This is part VI of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
------------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for getting back to me again.
I think it's a good time to bring back what you first wrote,
"I take the long view -- a hundred years ago, the papacy condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on women's ordination, which is why I think it should continue to be discussed. That's how we figure things out. Aquinas was never afraid to argue about anything. The spirit of disputation has been lost and should be regained because it's the practical result of the belief in the harmony of faith and reason."
The quote above actually reminds me now of the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts ( http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts15.htm ). "After much debate had taken place" a decision was made about circumcision of the Gentile converts. The faithful were to assent to the teaching.
I understand that "[I] consider authority [to be sufficient] and [you] do not." for the question at hand. In the end, more fundamental to the question of woman ordination is the nature and authority of the Catholic Church (both big C). If one believes that the CC has the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would lead the Church to all truth, then the Church can't err in certain areas including faith and morals.
Reasons behind faith and morals can't be contrary to each other, but if there are reasons for two sides of an issue that are valid, the Church has to come to a decision that is binding (like that in Acts).
It seems like I'm using brute force, but I think that some questions just have to be deferred to a higher authority, namely the Holy Spirit.
As far as women being treated as chattel, it is obviously true that women have been in such a position. However, saying that since men can have a role that women cannot because women are just not worthy of it (or something), wife reminded me, is like saying that men are not as worthy as women since they can't bear children (she's done it a few times, but she is not more worthy of dignity than me because of it). We all have dignity no matter our gender or role.
Well, in the end it does come down to authority. I think the Church has it, you do not think so in this and many other matters. You believe the Church has changed its position 180 degrees on many things that I do not think it has.
Ultimately, in matters of faith and morals, I believe being Catholic is to ultimately defer to the authority of the Church as headed by the Pope and his fellow Bishops that is guided by the Spirit who Jesus gave in the Upper Room ("He breathed on them" John 20:22; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm ) and at Pentecost (Acts 2; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts2.htm ) in Jerusalem.
I know that many who call themselves Catholic including yourself do not agree with the statement above, but ultimately what's the difference between being a Protestant and a Catholic if my Catholic statement above is considered false? Vatican II didn't make the CC Protestant, VII relied on "the authority of the Church as headed by the Pope and his fellow Bishops that is guided by the Spirit who Jesus gave".
At this point I'll leave the discussion in disagreement. Along our earthly pilgrimage, may we all strive to do God's will. Amen.
[BTW, the dialog isn't over yet.]
God bless,
[gbm3]
------------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, I do agree that being Catholic means deferring to the Pope and the Bishops; it's what has gotten us through 2000 years. On the question of women's ordination, I do defer to that authority -- I don't think Catholic women should go around ordaining themselves. That doesn't mean I agree with the Church's stand. I feel that unlike the Council of Jerusalem, much debate has not taken place, and therein lies the problem.
In any case, good luck and God bless!
[Aquinasblog author]
[BTW, the dialog isn't over yet.]
10 June 2010
09 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog V
This is part V of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
-----------------------
Hello [Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for writing back. I won't keep writing you back indefinitely, but I think there's still something to the discussion.
As I understand you, you believe that cultural forces are the reasons for the Church's stance on woman ordination. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ( http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html ), JPII brings up this point (asterisks and [ ] added by me):
... "To these fundamental reasons the document [by Paul VI] adds other theological reasons [for the Church's stance on woman ordination] which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ's way of acting did not proceed from ***sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time***. As Paul VI later explained: 'The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way.'
"In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: 'In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, ***without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time***.' ...
"Furthermore, the fact that the ***Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination*** cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them." ...
So, JPII did positively note in his Apostolic Letter (not Papal Encyclical, BTW) that cultural dicta did not influence Christ's call to men only for the ministerial priesthood.
I agree that the Holy Spirit moves and guides the Church to all Truth; that is why I believe that JPII and the constant Tradition of the Church all the way back to Jesus himself has concluded that ministerial priesthood is to be for men only.
You wrote, "That's where we have to look for evidence, not just in a trail of encyclicals." (a) In general, what specific "evidence" are you looking for? (b) Where are you specifically looking for this evidence? (a) and (b) for woman ordination?
As an aside, St. Aquinas' understanding of the Sacred Sacraments can help show that only men are to be ordained priests whose main function is to consecrate the host in persona Christi. The matter (of his "substance and matter" in all Sacraments (if I remember right)) for the sacrament of Holy Orders is a man since Christ was bodily a man. So when the priest says, "This is my body/blood." the host truly becomes Christ's body and blood that was of masculine essence.
