
>> There is no
>> doctrine of the inferiority of women in the Church. Certainly not in a
>> Chruch that has acknowledges the Queen of Heaven.
>
>You mean Isis?
No I don't, and you are certainly aware of whom I mean. If you are not,
your erudite ignorance is greater than even I had suspected.
>
>In fact the Virgin Mary is not a model for women. Since no actual
>woman [until modern technology] can be a virgin and a mother,
>Mary's role has long been one that transcends quotiedien
>concerns.
Of course, the fact that millions of people accross millenia have taken her
for a model (as has the Church herself) will not deter you from ignoring
the evidence. Further, you do not understand paradigms, even in the simple
sense. None of us are God, yet we aspire to imitate Christ; none of us are
born without sin, yet we take Mary as a model. The notion that Christ, and
Mary, and by extension the saints, cannot be our models is simply your
refutation of *all* of Christian spirituality. BTW, Mother Theresa is both
a Virgin and a Mother.=20
>
>> Mary has always been a
>> powerful force in the lives of the faithful and in the life, doctrine,=
art,
>> architecture and history of the Chruch. "Inferior" is not a word one
>> associates with her.
>
>Well this is not quite true. The Cult of the vigrin Mary
>escalates only in the 6th century in the East, and much much
>later [12th century] in the West.
The dormition of Mary is in fact the Church's oldest feast.=20
>
>> But you ignored the central contradiction that Mr Hynes brought up: that=
in
>> his view the doctrine was based on the inferiortiy of women. JPII has
>> denied this yet affirmed, in a definitive way, the male only priesthood.
>> Therefore, it must be based on some thing else, something you do not
examine.
>
>Yep - JPII's internal contradictions.
Ahh, yes. I forget that you believe in eliminating the paradoxes, 3 in 1,
God in man, etc. Very sad. But all you do is show that you can be trusted
with no pov but your own.
John C. M=E9daille
"There are no 'ordinary' people. You have never talked to a mere mortal.
Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations -- these are mortal, and their life
is to ours as the life of a gnat. ...Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself,
your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses."
- C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
James Hynes
John Medaille wrote in message
<3.0.32.19971030...@mail.airmail.net>...
At 05:44 PM 10/29/97 -0500, halsall wrote:
>John Medaille wrote:
>>
>Aquinas viewed feminine receptivity as an imperfection. He was wrong. But
>then Aquinas is not the Church nor philosophy the faith. There is no
>doctrine of the inferiority of women in the Church. Certainly not in a
>Church that has acknowledges the Queen of Heaven. Mary has always been >a
powerful force in the lives of the faithful and in the life, doctrine, art,
>architecture and history of the Church. "Inferior" is not a word one
>associates with her.
Not with her perhaps, but with every "daughter of Eve". Don't forget that
Mary is praised for being "virgin and mother", and so is an impossible model
for other women who cannot be both.
You acknowledge above that "Aquinas viewed feminine receptivity as an
imperfection. He was wrong." This is the sort of 'doctrine of the
inferiority of women' to which I am referring, which was prevalant in
ancient times and has not yet vanished.
Mary indeed always has been a powerful force as you say, and considering her
portrayal is a very helpful part of this discussion.
Jim Hynes
James Hynes
John Medaille wrote in message
At 11:34 AM 10/29/97 -0000, James Hynes wrote:
>So, from a "Theology for Grown-Ups" point of view, the basic argument
>Church tradition) that women are inferior to men and therefore cannot hold
a
>accepted by the Church (in Pope John Paul II's Letter to Women in 1995),
>therefore all arguments against women's ordination, including that of
>physical resemblance to Jesus, vanish in a puff of logic.
The case for a male only priesthood is *not* based on the notion of
inferiority of women. If this were true how could you note that JPII
doesn't believe in that inferiority and yet proclaims the male priesthood?
Because, as I said:
>However, it will take the Church a little while to realise the full
>implications of this.
It is based on the notions of complimentarity in the role of the sexes, on
the imagery of the Church as bride of Christ and the priest acting in the
place of Christ. I am not here arguing the correctness of these positions,
only that you should first learn what the argument is before attempting to
refute it.
I am aware of these arguments, and I think they have two basic flaws: one is
that the Pope's notion of "complementarity" still contains an implication of
"not quite equal", and the second is the claim that a physical resemblance
is necessary to act in place of Christ. If it implies that "maleness =
headship" then we still have a way to go on the "equality" question.
Jim Hynes
halsall
John Medaille wrote:
>
> IOW, all priests were male, but I can ignore the evidence of actual
> practice because it clashes with my prejudices? Very well. This accords
> perfectly with what you previously said about the Bible, that if it clashed
> with your view of homosexuality, then it must be wrong (I will be glad to
> provide the exact cite, if you so desire).
What does homosexuality have to do with this discussion? Why
bring it up?
Hmmmm..... [Good thing to do when loosing argument - bring up
oppenent is queer, even though irrelevant to the issue...]
> The reasons have never been
> definitively laid out, and each is free to speculate and meditate as he (or
> she) may.
This is a very odd statement from someone who asserted that *the*
case for a male only priesthood was not anti-women.
Now he is asserting that there is no definitive reason that has
ever been laid out.
Anyone else notice the logical problem here?
PBH
John Medaille
At 01:48 AM 11/1/97 -0000, James Hynes wrote:
>John Medaille wrote in message
><3.0.32.19971029...@mail.airmail.net>...
>At 11:34 AM 10/29/97 -0000, James Hynes wrote:
>>So, from a "Theology for Grown-Ups" point of view, the basic argument
>>against women being ordained is the presumption (found in the Bible and in
>>Church tradition) that women are inferior to men and therefore cannot hold
>a
>>position of authority. This idea has been refuted (by Feminism?) and even
>>accepted by the Church (in Pope John Paul II's Letter to Women in 1995),
>>therefore all arguments against women's ordination, including that of
>>physical resemblance to Jesus, vanish in a puff of logic.
