On Ordaining Women: Ought Implies Can
Yesterday’s post on the Anglican Church’s decision to ordain women bishops provoked some predictable comments in the comments about the Catholic Churches refusal to do the same. For me the issue turns not so much on whether the Church should ordain women, but whether it is even possible to do so (followers of Kant will of course note that ought implies can, and therefore if something can’t be done then we shouldn’t do it). Ordination is not just some ceremony; it is sacramental. The Church has the power to ordain only to the extent that God has given it that power, and it has been the longstanding opinion of the Church that it was given the power only to ordain men. They could go through the motions, but it wouldn’t take. So talk about whether ordaining women would be a good thing is largely beside the point.
Now, this does leave open the question of why God would only give the Church the power to ordain men, but I think I have a pretty good answer to that:
I don’t know.
The ways of God are a mysterious, and we shouldn’t think that we can figure out why He does everything that He does. Various theologians have speculated as to why a male priesthood might be important. Maybe they are right. Maybe the reason is something else entirely. Or maybe there is no reason. The Church teaches that it has the power to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; it does not have that power with respect to milk and cookies. Why did God give this power for wine but not milk? I’m sure that we could come up with many possible reasons, but does God even need a reason? Perhaps it was simply important that there be some food that could be transformed in this way.
I suspect that some may read this and smile at my relative lack of understanding. Others may rage at my lack of sympathy. Perhaps to them the issue is crystal clear, just as I have sometimes found clear what others have found murky and difficult. But this is just one more way in which God’s work in our lives is so wondrous. Where He comprehend his dictates we can appreciate their beauty and truth and thus come closer to Him, and when we cannot this teaches us humility and obedience, which also bring us closer to Him.
Comments are closed.
I’m a woman and I have no problem with having only male priests. As a woman, I acknowledge that we have a different role in the Church and I am absolutely (happy) and fine with that. Like you, I haven’t investigated the question further either, but it is not something that concerns me at the moment. I probably need to read on it at some point, but in all honesty, I really don’t care about it too much… right now. As I said, I’m happy as a woman in the Church and know plenty of happy lay and religious women as well.
I personally think that given the fact that Vatican II happened so recently and we are still seeing the remnants of a “clerical crisis”, to even consider the question would introduce more complications. First, we should perhaps talk about the need for celibate priests and whether the Church should allow married priests… to me that’s a more relevant question given the fact that for many centuries we didn’t require celibacy for priests. Also, the Eastern Orthodox have voluntary celibacy, so, in my opinion, that’s a more pressing and relevant question than women priests based on tradition.
Why don’t the Eastern Orthodox have female priests? I don’t think they have them, right? At least the “orthodox” churches…
“I don’t know” (said in the manner of Tevye the dairyman) is the most credible answer in many cases.
I would say that there are many in the Church who consent to the teaching but still have unanswered questions that raise other troubling issues. For example, how to square it completely with the teaching of St Gregory of Nanzianzus that “What CHrist did not assume, He did not redeem” in the context of its implications of humanity imaging Christ et cet. And the issue of intersexuality (more than mere medieval hermaphroditism; fortunately, Genesis says God created us “male and female” rather than “male or female” so there’s capacity for a blending of sexes in that bit of revelation), and how to determine who is male vs female and the open factual question if any bishops in the past have been intersexual. It seems a technical point, but Platonic-Aristotelian universals often end up facing modulation when faced with stubborn facts of exception. None of this is to say what the Church teaches on this is wrong; it is merely to say that more work is likely needed to be done to develop the teaching to respond to questions such as these.
Excellent related piece by Fr. Longenencker:
Light from Fides et Ratio
It’s ten years now since JP2′s encyclical Fides et Ratio. It is a great analysis of what B16 calls ‘the dictatorship of relativism’. Part of the encyclical analyzes the underlying assumptions in our relativistic society which contribute to the relativism of our day.
The four types of thought which Pope John Paul discusses are: eclecticism, historicism, scientism and pragmatism.
Eclecticism is the tendency to gather ideas, concepts, moral principles and methods of thought from a wide range of different cultures or ideologies exclusive of their cultural, religious or philosophical concepts. So modern people pick n mix their ideas, taking a smidgen from New Age kookiness, a smattering of self help wisdom, something from the Bible, an idea from a motivational speaker, a quote from a cute poster and something from the Catholic Church. This eclectic approach is classical cafeteria culture. What it does is cheapens each idea and pollutes it with others. It also makes a cohesive and unified philosophy impossible. Most importantly, it relativizes all the ideas by treating them equally and granting each one the same truth value.
Historicism relativizes the truth by assuming that all truths originate in, and are limited by their historical context. What was true at one time is not necessarily true in another. Therefore there is no such thing as absolute truth. This heresy of thought assumes that progress is always going on and that it is always positive. “Each and every day in each and every day we are getting better and better.”
Scientism assumes that the only truth that can be known is that which is proven by the scientific method. Therefore theological, philosophical and moral verities are consigned to the realm of fantasy. Because moral and spiritual truths cannot be proved scientifically they do not exist, and must not be given any credence.