St. Aquinas was giving theological reasons for the Truth of what is happening. I don't think he would conclude that a man was not necessary since Christ ordained or called men to do what he commanded at the Last Supper ("Do this in memory of me.").
As far as the cultural approval of slavery, see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html (from an Evangelical magazine), _The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery_, "The problem wasn't that the leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened." The Church was against slavery since at least the 7th century (also against gladiator fighting; gladiators were slaves).
Thanks again for the discussion,
[gbm3]
-----------------------
[gbm3],
The fact that John Paul II said that the church's stand on the ordination of women did not arise from cultural forces does not make it so. I think that's where we differ; you consider that sufficient authority and I do not.
I look at the whole of history, in which women were treated as chattel until the 20th century in the West (and in many other places on the globe, still are), and find it impossible to imagine that this did not affect the attitude of the people in the Church thru time towards women's ordination.
[Aquinasblog author]
-----------------------
Hello [Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for writing back. I won't keep writing you back indefinitely, but I think there's still something to the discussion.
As I understand you, you believe that cultural forces are the reasons for the Church's stance on woman ordination. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ( http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html ), JPII brings up this point (asterisks and [ ] added by me):
... "To these fundamental reasons the document [by Paul VI] adds other theological reasons [for the Church's stance on woman ordination] which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ's way of acting did not proceed from ***sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time***. As Paul VI later explained: 'The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way.'
"In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: 'In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, ***without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time***.' ...
"Furthermore, the fact that the ***Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination*** cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them." ...
So, JPII did positively note in his Apostolic Letter (not Papal Encyclical, BTW) that cultural dicta did not influence Christ's call to men only for the ministerial priesthood.
I agree that the Holy Spirit moves and guides the Church to all Truth; that is why I believe that JPII and the constant Tradition of the Church all the way back to Jesus himself has concluded that ministerial priesthood is to be for men only.
You wrote, "That's where we have to look for evidence, not just in a trail of encyclicals." (a) In general, what specific "evidence" are you looking for? (b) Where are you specifically looking for this evidence? (a) and (b) for woman ordination?
As an aside, St. Aquinas' understanding of the Sacred Sacraments can help show that only men are to be ordained priests whose main function is to consecrate the host in persona Christi. The matter (of his "substance and matter" in all Sacraments (if I remember right)) for the sacrament of Holy Orders is a man since Christ was bodily a man. So when the priest says, "This is my body/blood." the host truly becomes Christ's body and blood that was of masculine essence.
St. Aquinas was giving theological reasons for the Truth of what is happening. I don't think he would conclude that a man was not necessary since Christ ordained or called men to do what he commanded at the Last Supper ("Do this in memory of me.").
As far as the cultural approval of slavery, see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html (from an Evangelical magazine), _The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery_, "The problem wasn't that the leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened." The Church was against slavery since at least the 7th century (also against gladiator fighting; gladiators were slaves).
Thanks again for the discussion,
[gbm3]
-----------------------
[gbm3],
The fact that John Paul II said that the church's stand on the ordination of women did not arise from cultural forces does not make it so. I think that's where we differ; you consider that sufficient authority and I do not.
I look at the whole of history, in which women were treated as chattel until the 20th century in the West (and in many other places on the globe, still are), and find it impossible to imagine that this did not affect the attitude of the people in the Church thru time towards women's ordination.
[Aquinasblog author]
08 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog IV
This is part IV of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
-----------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thank you for getting back with the last email. Another good document for assessing development of Catholic doctrine is Cardinal Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" ( http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html ). I haven't read it (or the book you cited), but I've heard Newman's Essay basically says that there can't be a strong break in teachings of faith and morals by the Church.
Your point about clerical celibacy is not really a controversial topic since, as even we speak, many former clergy of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) have swam the Tiber and have stayed married and have remained active clergy.
The thing is with the ordination of women is that it is not done, has not been done, will not be done, and that there are consequences for it ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052008.html ). The reason: celibacy is a discipline question and woman ordination is a faith and morals question.
Again from JPII in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"
"Although the ***teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church*** and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate [i.e., it shouldn't be open to debate], or the Church's judgment that women are ***not*** to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely ***disciplinary force***." (asterisks and [ ] added by me)
To make the assertion that it's up to debate is to say that the doctrine of
transubstantiation is up to debate. A debate about transubstantiation with a Protestant would be understandable, but not with a Catholic.