>
>The case for a male only priesthood is *not* based on the notion of
>inferiority of women. If this were true how could you note that JPII
>doesn't believe in that inferiority and yet proclaims the male priesthood?
>
>Because, as I said:
>
>>However, it will take the Church a little while to realise the full
>>implications of this.
>
>It is based on the notions of complimentarity in the role of the sexes, on
>the imagery of the Church as bride of Christ and the priest acting in the
>place of Christ. I am not here arguing the correctness of these positions,
>only that you should first learn what the argument is before attempting to
>refute it.
>
is
>that the Pope's notion of "complementarity" still contains an implication=
of
>"not quite equal", and the second is the claim that a physical resemblance
>headship" then we still have a way to go on the "equality" question.
It would be helpful if you would in some way distinguish your comments from
the post to which you are responding. Quoted comments appeared without any
indication that they were quotes in the above post.
The implications that you see are in you, not in the Church. We have hashed
this all over many times, and the pro-ordination position always comes out
the same: there is no difference between men and women, hence no value in
maleness or femaleness. Thus you are willing to give women the priesthood
only at the expense of denying femininity. And masculinity. And gender in
general. These ideas are typical of our modern consumerist culture, which
denies any value to gender and reduces men and women to producer and
consumer, totally sexless roles. Sex itself is valued only when it can be
commercialized.
No thanks, I'll pass.
John C. M=E9daille
"A dead thing can go with the stream...=20
but only a living thing can go against it."
-G. K. Chesterton
http://www.medaille.com
jo...@medaille.com
John Medaille
At 09:05 AM 11/1/97 -0500, halsall wrote:
>John Medaille wrote:
>>
>> IOW, all priests were male, but I can ignore the evidence of actual
>> practice because it clashes with my prejudices? Very well. This accords
clashed
>> with your view of homosexuality, then it must be wrong (I will be glad to
>> provide the exact cite, if you so desire).
>
>What does homosexuality have to do with this discussion? Why
>bring it up?
>
>Hmmmm..... [Good thing to do when loosing argument - bring up
>oppenent is queer, even though irrelevant to the issue...]
Homosexuality isn't being brought up, just your view that you would reject
anything in the Bible (or anywhere else) that would clash with your views.
Homosexuality was *your* own example of this, not mine. As you say, a good
thing to do when losing an argument, scream "homophobia"; problem is its
your words, not mine. Futher, as usual, you avoid the issue, which is that
you felt free to ignore the constant practice in *exactly* the same way
that you have stated you are free to avoid the words of scripture.=20
>
>> The reasons have never been
>> definitively laid out, and each is free to speculate and meditate as he=
(or
>> she) may.
>
>This is a very odd statement from someone who asserted that *the*
>case for a male only priesthood was not anti-women.
>
>Now he is asserting that there is no definitive reason that has
>ever been laid out.
>
>Anyone else notice the logical problem here?
Just *your* logical problem. "Anti-woman" would be an evil, and the
Church's doctrines do not resolve themselves to evils. If you believe that
they can they you are simply more credulous than even I gave you credit for.
John C. M=E9daille
Are we not, all unawares, objectively risking a shameless individualism
and selfishness when we seek to live in the Church in such a way as baldly
to arrange it to our own taste?
- Karl Rahner
John Medaille
At 05:11 PM 11/2/97 +0100, Olivier Joseph wrote:
>>Aquinas opinion is not a doctrine; it is an opinion. Male priesthood is a
>>doctrine. It does not depend on Aquinas' opinion, nor anyone else's.
>
>How can it be a doctrine with only three papal statement on the question :
>Jean XXIII and Paul VI ("We don't have the authority to change this
>tradition") and JPII's "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" (which is not infallable,
>because a "theologically true" position is not enough to be accepted as
>infallable by the RCC) ?
>
>How can it be a doctrine when many bishops desagree that it is a doctrine ?
I don't know. How could the Trinity be true when most bishops were Arian?
Walter Tappert
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, John Medaille wrote:
> We have hashed
> this all over many times, and the pro-ordination position always comes out
> the same: there is no difference between men and women, hence no value in
> maleness or femaleness.
I don't know of anyone -- no matter what their stance on the ordination of
women -- who says that there is no difference between men and women.
Those who do not oppose the ordination of women would say, however, that
such differences as do exist are not an obstacle to the ordination of
women.
Peace,
Walt
Marida Ignacio
Walter Tappert wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, John Medaille wrote:
>
> > We have hashed
> > this all over many times, and the pro-ordination position always comes out
> > the same: there is no difference between men and women, hence no value in
> > maleness or femaleness.
>
> I don't know of anyone -- no matter what their stance on the ordination of
> women -- who says that there is no difference between men and women.
>
At last, I very much agree with you. God made it that there is a huge
difference between male and female indeed!
Thus, starting even with the Holy Trinity, where 2/3 is "male" while the
rest (1/3) is "neutral", huge difference and big point indeed, coming
from God. Thus, it really makes sense how God only has called men to
priesthood ever since the beginning; priesthood forever and ever.
With God, the "Son", whole body resurrected and ascended to heaven as
"male" - priesthood forever and ever. Although sex ends after death,
"gender" keeps on going and going forever!
Thus, in following God (and we know the Church is therefore from God),
ordination only of men to priesthood is obedience.
---
___ ___
(__ \/ ) His Peace through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Marida
* )XxXx/
* | / "Human-kind: Where protection of valuable life starts and
* ) / takes off."
* \/ Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you..."
* http://www.netcom.com/~mdmiguel/simonpure.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/3373/