Pragmatism has two aspects: personal pragmatism and political pragmatism. This is essentially utilitarianism. “What works is what is good.” Personal pragmatism is what works for me. Political pragmatism reduces the quest for truth to a majority vote. This is the adolescent whine, “But everyone else is doing it!!” In formal terms groups actually vote on moral principles and believe they have discovered the truth. Therefore, if the majority want abortion, it must be right.
I would add another to the list: Sentimentalism. This is the belief that my own feelings on a particular issue is the deciding factor.
I’m outlining this because it is clear that the Anglican Church, in its debate on women bishops, (and in the majority of its thinking for that matter) it totally given to the relativistic spirit of the age. See if you can pick up which of the ‘isms’ above are speaking in these arguments for women’s ordination:
“Suzy is such a good priest! Such a good pastor! It would be so unkind not to allow her to be a bishop. She would be such a good bishop. So intelligent. So spiritual!” — That would be sentimentalism and pragmatism speaking
“We know so much more about women’s roles now than they did in the early church. Women can do the job just as well as a man. It’s only fair that the women get a chance too, and besides this is what the majority in our society and our church demand.” — I can hear political pragmatism, historicism and personal pragmatism.
“It’s stupid to think that men and women are essentially different when it comes to this sort of job. Psychologists teach us that women are especially suited for the job, and it is only the remains of patriarchal society that are holding us back. Besides, other religions and other denominations have women priests. The Zen masters say, ‘All equal when all is ended and all is ended when all is equal.’” Historicism, eclecticism and scientism.
What was remarkably lacking were arguments from Scripture, theology and tradition. Did anyone even speak of the Pope’s decision on women’s ordination? Did anyone refer to the Eastern Orthodox dismissal of such an innovation?
I know most of my readers are Catholics, and maybe are tiring of all the Anglicanism on the blog at the moment, but these points are vital for Catholics to understand too because they are the assumptions of the society in which we live. The same sort of specious arguments are used in Catholic discussions on all the hot button topics of the day.
We need to understand the philosophical foundations of our society and be able to spot these specious arguments when they arise and turn away from the relativistic approach to the sources of true authority in the church.
Posted by Fr. Dwight Longenecker at Wednesday, July 09, 2008 0 comments
URL:
http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/
Katerina’s comment above is a beautiful mediation on finding and inhabiting a proper sense of self in relation to God and His Church.
The teaching I’ve received from Fr. Matthew MacKay on the matter of a female priesthood goes like this: On either side of the beautiful gates there is an icon of Christ (right) and the Theotokos (left). As icons, they represent the spiritual and physical reality of actual persons, and as such reflect the glory of God. They are also icons of perfect manhood and womanhood; that is, the highest calling that any man can aspire to is that of priest, and the highest calling any woman can aspire to is that of mother. Not all men will be priests and not all women will be mothers, but certainly no man will ever be a woman (plastic surgery and hormone supplements notwithstanding) and no woman will ever be a priest because these we are specifically created for different functions.
Fr. Alister Anderson has written a response to the Anglican decision to ordain women in the priesthood and his comments echo the teaching I related above:
“We Christians who advocate only a male priesthood as being the only valid apostolic ministry of the Church do not in any way deny that women have equal rights and opportunities to work. We believe that women should be paid commensurately with men for their labor and skill. But certain leaders deprecate the male priesthood as being a bastion of male chauvinism and a violation of civil and equal rights for women. Nonsense! The Church is not a secular institution governed by democratic processes. The Church is a spiritual organism and not just a secular organization. She is a spiritual and supernatural monarchy with God as Her king and supreme judge. We Orthodox Christians declare that while men and women are equal in the eyes of God and under the secular law, they are very different in their human nature because God has created them for different functions. A bishop, priest and deacon have a specific function within the family of the Church. To ordain women to the sacred ministry would only confuse and destroy that function. In terms of human function a woman can no more be a priest than a man can be a mother.”
http://www.antiochian.org/midwest/Articles/The_Orthodox_Priest_An_Ikon_Of_Christ.htm
So those are the bogey-men these days?
Contemporay scenario:
Interlocutor 1: I have troubles with the Church’s opposition to legally acknowledged same sex unions in a liberal democracy. Also, I find the ‘arguments’ for a male only ministerial priesthood somewhat wanting.
Interlocutor 2: You weak-minded, sentimentalistic, William James sympathizing, historist inclining relativist of the worst sorts–you know, the kind that is also prey to scientism.
Mark – that about sums it up. Although I would add wrong headed to that list.
A Communion of Resentment. All are equal, some are just more equal than others. Males shouldn’t be allowed to make religions. The home field advantage they create is just embarrassing, from making god in their own image on down.
In terms of human function a woman can no more be a priest than a man can be a mother.”
That’s how I see it too. You gotta wonder if at some point you’re going to see men feeling left out and protesting because they can’t get pregnant :)
It seems that the evidence we have for supporting an all male priesthood comes from sources that were written by men at a time when men controlled every aspect of society. I have heard arguments that Jesus did not conform to social norms, so that if he had wanted to choose women to be his followers, he would have.
But he did.
While the men who wrote the gospels, decades the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, may not have explicitly chosen to write that Jesus chose women to be his followers, implicitly it seems that women were as important to him and the church as men.