Agreeing to disagree on this topic is like saying that the Church is
simply wrong (and has always been wrong) about a matter of faith. I can't say that.
It seems that you put into one basket topics of faith & morals and prudential judgments. (Did you read the post from First Things blog that I cited in the last email (on limbo)?)
Sorry, --deep breaths-- I'll just have to read that book you suggested. I don't want to attack (I don't think I have): I'll look at the book's (and Card. Newman's Essay) arguments since I might be ignorant of some thing(s).
God bless,
[gbm3]
http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
------------
Hi again [gbm3],
I would not put the topic of women's ordination in the same category as the transubstantiation. I agree one wouldn't argue about the reality of the transubstantiation, but I do think each generation has to come to an understanding of it on its own that both fits their perspective and is in line with the tradition, which would require thoughtful discussion. That's what keeps the faith alive, tradition recreating itself in line with itself.
I think an argument can and should be made that women have been excluded from ordination for cultural reasons, just like for cultural reasons the church once accepted slavery. Saying such a topic cannot even be discussed cuts off development of the idea. If the Holy Spirit chooses at some point in the future to move the church in this direction, forbidding discussion gets in the way. And who's to predict how the Holy Spirit moves the church?
As Catholics, I think we need to pay attention to the good developments of the secular world. As Ladislas Orsy says, "God is in the real." To me that means in the world fully and completely. That's where we have to look for evidence, not just in a trail of encyclicals.
[Aquinasblog author]
-----------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thank you for getting back with the last email. Another good document for assessing development of Catholic doctrine is Cardinal Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" ( http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html ). I haven't read it (or the book you cited), but I've heard Newman's Essay basically says that there can't be a strong break in teachings of faith and morals by the Church.
Your point about clerical celibacy is not really a controversial topic since, as even we speak, many former clergy of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) have swam the Tiber and have stayed married and have remained active clergy.
The thing is with the ordination of women is that it is not done, has not been done, will not be done, and that there are consequences for it ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052008.html ). The reason: celibacy is a discipline question and woman ordination is a faith and morals question.
Again from JPII in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"
"Although the ***teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church*** and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate [i.e., it shouldn't be open to debate], or the Church's judgment that women are ***not*** to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely ***disciplinary force***." (asterisks and [ ] added by me)
To make the assertion that it's up to debate is to say that the doctrine of
transubstantiation is up to debate. A debate about transubstantiation with a Protestant would be understandable, but not with a Catholic.
Agreeing to disagree on this topic is like saying that the Church is
simply wrong (and has always been wrong) about a matter of faith. I can't say that.
It seems that you put into one basket topics of faith & morals and prudential judgments. (Did you read the post from First Things blog that I cited in the last email (on limbo)?)
Sorry, --deep breaths-- I'll just have to read that book you suggested. I don't want to attack (I don't think I have): I'll look at the book's (and Card. Newman's Essay) arguments since I might be ignorant of some thing(s).
God bless,
[gbm3]
http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
------------
Hi again [gbm3],
I would not put the topic of women's ordination in the same category as the transubstantiation. I agree one wouldn't argue about the reality of the transubstantiation, but I do think each generation has to come to an understanding of it on its own that both fits their perspective and is in line with the tradition, which would require thoughtful discussion. That's what keeps the faith alive, tradition recreating itself in line with itself.
I think an argument can and should be made that women have been excluded from ordination for cultural reasons, just like for cultural reasons the church once accepted slavery. Saying such a topic cannot even be discussed cuts off development of the idea. If the Holy Spirit chooses at some point in the future to move the church in this direction, forbidding discussion gets in the way. And who's to predict how the Holy Spirit moves the church?
As Catholics, I think we need to pay attention to the good developments of the secular world. As Ladislas Orsy says, "God is in the real." To me that means in the world fully and completely. That's where we have to look for evidence, not just in a trail of encyclicals.
[Aquinasblog author]
07 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog III
This is part III of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
---------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thank you for the time you put into compiling the list. I will read the documents promptly.
In the mean time, as far as woman ordination, please see Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html , section 4. This belief of the Church is also part of the reason why a whole lot of people converted to the Church from other Ecclesial Communities (see Dominus Iesus; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html ), esp the COE one.
I'll email back when I read and take notes on the emailed documents (in about a week).
