Last year, the community choir that I was in set up rehearsals at a Unitarian Universalist (UU) Church (really pseudo-ecclesial community). When you came in the door (or came up the stairs from the bathrooms), there was a big sign that read, "The inherent dignity and worth of all people" with some silhouettes of mature humans kneeling down.
I got to wondering since that's what I sometimes do.
Could a UU person be prolife, or OTAAAC since "The inherent dignity and worth of all people" is a principal held by UU's. After a long search, it didn't look like it was possible.
Even though it didn't look like it, I started a dialog with a UU here. I'll let you know how it goes.
15 June 2010
14 June 2010
Intelligent Design Problems
Please view this video before reading on:
At about 1:08 in the video above, Fr. Barron posits that the new Atheists make a "category error", i.e., God is one cause among many other causes of material processes. I think that the video above can be used in a previous discussion about Intelligent Design (ID). (BTW, Cathorick is my other poetic blog.)
There are many different approaches to ID theory.
I used to strongly believe in a version (I don't know the exact label) that went something like this:
All life, including human life, came about in an evolutionary way. The most efficient way to change said life is to change it at the conception stage. Yes, natural selection happens, but the process by which natural selection is made possible is through creating variations of, or changes in DNA. The way that one species takes on features that allow it to survive more frequently is through changes in DNA sequencing. These changes can occur through physical DNA problems, radiation (sun) changes, or other means. The above natural changes do not occur by random; there is no such thing as randomness since God directs things in a particular way that we can only view as random (at this point in our history). Since God directs the changes of DNA matter, God is the Intelligent Designer of all life. The end.
After viewing Fr. Barron's video, I think that those who hold ID views and I are making a "category error" in a similar way that the new Atheists are.
God is not one cause among many, but the cause of all things. God is "being", and all matter is contingent on God; if God, or "being" doesn't exist, than no matter can exist. (Fr. Barron said elsewhere that contingent creation still exists because of God's Love; Love is a matter of God's will.)
As a Catholic caveat, the idea that miracles take place, such as regenerating a lung or overcoming some deathly illness, I now find troubling. Please let me explain.
The reason that some events are seen as miracles is that there is no explanation for them. In other words, there is no scientific or physical explanation that would account for the miracle other than God's action. Another Atheistic way to frame the problem is that God is needed to fill in the gap of our understanding for why something unexplainable takes place.
One thing that ZippyCatholic was getting to (as I understand) was that God created life from a miracle or that life is a continuum of events that leads to said life. Why can't it be both in light of Fr. Barron's comments?
The way that life comes about is through God's being. We don't need God to fill in the gaps (the gap(s) would ultimately be infinite in width and number anyway), God is the reason said question and all questions exist anyway.
So for the miracles in general, why not view everything as a miracle? As far as the sainthood miracles, I'll leave that up to the Church.
While we're at it, you might like Fr. Barron's take on "The [Four] YouTube Heresies".
At about 1:08 in the video above, Fr. Barron posits that the new Atheists make a "category error", i.e., God is one cause among many other causes of material processes. I think that the video above can be used in a previous discussion about Intelligent Design (ID). (BTW, Cathorick is my other poetic blog.)
There are many different approaches to ID theory.
I used to strongly believe in a version (I don't know the exact label) that went something like this:
All life, including human life, came about in an evolutionary way. The most efficient way to change said life is to change it at the conception stage. Yes, natural selection happens, but the process by which natural selection is made possible is through creating variations of, or changes in DNA. The way that one species takes on features that allow it to survive more frequently is through changes in DNA sequencing. These changes can occur through physical DNA problems, radiation (sun) changes, or other means. The above natural changes do not occur by random; there is no such thing as randomness since God directs things in a particular way that we can only view as random (at this point in our history). Since God directs the changes of DNA matter, God is the Intelligent Designer of all life. The end.
After viewing Fr. Barron's video, I think that those who hold ID views and I are making a "category error" in a similar way that the new Atheists are.
God is not one cause among many, but the cause of all things. God is "being", and all matter is contingent on God; if God, or "being" doesn't exist, than no matter can exist. (Fr. Barron said elsewhere that contingent creation still exists because of God's Love; Love is a matter of God's will.)
As a Catholic caveat, the idea that miracles take place, such as regenerating a lung or overcoming some deathly illness, I now find troubling. Please let me explain.
The reason that some events are seen as miracles is that there is no explanation for them. In other words, there is no scientific or physical explanation that would account for the miracle other than God's action. Another Atheistic way to frame the problem is that God is needed to fill in the gap of our understanding for why something unexplainable takes place.
One thing that ZippyCatholic was getting to (as I understand) was that God created life from a miracle or that life is a continuum of events that leads to said life. Why can't it be both in light of Fr. Barron's comments?
The way that life comes about is through God's being. We don't need God to fill in the gaps (the gap(s) would ultimately be infinite in width and number anyway), God is the reason said question and all questions exist anyway.
So for the miracles in general, why not view everything as a miracle? As far as the sainthood miracles, I'll leave that up to the Church.
While we're at it, you might like Fr. Barron's take on "The [Four] YouTube Heresies".
12 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog VIII
This is part VIII of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
----------------------
Hello again,
St. Aquinas also said, "But Debbora exercised authority in temporal, not in priestly matters, even as now woman may have temporal power." This says a lot (I can only say a little of it at this point). Even in his day (as well as in biblical time with Debbora), St. Aquinas acknowledged that many women had "temporal power", or power in everyday-goings-on. However, the matters that pertained to the Church have a proper order. Christ is head of the Church in the same way as male ordained ministers are head of the Church in priestly matters. Priestly matters have to mainly do with the Eucharist and handing over their life for the Church in persona Christi.