What I never understand in the arguments of those who wish to continue to deny women the priesthood is why gender becomes the determining factor. Why isn’t it hair color? Eye color? Ethnicity? Pastoral skills? Commitment to Christ? Why should one’s gender be the most determinate factor, and one that automatically excludes half of Christ’s followers?
For further reflection:
APOSTOLIC LETTER ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION
TO MEN ALONE
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
MJO-
Mary, Christ’s mother, the Theotokos is regarded as first among the saints and the most perfect example humanity ever produced. Christ flouted all other sorts of societal conventions, including eating with the wrong people, refusing to engage politically and militarily, hanging out with unclean folks, going to parties, advocating for equal rights in marriage…it seems that if ever a woman deserved and was equipped to be a priest it would have been Mary, and seeing as how she was contemporary with Christ, He had the opportunity to directly effect His will if that were it.
The only way I can see that anyone would advocate that Christ didn’t have the wherewithal to institute a female priesthood because of societal pressures is to deny His Divinity…and if you want to go there we needn’t argue about women in the priesthood.
It seems that the evidence we have for supporting an all male priesthood comes from sources that were written by men at a time when men controlled every aspect of society.
It seems also that most of the evidence we have of the history of the Roman and Greek Empires, Newtonian physics, modern philosophical studies, Einsteinian physics, and many other things were written by men at times when men “controlled” virtually every aspect of society. Does this mean that we should employ a hermeneutic of suspicion to all of these areas as you do with respect to the Gospels?
Interestingly, you point out out that men wrote the Gospels in a time when men “controlled” society, and yet you then ask “What I never understand in the arguments of those who wish to continue to deny women the priesthood is why gender becomes the determining factor.” According to your reasoning, why would gender become “the determining factor” in the recollection and transmission of the life of Jesus in the Gospels?
I find the evidence for a all male priesthood compelling. That being said as a Catholic I have learned after I converted the Church is right even on things I once doubted. Experience , time, and research I have shown me that.
When I converted I decided to go on pure “FAITH” on 10 percent of the Doctrines it taught despite me not able to reason it out. It has worked out. Woman Oridantion was one of those at the time.
IT is not just he Catholic Church in Union with the Bishop of Rome that teaches this but also the Second Lung of the Church the Orthodox.
Early on I had a rule that later the they former Anglcian Priest at Pontifications had which were formulated as Pontificators Laws
Pontificator’s Laws
http://pontifications.wordpress.com/pontificators-laws/
Of those as to this discussion
First Law: When Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree, Protestantism loses.
Second Law: When the Bible alone is our authority, the Bible ceases to be our authority.
Third Law: It’s one thing to read Scripture and the Fathers; it’s quite another thing to read Scripture through the Fathers.
Ninth Law: If a Catholic cannot name at least one article of faith that he believes solely on the basis of the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, he’s either a saint or a Protestant.
Tenth Law: All dogmas of the Church Catholic are infallible, but some are more infallible than others.
After going through this and other reasoning and prayer I see the widosm of the Church on this issue that it has now power to change this Tradition
Father Kimel whose swimming the TIber came at much cost and pain had this to say among other things and I agree
“Personally, I find the arguments in favor of the ordination of women to be more convincing than the arguments against. But that and $2.50 will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The arguments against female priests are not the doctrine of the Church; it is the restriction of males to the priesthood that is the doctrine. Arguments come and go. Some stand up under the test of time and disputation, some do not. But when the bishop of Rome tells me that the Church simply does not have the authority to alter the constitution of the ordained ministry, should that not at least warn me that my reasonings, no matter how persuasive they may appear to me at the moment, may not be true to the revelation as received by the Church?”
There are elements of ecclesial life that cannot be discursively reasoned to but simply must be accepted on the grounds of authority. When the Orthodox tell me that female priests violate the fundamental symbolic structure of the Divine Liturgy, should that not at least warn me that we may be dealing with a matter that can only be intuitively apprehended? Icons cannot be argued; they can only be experienced
and
“Within a Protestantism that has been formed by the critical-historical method, a hermeneutic of suspicion comes easily. Protestantism lives by its protest against the Tradition, fueled by its identification of a “canon within the canon.” In the Episcopal Church, this privileged canon may be termed “radical inclusivity.” It is well described by Philip Turner in his article ECUSA’s God. Given Progressive Catholic’s support of the blessing of gay unions, my guess is that he would be much more comfortable worshipping the Episcopal Church God than the Catholic God.
PC’s dissenting stance is alien to Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Both believe that God has entrusted to the Church a divine revelation that cannot be changed in its essentials. Both believe that the ecclesial structures of the Church are apostolically mandated. Both believe that the Church is holy, apostolic, and catholic. Consequently, the claim that the Church has, from the beginning, misunderstood the gospel and embedded this misunderstanding in its ecclesial structure is not only implausible but impossible to entertain.
It is simply impossible—within the circle of catholic faith—for a believer to logically reach the conclusion that the male priesthood is immoral and heretical. In order to reach this conclusion, he must step outside the Tradition and access a different “revelation” than the one entrusted to the Apostles. Only from a stance of disbelief is such a radical critique of the Church possible.”
http://pontifications.wordpress.com/female-priesthood/
.