Thanks,
[gbm3]
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
---------------------
[I replied again below]
Hello [Aquinasblog author],
I had a chance to read most of the encyclicals except the last one (Pascendi) in which I searched some terms. I am also familiar with the last encyclicals of JPII and BXVI first two. In general, when the Popes wrote about faith and morals, they were consistent and clear about the authority upon which they drew. When it came to more state related questions, it was less clear. Also, some of the ideas that you identified as changing have either not changed or not gone away completely. I’ll go through them in your order (from your last email).
In Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI condemned “liberty of conscience” and “freedom to publish”. The former was dealt in a similar fashion recently by Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop here http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=4&id=56744 . He wrote, “It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.” Also, paraphrasing the Bishop, “liberty of conscience” still doesn’t mean “any old liberty of conscience,” it relates to a correctly formed conscience.
For the latter, there are still Imprimaturs who review Catholic books for doctrinal accuracies. The freedom to publish issue is still around in Catholic publishing yet not so severe. There are also commissions to determine if theology teachers/professors are heretical.
Regarding the Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX was unclear about Catholicism and the state. In errors 77-79 it seems that the only religion of the state should be Catholicism, but then immediately after the error list, he goes into how the city of God and man are different entities (from Augustine’s _City of God_). However, even in today’s Church, the idea that there is an *absolute* separation of church and state (from JFK speech) is not held. See here http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3489 . Regarding error 80, no Pope has fully reconciled himself with his generation in matters of faith and morals.
Regarding the last two encyclicals, like all systems of government, there are down falls to democracy (tyranny of the majority is cited). I couldn’t find what particulars about the freedom of speech or religion that were criticized. Regarding historical analysis in paragraph 9 of Pascendi, he made valid points about its problems.
Actually, most modern encyclicals I’ve read (I read most of JPII’s later ones) have had valid points with regards to many topics, but they have not all been about authoritative instructions about faith and morals.
One thing that really stuck out for me that not one of the popes’ encyclicals that you cited made a statement like JPII did in Evangelium Vitae or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis regarding faith and morals. For example, in the former JPII (in paragraph 57 and 62),
“Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church's Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defence of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by Episcopal Conferences or by individual Bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed the matter forcefully, in a brief but incisive passage.
“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. ‘Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action’” -Paragraph 57
In the later, (paragraph 4),
“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” - paragraph 4
The Syllabus of Errors and the other encyclicals did not have a statement like those above. Lamentabili comes close with its preamble.
However, while the ideas in the encyclicals have been reduced in severity, the ideas are still within the Church. For instance, while individual members of the Church may read and talk about the Catholic Bible, no one has the authority to undermine the Church’s official teaching regarding it. For instance, the canon of the Bible was determined in the fourth century, however Martin Luther declared that some books were not to be included. He did not have the authority to decide what the canon of scripture included. A second example: regarding interpretation of John 6, the Church teaches authoritatively that bread and wine actually is transubstantiated into (not consubstantiated into or symbolizes) the body and blood of Jesus.
In the encyclicals I cited above from JPII, it’s almost as if there were ordinary ex cathedra statements, whereas the encyclicals you cited don’t have such clearly authoritative statements regarding faith and morals.
The wo/man ordination question would fall under a faith declaration since Jesus chose only men by His authority to be Apostles (Bishops/Presbyters). In a similar way, He declared that bread and wine would become his body and blood by His authority.
I found the discussion here ( http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/03/a-doctrine-in-limbo/ ) very relevant to our discussion. The question is whether limbo exists or not. It seems that the only authoritative declaration is that unbaptized babies enter hell. However, it was also authoritatively decided that water baptism is not needed to “count” as a baptism: there are baptisms by desire, Spirit, and fire. However, young babies and preborn babies can’t consciously desire baptism, so they most likely end up in hell. Yet, no council or Pope has authoritatively taught about limbo (for vs. against). Therefore, faithful Catholics are free to decide what they think about limbo and leave it up to God’s Wisdom and Will.
Well, thanks for hanging in there. I might have missed something. If I did, especially if it’s a specific passage in an encyclical, please bring my attention to it.
I look forward to hearing from you,
[gbm3]
You might want to read here ( http://article.nationalreview.com/432597/nun-sense-women-in-the-catholic-church/kathryn-jean-lopez ) about the women religious visitation. It’s an interview with a sister who heads an order that will be visited. I still don’t think the visitations are mean in nature just as my reviews at work are not mean, just necessary for the company and myself.