I would never say that Christ was in the state of subjection to the Church; the Church, the mystical bride of Christ, is in the state of subjection to Christ, the bridegroom (Eph 5; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians5.htm ). The essence of man and woman as St. Aquinas outlines, although controvertial to many, is still true and can't change (until Christ comes again).
Again, this is a matter of faith and not a temporal matter (as also explained by St. Aquinas).
[gbm3]
----------------------
[I also emailed back the reply below.]
Hello,
Really, when you get down to it, having the ministerial priesthood only for men saves women who would supposedly become priests from lying. I think this is the best explanation (however, as I have written, JPII made the final call and reasons).
Let me explain. At the consecration, the priest is to say, "This is my body." and "This is my blood." If a woman said it, it would be lying since the consecrated body is of male essence since Christ was male and a woman is of different female essence.
I've seen a Episcopal "priestess" "consecrate" their communion (it's definitely not valid orders there since they're separated brethren). I thought the process was ludicrous since she was essentially saying (literally in essence) that the body of Christ she was "consecrating" with her words was female (the words and body of the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine as I understand it).
The Catholic Church can't go there.
[gbm3]
[Aquinasblog author has not emailed me back after this email. I will post the reply if it is sent in the future.]
[What do you think about the dialog?]
----------------------
Hello again,
St. Aquinas also said, "But Debbora exercised authority in temporal, not in priestly matters, even as now woman may have temporal power." This says a lot (I can only say a little of it at this point). Even in his day (as well as in biblical time with Debbora), St. Aquinas acknowledged that many women had "temporal power", or power in everyday-goings-on. However, the matters that pertained to the Church have a proper order. Christ is head of the Church in the same way as male ordained ministers are head of the Church in priestly matters. Priestly matters have to mainly do with the Eucharist and handing over their life for the Church in persona Christi.
I would never say that Christ was in the state of subjection to the Church; the Church, the mystical bride of Christ, is in the state of subjection to Christ, the bridegroom (Eph 5; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians5.htm ). The essence of man and woman as St. Aquinas outlines, although controvertial to many, is still true and can't change (until Christ comes again).
Again, this is a matter of faith and not a temporal matter (as also explained by St. Aquinas).
[gbm3]
----------------------
[I also emailed back the reply below.]
Hello,
Really, when you get down to it, having the ministerial priesthood only for men saves women who would supposedly become priests from lying. I think this is the best explanation (however, as I have written, JPII made the final call and reasons).
Let me explain. At the consecration, the priest is to say, "This is my body." and "This is my blood." If a woman said it, it would be lying since the consecrated body is of male essence since Christ was male and a woman is of different female essence.
I've seen a Episcopal "priestess" "consecrate" their communion (it's definitely not valid orders there since they're separated brethren). I thought the process was ludicrous since she was essentially saying (literally in essence) that the body of Christ she was "consecrating" with her words was female (the words and body of the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine as I understand it).
The Catholic Church can't go there.
[gbm3]
[Aquinasblog author has not emailed me back after this email. I will post the reply if it is sent in the future.]
[What do you think about the dialog?]
11 June 2010
A Pro-Abort Facade
(1) Women Deliver: Panel Pushes 'Harm Reduction' as Effective 'Facade' for Dismantling Pro-Life Laws
(2) UN Leadership in Disarray as New Research Shatters Consensus on Maternal Health
The million dollar quote:
I wonder what the guy on the right of the picture thinks (Vicente Diaz, Director IPPF WHR; Lifesitenews.com). Is he finally fed up with all he sees and hears? May God open his eyes and ears.
(2) UN Leadership in Disarray as New Research Shatters Consensus on Maternal Health
The million dollar quote:
In a conversation following the session, a third audience member asked Csete about the objection that, because the model was being used to push abortion as a value, some may call the "value-neutral" claim a mere facade.In other words, lie and the money will come.
"Yeah, I think facade is the right word," Csete conceded. "Sometimes it's the only choice you have to get anywhere politically and protect services ... I think it's really the sort of desperate, structurally very hostile circumstances where that becomes a very useful thing to fall back on."
Aquinasblog Dialog VII
This is part VII of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
----------------------
Hello,
I just found this site regarding St. Aquinas' logic on woman ordination in Summa Theologica: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum584.htm (I suggest doing a text search with "woman").
Summa Theologica was written in the 12 hundreds. I'd say at least about 800 years is a long time for debate.
I'd thought you'd be interested in the Angelic Doctor's thoughts since he is your blog's namesake.
Good day,
[gbm3]
-------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Here's what Aquinas says: "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."
He ties the reason precisely to the fact that a woman is in the state of subjection. That has changed, especially in the past 50 years. That is exactly the reason the question should be debated; women are no longer seen as being in the state of subjection.
[Aquinasblog author]
[More to come ...]
----------------------
Hello,
I just found this site regarding St. Aquinas' logic on woman ordination in Summa Theologica: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum584.htm (I suggest doing a text search with "woman").
Summa Theologica was written in the 12 hundreds. I'd say at least about 800 years is a long time for debate.
I'd thought you'd be interested in the Angelic Doctor's thoughts since he is your blog's namesake.
Good day,
[gbm3]
-------------------
Hi [gbm3],
Here's what Aquinas says: "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."
He ties the reason precisely to the fact that a woman is in the state of subjection. That has changed, especially in the past 50 years. That is exactly the reason the question should be debated; women are no longer seen as being in the state of subjection.
[Aquinasblog author]
[More to come ...]
10 June 2010
Aquinasblog Dialog VI
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.]
------------------------
[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.]
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]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)