Jon,
We aren’t exactly sure if Christ instituted a priesthood at all, regardless of gender. It appears that the risen Christ told his disciples (which may have included women) to go make disciples of all nations. But the priesthood that developed into what we have today was not what Christ set up, but our faithful response to Christ’s call. We need to recognize that our response is sometimes flawed, and that we need to readjust our response as needed.
Policraticus,
Well, to answer your concerns, yes, I do view much of history with the realization that the authors were particular people in a certain setting with their own agendas. No one is ever totally unbiased, even those who try to be. So I don’t think it is ridiculous to take a closer look at our sources, and try to understand them more fully.
“But the priesthood that developed into what we have today was not what Christ set up, but our faithful response to Christ’s call. We need to recognize that our response is sometimes flawed, and that we need to readjust our response as needed.”
MJO how exactly do we jump to this conclusion
It seems also that most of the evidence we have of the history of the Roman and Greek Empires, Newtonian physics, modern philosophical studies, Einsteinian physics, and many other things were written by men at times when men “controlled” virtually every aspect of society. Does this mean that we should employ a hermeneutic of suspicion to all of these areas as you do with respect to the Gospels?
Uh, the difference being that Einsteinian physics doesn’t favor men. When the god is male (at least 2/3), his ground crew is male, “Eve” is a sparerib and is to blame, a male sets it all straight, said male can only be represented by other males, even the Church Lady would say, “How conveeeenient.”
I do like the term ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ !
jh,
When we read the gospels, it is only Jesus who performs the functions of priest. It isn’t until Acts that others act as in persona christi, and that those people happen to be all men should not give us the impression that Christ wanted only men to act as ministers. The early church was trying to act as best they could in response to Christ’s call, and having only males act as “priests” (if this is the case) was something they must have believed to be the right choice for them. But we are able to reflect and try to move forward, which may include ordaining women.
Oi vey! The lack of an adequate anthropology and understanding of the imago dei of both genders, in different but equal and complementary ways is staggering. Good post BA. JPII (as confirmed by Ratzinger) pronounced that the Church has always and everywhere held a male-only priesthood. It does not have the God-given authority to ordain women. That this has been held and taught always and everywhere means it is infallibly taught. It has not been infallibly defined, but it is infallibly taught.
The why’s to which BA refers, I think, can be speculatively answered with an in depth look as personhood in the Trinity, the relationship between immanence and transcendence in the Godhead, and the adequate anthropology of complementarity in man and woman, both as image of God.
MJO you clearly lack a proper understanding of the priesthood, as instituted in the OT and developed and re-instituted by Christ. An proper understanding of the priesthood in the OT would make your above statement seem foolish.
MJO
TO say the least the Gospel was Radical. I do think going back and assuming that all male Priesthood and how it relates to others act as in persona christi is just a Cultural prejudice of the Aposltes is a huge leap to make without evidence.
When we are talking about the integrity of the Sacraments themsleves it seems a dangeorus presumption to act upon.
When the Apostles went out they interacted with a huge ole World. St Thomas went to India. The Apostles and their disciples were inteacting in a World that had various Mystery relgions, Pagan religons etc. However once the Church sort of got itself planted in these various regions and we look around after the inital persecutions what do we see?
Well we see Fundamnetal Catholic Doctrine. Sure with some Cultural adaptions but the essentials. What do we not see from end of the Roman Empire and beyond? A female Priesthood. That should be telling
Separate but equal, sounds familiar…
It’s just so nice that men come out on top every time in said ‘imago Dei’. But, no, it’s not about power but service. Being in charge due to said service does help though. Please. I mean, feel free to party like it’s 999, but don’t expect people to buy into it.
What do we not see from end of the Roman Empire and beyond? A female Priesthood. That should be telling
Here, have cake. You took it.
But, it’s a free country. Every organization can set its own rules, and everyone can choose which one(s) they belong to. Excommunication doesn’t mean social death anymore, since the Catholic church isn’t the only game in town anymore.
It is NOT Catholic to accept an argument on the grounds that the Church said so and the Church has been given divine authority. Obedience is not rational when it is blind. Period. BA’s argument of “uknowing obedience” is wrong.
Obedience is the highest good because when we are obeying God, we are becoming who we are — we are discovering our true will, the will of God in us. We may have to obey sometimes without knowing why — but this must be an act of faithful obedience that is perfected by the knowledge born of practice. When one obeys in faith, one discovers in one’s own life — one’s obedience in body and action — the incarnate knowledge of Jesus in us.
Obedience cannot be divorced from reason — though it is higher than our reason.
I’m not arguing for female ordination. But the “church has divine authority and is not a democracy” argument is a flamingly red herring.
Of course the church is not a democracy. Of course the church has divine authority. But if that authority was not filled with LIVING power (and not blind power) — it would not be authority. It would be simple force. It would not touch us with the power of Christ’s non-coercive living hand.
Of course women (and men) have no “rights” in the Church. The Church is a Gift on which we do not make rights-claims. There is no mine and yours in the Body.
For that very reason, we cannot, as Christians, have any truck with “God said so, so it is so” arguments; such arguments are an insult to the God who gave everything to be WITH us, in us, for us — to be as human as we are.