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
-----------------------
Hi [gbm3],
[ ]
I think the real question comes down to what's called development of doctrine. In his book What Happened at Vatican II, John O’Malley S.J. states that the three underlying issues of the council were:
1. When change in the church is appropriate and how that change is justified.
2. Who gets to authorize that change.
3. What is the style or model according to which such authorization is exercised.
This is a difficult question and hinges on the understanding of authority that people share and what of the history of the Church they choose to remember (e.g., when we think of celibacy, do we choose to remember the traditions of the first millennium or the traditions of the second; do we remember when bishops were elected, etc.).
On this, we may need to agree to disagree.
[Aquinasblog author]
PS besides the O'Malley book, another really good book is Receiving the Council, by canon lawyer Ladislas Orsy, SJ. He grapples well with the questions of tradition, authority and change.
[BTW, the dialog is not over.]
---------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thank you for the time you put into compiling the list. I will read the documents promptly.
In the mean time, as far as woman ordination, please see Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html , section 4. This belief of the Church is also part of the reason why a whole lot of people converted to the Church from other Ecclesial Communities (see Dominus Iesus; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html ), esp the COE one.
I'll email back when I read and take notes on the emailed documents (in about a week).
Thanks,
[gbm3]
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
---------------------
[I replied again below]
Hello [Aquinasblog author],
I had a chance to read most of the encyclicals except the last one (Pascendi) in which I searched some terms. I am also familiar with the last encyclicals of JPII and BXVI first two. In general, when the Popes wrote about faith and morals, they were consistent and clear about the authority upon which they drew. When it came to more state related questions, it was less clear. Also, some of the ideas that you identified as changing have either not changed or not gone away completely. I’ll go through them in your order (from your last email).
In Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI condemned “liberty of conscience” and “freedom to publish”. The former was dealt in a similar fashion recently by Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop here http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=4&id=56744 . He wrote, “It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.” Also, paraphrasing the Bishop, “liberty of conscience” still doesn’t mean “any old liberty of conscience,” it relates to a correctly formed conscience.
For the latter, there are still Imprimaturs who review Catholic books for doctrinal accuracies. The freedom to publish issue is still around in Catholic publishing yet not so severe. There are also commissions to determine if theology teachers/professors are heretical.
Regarding the Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX was unclear about Catholicism and the state. In errors 77-79 it seems that the only religion of the state should be Catholicism, but then immediately after the error list, he goes into how the city of God and man are different entities (from Augustine’s _City of God_). However, even in today’s Church, the idea that there is an *absolute* separation of church and state (from JFK speech) is not held. See here http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3489 . Regarding error 80, no Pope has fully reconciled himself with his generation in matters of faith and morals.
Regarding the last two encyclicals, like all systems of government, there are down falls to democracy (tyranny of the majority is cited). I couldn’t find what particulars about the freedom of speech or religion that were criticized. Regarding historical analysis in paragraph 9 of Pascendi, he made valid points about its problems.
Actually, most modern encyclicals I’ve read (I read most of JPII’s later ones) have had valid points with regards to many topics, but they have not all been about authoritative instructions about faith and morals.
One thing that really stuck out for me that not one of the popes’ encyclicals that you cited made a statement like JPII did in Evangelium Vitae or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis regarding faith and morals. For example, in the former JPII (in paragraph 57 and 62),
“Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church's Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defence of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by Episcopal Conferences or by individual Bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed the matter forcefully, in a brief but incisive passage.
“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. ‘Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action’” -Paragraph 57
In the later, (paragraph 4),
“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” - paragraph 4
The Syllabus of Errors and the other encyclicals did not have a statement like those above. Lamentabili comes close with its preamble.
However, while the ideas in the encyclicals have been reduced in severity, the ideas are still within the Church. For instance, while individual members of the Church may read and talk about the Catholic Bible, no one has the authority to undermine the Church’s official teaching regarding it. For instance, the canon of the Bible was determined in the fourth century, however Martin Luther declared that some books were not to be included. He did not have the authority to decide what the canon of scripture included. A second example: regarding interpretation of John 6, the Church teaches authoritatively that bread and wine actually is transubstantiated into (not consubstantiated into or symbolizes) the body and blood of Jesus.
In the encyclicals I cited above from JPII, it’s almost as if there were ordinary ex cathedra statements, whereas the encyclicals you cited don’t have such clearly authoritative statements regarding faith and morals.
The wo/man ordination question would fall under a faith declaration since Jesus chose only men by His authority to be Apostles (Bishops/Presbyters). In a similar way, He declared that bread and wine would become his body and blood by His authority.
I found the discussion here ( http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/03/a-doctrine-in-limbo/ ) very relevant to our discussion. The question is whether limbo exists or not. It seems that the only authoritative declaration is that unbaptized babies enter hell. However, it was also authoritatively decided that water baptism is not needed to “count” as a baptism: there are baptisms by desire, Spirit, and fire. However, young babies and preborn babies can’t consciously desire baptism, so they most likely end up in hell. Yet, no council or Pope has authoritatively taught about limbo (for vs. against). Therefore, faithful Catholics are free to decide what they think about limbo and leave it up to God’s Wisdom and Will.
Well, thanks for hanging in there. I might have missed something. If I did, especially if it’s a specific passage in an encyclical, please bring my attention to it.
I look forward to hearing from you,
[gbm3]
You might want to read here ( http://article.nationalreview.com/432597/nun-sense-women-in-the-catholic-church/kathryn-jean-lopez ) about the women religious visitation. It’s an interview with a sister who heads an order that will be visited. I still don’t think the visitations are mean in nature just as my reviews at work are not mean, just necessary for the company and myself.
http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
-----------------------
Hi [gbm3],
[ ]
I think the real question comes down to what's called development of doctrine. In his book What Happened at Vatican II, John O’Malley S.J. states that the three underlying issues of the council were:
1. When change in the church is appropriate and how that change is justified.
2. Who gets to authorize that change.
3. What is the style or model according to which such authorization is exercised.
This is a difficult question and hinges on the understanding of authority that people share and what of the history of the Church they choose to remember (e.g., when we think of celibacy, do we choose to remember the traditions of the first millennium or the traditions of the second; do we remember when bishops were elected, etc.).
On this, we may need to agree to disagree.
[Aquinasblog author]
PS besides the O'Malley book, another really good book is Receiving the Council, by canon lawyer Ladislas Orsy, SJ. He grapples well with the questions of tradition, authority and change.
[BTW, the dialog is not over.]
05 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog II
This is part II of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
---------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for getting back so quickly. I was wondering if you could send me some papal quotes/links (with originating document/encycl./letter) that show "[papal condemnation of] democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and [] freedom of conscience." (If not, I understand.) People such as Sp. Pelosi and VP Biden have said similar things about abortion.
Also, what about the visitation issue is "rude"?
Regarding debating, you might be interested in my other more controvertial blog at http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/
God bless,
[gbm3]
---------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Well there's Gregory XVI's encyclical Mirari Vos, which condemned freedom of conscience and freedom of the press:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm
Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the following opinions:
That Catholicism should no longer be the established religion of the state
That non-Catholics should be allowed to openly practice their religion
That people should be at liberty to express their ideas
That the Roman Pontiff should reconcile himself with progress, liberalism and modern civilization
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
Two others of note are the 1907 decree called Lamentabili and the Pius X encyclical Pascendi. These works denounced democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, historical analysis, literary criticism of the Bible, the study of the early church fathers, and ecumenism.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
These things do change!
[Aquinasblog author]
---------------------
[Aquinasblog author],
Thanks for getting back so quickly. I was wondering if you could send me some papal quotes/links (with originating document/encycl./letter) that show "[papal condemnation of] democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and [] freedom of conscience." (If not, I understand.) People such as Sp. Pelosi and VP Biden have said similar things about abortion.
Also, what about the visitation issue is "rude"?
Regarding debating, you might be interested in my other more controvertial blog at http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/
God bless,
[gbm3]
---------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Well there's Gregory XVI's encyclical Mirari Vos, which condemned freedom of conscience and freedom of the press:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm
Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the following opinions:
That Catholicism should no longer be the established religion of the state
That non-Catholics should be allowed to openly practice their religion
That people should be at liberty to express their ideas
That the Roman Pontiff should reconcile himself with progress, liberalism and modern civilization
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
Two others of note are the 1907 decree called Lamentabili and the Pius X encyclical Pascendi. These works denounced democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, historical analysis, literary criticism of the Bible, the study of the early church fathers, and ecumenism.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
These things do change!
[Aquinasblog author]
04 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog I
I came across Aquinasblog after viewing new blogs at St. Blog Parish a couple o' weeks back.
I read a couple of the posts at Aquinasblog and thought I would inquire about the author's thoughts on women ordination since they were not clear. In a series starting in this post, the dialog that ensued will be shared for your evaluation.