The real argument — not blind assertion — regarding female priesthood has to do with Christ choosing and sending the 12 male apostles. THAT is a real and substantial argument, and I have respect for it. I’m not advocating for female priests here.
Nonetheless — that real argument is not watertight; it has not come from God in the form of direct precept, direct prescribed practice.
One may note, against the traditional argument, the fact that the Risen Lord appeared first to Mary Magdalene, who was thereby also chosen and sent, to serve as the “apostle to the apostles,” as the Church has always called her. One may also note that Mary was entrusted with the task of teaching love and faith to the infant Christ — that she was chosen by God and sent to Christ as the “apostle” to the Lord Himself.
Furthermore, in terms of the sacramental role enacted by the priest in the Eucharist, one can note that the priest is, on the one hand, bodying forth Christ in transmitting the Body to the faithful. This could be called a male image. But also, equally, the priest is, along with the rest of the Church, RECEIVING the Body from God Himself, taking it into himself as the first among all who open themselves to the divine Gift. This could be a called a feminine image. This is even clearer in the Tridentine rite, where the priest turns his back to the congregation and, in offering the Body, lets it immediately come back to him — at that moment, all of the congregation is opened, in the same way, in the same direction, to the Gift of life.
One of the miracles of the Eucharist is that it allows the Church to simultaneously enact AND to receive itself; the feminine role is crucial.
Again, I don’t see this as a resolved argument. I am pointing out that it IS an argument, with some substance to it. I don’t see why it has to be an occasion for Catholics to congratulate themselves smugly on how right the Catholic church is, how blessed they are to be able to obey it with satisfaction, and how benighted and vulgar are those who conscientiously — obediently — THINK about Church teaching for themselves.
If Catholics are serious about catholicity, about the all encomapassing unity of the Truth, then they MUST ask questions about Church teaching. Perhaps they may fail to understand and have to obey nonetheless. But they MUST try to understand. The Truth has taken human form; it has taken that form SO THAT we can understand it.
We will NEVER understand it perfectly, in this life or the next, because the Truth is infinite. But it will also NEVER be absolutely dark, absolutely hidden from us. It will be ever more accessible, and ever more infinite and ungraspable and beautiful. We will always be able to use our reason to move closer to it, though we will never get it all.
Nothing human (certainly not reason) can be abandoned in the face of God, even if God exceeds the human, exceeds ou reason. Christ became human and shed his blood in order to teach us this.
“But, it’s a free country. Every organization can set its own rules, and everyone can choose which one(s) they belong to. Excommunication doesn’t mean social death anymore, since the Catholic church isn’t the only game in town anymore.”
Well Gerald I am not denying that. Excommunication might not mean Social Death and we can debate if that is a good thing or not. Excommunication though might to lead to a more serious death still however.
It is a free Country and if people want to run over to the an become followers of “Primate” Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori of the EC’s then they can. I suspect they will need all the folks they can get soon
Here are the facts: (skipping nearly the entire OT, which have much to say about the priesthood)
1 -God created humanity in his image. Male and female he created them. It was very good.
2 – God chose to become human in the fullness of time.
3 – God chose to become a male human.
4- Jesus, the God-man, was and is the one true high priest. He instituted the new priesthood, according to the order of Melchizedek, as can be evidenced in several places in the NT.
5- This new priesthood, reflecting the Old Priesthood, was a male priesthood.
6 – Priestesses were not uncommonn. In fact, only Judaism had a male-only priesthood. Jesus could have broken with that unique idiosyncrasy of Judaism, but he did not. He became Jewish man and instituted a priesthood of men.
7- This does not denigrate women. St. Paul shows us that. Man and woman relate to each other in the same way as Christ to Church in the same was as Father to Son. Father and Son are not the same person. But they are equal. The way they relate to one another, to hte HS, and to thje world is however, quite different.
God became man as a man in the fullness of time not because he chose to. The why can be debated. But those is the Biblical facts.
Judging from the prospective company, some might consider a Catholic heaven hell. Much like Islamic paradise for men is women’s hell.
JB, within the Catholic frame of reference you are certainly correct.
“It is NOT Catholic to accept an argument on the grounds that the Church said so and the Church has been given divine authority. Obedience is not rational when it is blind. Period. BA’s argument of “uknowing obedience” is wrong.”
TO be fair I don’t think Blackadder is advocating divorcing Faith from Reason. As Pope Benedict so points out in his famous German Talk Christ is LOGOS That is Reason.
That being said the flip side is it is not Catholic to accept only things that we can reason out. At some point Faith comes into the picture.
If Catholics have Reasoned out every Doctrine of the Catholic Church teaches and its truth then they are better and smarter Catholics than me. I can reason out 90 percent or perhaps 95 percent but 5 percent goes on pure faith.
That being said I agree we cannot just say TRADITION says it so therefore it is. It is a truth and that truth has meaning. Just like the Trinity so we musk ask questions and explore it
Gerald-
You need help. Seriously.
I’ll leave you guys alone now. To speak with Zarathustra,
“What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take
aught away from thee!”
Why must we continually focus on God becoming a human male? Why can’t we focus on God becoming a human person? Why stop there? God became a Jew. Should we ordain only Jews?
“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.” – JPII
Case Closed.