Near the end of the dialog, I found this part of the website about a book the author is writing very telling on the author's view. Some examples:
The dialog starts here:
-------
Hello,
I noticed that aquinasblog.com was just added to the St. Blog Parish as was my blog cathorick.blogspot.com. Upon reading some of your first posts and looking at your papal authority tags, I noticed that you're not too keen on the woman religious visitations and are actually for woman ordination. This does not seem to be a Catholic orthodox position on these issues. On the former, why can't Church superiors look into woman orthodoxy just as I looked at your blog? Finally, John Paul II closed the debate about women ordination and said faithful Catholics must assent to the teaching.
Please let me know what you think. (Please do not publish my email address).
Thank you,
[gbm3]
-------
Hi [gbm3],
I take the long view -- a hundred years ago, the papacy condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on women's ordination, which is why I think it should continue to be discussed. That's how we figure things out. Aquinas was never afraid to argue about anything. The spirit of disputation has been lost and should be regained because it's the practical result of the belief in the harmony of faith and reason. As to the nuns, well, I think the way they went about it was just rude.
[Aquinasblog author]
---------------------------
Update: the other dialogs are here:
II III IV V VI VII VIII
I read a couple of the posts at Aquinasblog and thought I would inquire about the author's thoughts on women ordination since they were not clear. In a series starting in this post, the dialog that ensued will be shared for your evaluation.
Near the end of the dialog, I found this part of the website about a book the author is writing very telling on the author's view. Some examples:
The faithful then concluded that if something might change, it would change, so they just went ahead and acted as though it did change. As a result, they started taking belief on our own terms, no longer looking to the Church to define sin or dogma and often actively disregarding it. The tipping point was Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae which reaffirmed the papacy’s thoroughly illogical condemnation of artificial birth control (and which was subsequently thoroughly ignored). ...You can read the rest if you'd like.
As a result of the breaking of authority, the faithful tended to accept only what made sense and to turn away from the mysterious and that associated with authority and tradition. But the downside was that individuals had to figure everything out for themselves and had the full burden of making meaning in their lives, rather than receiving it from the institution.
The dialog starts here:
-------
Hello,
I noticed that aquinasblog.com was just added to the St. Blog Parish as was my blog cathorick.blogspot.com. Upon reading some of your first posts and looking at your papal authority tags, I noticed that you're not too keen on the woman religious visitations and are actually for woman ordination. This does not seem to be a Catholic orthodox position on these issues. On the former, why can't Church superiors look into woman orthodoxy just as I looked at your blog? Finally, John Paul II closed the debate about women ordination and said faithful Catholics must assent to the teaching.
Please let me know what you think. (Please do not publish my email address).
Thank you,
[gbm3]
-------
Hi [gbm3],
I take the long view -- a hundred years ago, the papacy condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on women's ordination, which is why I think it should continue to be discussed. That's how we figure things out. Aquinas was never afraid to argue about anything. The spirit of disputation has been lost and should be regained because it's the practical result of the belief in the harmony of faith and reason. As to the nuns, well, I think the way they went about it was just rude.
[Aquinasblog author]
---------------------------
Update: the other dialogs are here:
II III IV V VI VII VIII
02 June 2010
US Sen Mikulski and the PPACA email
I just got this email from the staff of my US Sen. Mikulski (D-MD). (She's up for reelection this year.)
The way I read it, a health care plan that covers abortion requires two checks for two funds, one for abortion and one for healthcare to be paid into. (Abortion is not healthcare.)
Tax money (including mine) will be used to subsidize all insurances (unless a State explicitly ops out of ones that carry abortion coverage; I bet in MD all plans will have abortion coverage).
In the end, I will be paying for abortion since tax money is used to subsidize all insurance, including the ones which have a separate fund for abortion. I don't want my tax money going to any insurance plan which has an option for abortion.
Further, money is money; the insurance companies with abortion coverage can allocate money however they want. I don't expect the government (esp. Obama's) to be keeping tabs on the money flow.
Anyone have comments about my conclusion and/or the email above?
Dear [gbm3]:The first paragraph in red above is a red herring for the second paragraph. One can be lead to believe that women have to solely use their own money to pay for abortions. Why have two checks and two funds for two "premiums"? Shouldn't abortions be paid with a personal check (etc)?
Thank you for getting in touch with me about abortion and health care reform. It's great to hear from you.