Judging from the prospective company, some might consider a Catholic heaven hell.
Indeed.
Tip — you found the answer! Bless you and congratulations!
Now we can forget about this and have some beers!
Thank God we’re Catholics!
That is classic BA! LOL I’ll take Catholic heaven with all the “unenlightened” types..
I’m glad I could settle it for you G – now lets have some beers and cigars.
I know I am entering heretic waters here, but have Catholics really devolved to the point that the case is closed because a Pope said so? I know how revered this man is, but come on.
I had wondered if Gerald had left alltogether.
Speaking from experience, it is not much fun climbing that mountain with the dwarf sitting on your shoulder pouring hot lead into your ear–the snake isn’t very tasty either.
I pray your gaurdian angel is successful in helping you find your way home before it is too late.
I guess I trusted the Holy Father to lead on these matters. On an area where he has given much greater and dare I say deep thought on this matter – I am content to trust his judgment. The problem is too many Catholics view the Church and Her teachings with a secular political mentality.
Tip,
Though Gerald meant his statement as an insult, I find it to be a rather profound theological truth. There probably are people who would find heaven more unbearable than hell. As it says in John, everyone who does wrong hates the light and will keep away from it. It may be that, in the final analysis, hell is as much a matter of God’s mercy as it is of His justice.
Then again, maybe not. Above my pay grade, and all that.
MJO,
I’m not so sure Catholics have “devolved” into thinking the Pope is authoritative on matters of faith and morals.
You might remember the famous paraphrase from a 5th century Saint and Doctor of the Church:
“Roma locuta est, causa finita est”
Rome has spoken; the case is closed.
Yes, I respect that he has devoted some time and consideration to this matter as well. But just because he deems something to be true (in this case, that women cannot be priests) does not make it so.
BA -
Point well taken and excellent video clip choice. :-)
Actually, if he is speaking in his capacity as St. Peter, then it does.
“I know I am entering heretic waters here, but have Catholics really devolved to the point that the case is closed because a Pope said so? I know how revered this man is, but come on.”
MJO
Sadly so. Also there are rumors that are still some Catholics that live their lives by Christian scripture and believe in that Hocus Pocus about the Real Presence
. Hopefully people will realize it is the 21st Century at some point
MJO,
It isn’t merely that he deemed it to be true, it is that he deemed it to be true in virtue of his ministry of confiming the bretheren.
The pope has the charism of infallability when acting in virtue of his ministry in confirming the bretheren. The Holy Spirit has gauranteed the Church that the Pope will not err when he speaks thusly. So it isn’t really the case that catholics are just obeying the pope on this issue. They are obeying the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, who has spoken through the pope on this issue.
Infallibility? What is happening to my church? Some of our best theologians even recognize this infallibility talk was an unfortunate statement. And now we are resorting to this when the arguments get complicated.
MJO,
The popes office of unity and of confirming the brethren is to be excercised precisely when “arguments get complicated”. His office is what keeps such complicated arguments from rending our Church in pieces, as is currently happening to our mainline Protestant brothers.
“That’s how I see it too. You gotta wonder if at some point you’re going to see men feeling left out and protesting because they can’t get pregnant :)”
The difference between men and women that allows the latter to become pregnant is a matter of biological fact.
Would it be either “oragmatic” of me or “sentimental” of me to ask where the organ that allows transubstantiation is located?
I am not arguing necessarily for the ordination of women, just pointing out that the analogy between the presthood and mother hood is somewhat inconclusive.
Phosphorious,
It is an attribute of the male soul, not a physical organ.
Since we are whole creatures made of body and soul, the analogy holds and is valid.
You gotta wonder if at some point you’re going to see men feeling left out and protesting because they can’t get pregnant.
Indeed.
Is it possible that people who believe they are “men trapped in women’s bodies” (or vice versa) actually have bodies of one gender and souls of the other?
Are women with AIS, who are genetically male but have the outward physical characteristics of females, male or female for purposes of ordination?
A not insignificant number of infants (Wikipedia says 1 in 5000) are born with some sexual ambiguity, and a gender has to be assigned. If there really are male and female souls, how can medical science know the gender of the soul so they can make the proper assignment.
Does the idea of the gender of a soul really make sense?
BA –
Another great clip!
As I said above — obeying papal authority does not — at all — mean saying, “The Pope said it. Case closed.”
One can raise a question, ask for a qualification, propose a matter for discussion, even after it has been deemed a certainty.
If someone said, for example, “I love Jesus but I don’t understand why you say he is the Son of God,” you could list all of the various affirmations from Nicaea onward; and you would be doing nothing at all constructive.
The charitable answer would be to explain why and how people came to believe that Jesus is the Son, is God in the Flesh. This belief did not develop simply because it is the Truth. How did people come to grasp the Truth? To answer that question of course requires explaining the history of Israel, the history of messianic hope, the nature of Jesus’ prayer, the unique nature of the community he founded, the way he anticipated and transformed his death at the Last Supper, his words from the Cross, and the way that community was sustained by the Resurrection…
Note, furthermore, that the most orthodox theologians still find it imperative to expound upon this and other doctrines in order to clarify and deepen our apprehension their meaning. This is eminently permissible and in fact necessary.