I appreciate hearing your opposition to the health care reform bills that have been signed into law - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Public Law 111-152). While these bills are not perfect, I am proud of what we were able to accomplish. We passed a health reform law that saves and strengthens Medicare; makes sure insurance companies can't discriminate against you because of a pre-existing condition, or because of your age or gender; provides universal access to health care, and emphasizes quality, prevention and integrative health to save lives and save money. These are the principles of health reform that I have been committed to and have been fighting for throughout my career.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) follows settled law on abortion and prohibits federal funds from being used to fund abortions. On March 24, 2010, President Obama signed an executive order ensuring enforcement of these abortion restrictions in the PPACA. To make sure that no federal funds are used to fund abortions, the final version of health care reform bill requires women to write two separate premium checks - one for abortion and one for all other health care. These premiums collected in state insurance exchanges will then remain in two separate funds.
I would also like you to know that no health care plan can be required to cover abortion. PPACA requires every state insurance exchange to include at least one plan that does not cover abortion. States will also have the right to pass laws prohibiting any plan participating in a state insurance exchange from covering abortion.
I also support the rights of health professional to choose whether to perform abortions. That's why I also support the strong conscience clause in the bill which protects providers and hospitals from having to perform abortions if it goes against their religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.
Again, thanks for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of help to you in the future.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator
The way I read it, a health care plan that covers abortion requires two checks for two funds, one for abortion and one for healthcare to be paid into. (Abortion is not healthcare.)
Tax money (including mine) will be used to subsidize all insurances (unless a State explicitly ops out of ones that carry abortion coverage; I bet in MD all plans will have abortion coverage).
In the end, I will be paying for abortion since tax money is used to subsidize all insurance, including the ones which have a separate fund for abortion. I don't want my tax money going to any insurance plan which has an option for abortion.
Further, money is money; the insurance companies with abortion coverage can allocate money however they want. I don't expect the government (esp. Obama's) to be keeping tabs on the money flow.
Anyone have comments about my conclusion and/or the email above?
21 May 2010
(I) No One's Born Gay and (II) New Ways Ministry
(I) I wrote before that people think same-sex "marriage" should be permitted because gay people are born that gay or that being gay is an accidental property like skin color. Well, I've seen some recent articles (besides the one I cited in the linked post above) that go against that inkling of some.
(1) "Luiz Mott, the undisputed leader of Brazil's homosexual movement, has admitted on national television that no one is born homosexual, and that people can change their sexual orientations."
(2) Analysis: Childhood Family Structure Linked to Rate of Female Homosexuality
---
(II) Regarding the last posting here on WZE, I cited an advertisement of "New Ways Ministry" (NWM) that was inside a program of a "Catholic" Postulate, "The Murphy Initiative for Justice and Peace". NWM is a group for practicing gay "Catholics".
I find the title "New Ways Ministry" extremely telling of their heretical Catholic views. In Acts of the Apostles of the (Catholic) Bible, Christians were said to follow "The Way" of Jesus the Christ.
May NWM (and organizations like "Catholics for Free [Abortion] Choice") be denounced by faithful Catholics whenever possible.
People who want to destroy the Church know that the presence and strength of these organizations divide Catholics so that the witness and mission of the Church is weakened.
May God have mercy on all of us.
(1) "Luiz Mott, the undisputed leader of Brazil's homosexual movement, has admitted on national television that no one is born homosexual, and that people can change their sexual orientations."
(2) Analysis: Childhood Family Structure Linked to Rate of Female Homosexuality
---
(II) Regarding the last posting here on WZE, I cited an advertisement of "New Ways Ministry" (NWM) that was inside a program of a "Catholic" Postulate, "The Murphy Initiative for Justice and Peace". NWM is a group for practicing gay "Catholics".
I find the title "New Ways Ministry" extremely telling of their heretical Catholic views. In Acts of the Apostles of the (Catholic) Bible, Christians were said to follow "The Way" of Jesus the Christ.
But when some in their obstinacy and disbelief disparaged the Way before the assembly, [Paul] withdrew and took his disciples with him and began to hold daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. Acts 19:9The ones who founded, run, and are part of NWM are like those "in their obstinacy and disbelief disparaged the Way" in their New Ways. Faithful Catholics should have nothing to do with NWM as they continue to cause division within the Church upon which Christ gave His Spirit.
May NWM (and organizations like "Catholics for Free [Abortion] Choice") be denounced by faithful Catholics whenever possible.
People who want to destroy the Church know that the presence and strength of these organizations divide Catholics so that the witness and mission of the Church is weakened.
May God have mercy on all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)