We will, until the end of time, be explaining all the ways in which Jesus is the Son of God. This is not a ‘fact’ like other facts, but a portal into the radiant abyss of Truth itself. The doctrinal formulation exists to raise questions, which provoke ever more beautiful answers.
Certainly, this can be done with questions regarding, say, female priests, or the sanctity of marriage. People — especially people who don’t have much experience or education in these matters (which means, the majority of people in the United States) — quite naturally ask questions.
Listening to the Pope — expounding what he says, and — yes — CLARIFYING when necessary — has and will remain the best way to “THINK with the Church.”
Saying “I am so happy I agree and you should agree to, aren’t you Catholic?” is an extremely unloving response to sincere questions.
Funny that the professional bible thumpers aka
Protestants read the same Scripture and funny they do not see
anything prohibiting women from performing priestly duties.
Our male church elders however insist on pontificating as usual and shout out a ‘forceful’: “Women can never …- so sorry – case closed” – yeah real convincing in the year 2008.
It is probably temporarily ‘good’ news for our church that young vibrant women like Katharina to this day buy into this ‘logic’.
For me it ultimately however comes down to: can the church come up with a sufficient number of charismatic Priest?
Certainly here in the West the Church fails to do that.
ben,
David is right in objecting to the notion of a male and female soul. Souls are substantial forms and as such they determine an organism to be of such and such a species, not of such and such a sex. However, I still think the mother/priest analogy holds water. Contra phosphorious, the biological capacity to concieve is just one aspect of what constitutes motherhood. Motherhood in its fullest sense is tied to femininity in such an essential way that a man could never adequately fulfill the office of motherhood.
Funny that the professional bible thumpers aka
Protestants read the same Scripture and funny they do not see
anything prohibiting women from performing priestly duties.
Given 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, this would be funny if true. But it is not. Lots of Protestant churches only have male ministers, and, in any event, virtually no Protestant group believes in having a sacramental priesthood at all, let alone one that includes women.
By the way, I should add that I’m not in the “the Pope said it, so I must believe it” camp. I recognize that different statements by the Pope have levels of authority, and that one might legitimately differ with a view articulated by a Pope if one has a good reason for doing so. It’s just hard for me to see what good reason I would have for disagreeing on this point. It’s not like God has appeared to me in a vision and told me that he hadn’t restricted the priesthood to men.
We will, until the end of time, be explaining all the ways in which Jesus is the Son of God. This is not a ‘fact’ like other facts, but a portal into the radiant abyss of Truth itself. The doctrinal formulation exists to raise questions, which provoke ever more beautiful answers.
You are right that the divinity of Jesus is not a fact like other facts- just as the principle of non-contradiction is not simply a proposition among other propositions. Though the latter can be objectively examined and affirmed as a truthful proposition in its own right [A thing cannot both be and not be in the same respect at the same time] it is also the principle by which stable meaning and human rationality are even possible. As such, Aquinas affirms that it is both a ‘that’ and a ‘that by which’. Just as the principle of non-contradiction is the first principle of speculative reasoning, authoritative church teachings are the first principles of theological reasoning and discourse. Though they can be formulated and examined objectively in their own light [Jesus is divine], they are the ground and foundation of all theological reasoning. The first principles of all types of knowlege are either known in themselves or per se (The principle of non-contradiction is of this type- we know the truth of the principle is true as soon as its constitutive terms are combined in a definition) or are the conclusions of a higher science. Authoritative church teachings are first principles of the latter category. The higher science of which they are conclusions is God’s own knowledge which has been revealed to us (in scripture, tradition, or statements of the magisterium) and they are accepted as true because they are accepted as having been revealed by God, and are not accepted because they are comprehended and found to be true in themselves. Once accepted, they are the principle of subsequent theological reflection. As one reflects on them theologically, they gain a deeper and more profound understanding of them, but in order to come to this appreciation they had to have previously accepted the truth of these propositions as revealed by God. Therefore, you are right that the magisterial statement by the Holy Father regarding women’s ordination does not put and end to the theological debate. Indeed, it is the begining of such a debate. However, the endpoint of such theological reasoning cannot be “women can be ordained” just as the endpoint of speculative reasoning cannot be “a thing can both be and not be in the same respect at the same time.
BA -
I would agree but this is not such a case. This is a quote I found from our current pontiff:
‘Less than a year later, the doctrinal congregation — headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI — issued a declaration saying the church teaching that women cannot be ordained priests belongs “to the deposit of faith” and has been taught “infallibly.”‘
Here is the link:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802904.htm
Br. Matthew,
Men and women are substantially different from one another, and this difference goes back to the beginning when “male and female He created them”. There is no such thing as a human person without gender, this is true both in this world and the next. Why wouldn’t there be a gender differentiation in the soul? Certainly there are other differentiations of the soul. Baptized souls are different from the unbaptized, souls marked by orders are different from those who are not.
Certainly the whole reason the Church cannot ordain women can’t merely have to do with accidental differences between bodies?
ben,
Men and women are substantially different from one another, and this difference goes back to the beginning when “male and female He created them”.
You seem to be using ‘substantially’ here in a colloquial and general sense. I am using the term in the precise philosophical sense in which Catholic theological discourse about the human soul has traditionally taken place. In that precise sense, a substantial form [for humans, the soul] specifies a natural thing as being of a certain nature. If sexual difference is a difference which stems from substantial form, then Jesus could not have redeemed women, for what has not been assumed cannot be redeemed. I see what you are getting at, but I think you are headed in the wrong direction by locating the source of sexual difference in the soul.
yeah real convincing in the year 2008.
I don’t hold the year 2008 in any particularly high esteem.
“Authoritative church teachings are first principles of the latter category. The higher science of which they are conclusions is God’s own knowledge which has been revealed to us (in scripture, tradition, or statements of the magisterium) and they are accepted as true because they are accepted as having been revealed by God, and are not accepted because they are comprehended and found to be true in themselves. Once accepted, they are the principle of subsequent theological reflection.”
The question remains, why have they been ‘accepted as having been revealed by God’ ? The answer ‘it was revealed by God’ will not educate someone who does not understand the doctrine of consubstantiality. The fact is that, consummated by the Resurrection, Jesus’ words and acts revealed Him to be the Word and Act of God. (The Resurrection alone would have been a miracle, not the revelation of God in human form.)
The doctrine had to come AFTER men and women actually experienced Jesus to be who He said He was. But what was the nature of this experience? Why did some believe and some not believe Jesus’ claims? And why did His claims find a full trinitarian expounding by John?
It doesn’t answer these questions to say that the truth of the Trinity, of Jesus’ consubstantiality, is true, or is ‘accepted as having been revealed by God.’ The question is how were human beings able to recognize the revelation? How did God’s Truth enter into us? How did the Spirit act in human minds so as to spread its light?
It didn’t happen by magic, like an ‘inspired zap’ by which the Truth of Sonship was inserted into us. It happened because everything Jesus did and said revealed His divinity. So in order to grasp the very meaning of Sonship, we have to look at what Jesus did and said, and then look at how His words and acts were apprehended. The primal revelation of the Truth about Jesus is the life and action of Jesus. Everything is a response, an expounding, an attempt to explain, that. And no one, not Thomas or any Pope, can have the last word — even if we are grateful that the authority of the Church, in the Spirit, has been able to protect and exfoliate the Truth that it cannot contain.
Von Balthasar’s work is focused on these questions — how revelation is apprehended AS revelation, how “the form” of Jesus — which extends into the pre-history of Israel and also into tho present — is apprehended as being what it is.
Ben,
This assertion is simply not true. See these articles, for example:
http://www.slate.com/id/2102006/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6994580/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/magazine/24intersexkids.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
Or see this http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex
On the matter of everyone being either male or female, see also the American Academy of Pediatrics “Consensus Statement on the Management of Intersex Disorders” at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/2/e488
The incidence of ambiguous gender at birth is around 1 in 2000 or 3000. A significant number of adults have the gender not that they were born with, but that they were assigned. What happens if someone assigned a male body has a female soul or vice versa?
Is same-sex marriage marriage acceptable between two individuals as long as they have opposite-sex souls?
The question remains, why have they been ‘accepted as having been revealed by God’ ?
In order for a person to assent to some tenet of the faith, they must, of course, have at least some rudimentary notion of what is comunicated by the meaning of the tenet. However, it remains the case that for people to assent to the tenet as revealed by God they must do so by the grace of Faith. So yes, I do subsribe to (and the Church teaches) a kind of “inspired zap” theory, though not so crudely put.
The primal revelation of the Truth about Jesus is the life and action of Jesus. It happened because everything Jesus did and said revealed His divinity. So in order to grasp the very meaning of Sonship, we have to look at what Jesus did and said, and then look at how His words and acts were apprehended. The primal revelation of the Truth about Jesus is the life and action of Jesus.
What did Jesus say in response to Peter’s primal act of faith in Christ’s divinity (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:13-16) Did he say, “Blessed are you Peter, for you have correctly recognized that everything I say and do reveals that I am God and have correctly inferred my divinity.”? Or rather, did he say, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”? While it is indeed true that everything Chist says and does reveals his divinity, in order to know that this is the case, we must first know that Jesus is divine.
If there is not and essential difference between men and women, then it is going to be extremely difficult to make a rational case for the reservation of orders to men. You will necessarily be reduced to arguments from authority.
But really it goes deeper than this. If gender really is an accidental difference like skin color, height, weight, handedness, eyecolor, et cetera, then Geradl Naus is fundamentally correct about a large number of things.
Gender must be essential, in the philosophical sense, to the person.
I’m not sure I have the right language to express what I’m getting at here.
I think I migt have to resort to a heirarchical view of being to reconcile my thoughts.
Jesus is able to save women because woman was created out of the side of Adam. By assuming the nature of Adam he assumed that substance from which woman was made.
I’m too much of a neo-platonist.
“Jesus is able to save women because woman was created out of the side of Adam. By assuming the nature of Adam he assumed that substance from which woman was made.”
ben,
What about the other creation account in Genesis?
You will necessarily be reduced to arguments from authority.
While in the human sciences arguments from authority are the weakest, in theology they are most important. In Christianity, “we’ve always done it that way” and “we’ve always believed that” constitute good reasons for action and belief. :)
If there is not and essential difference between men and women, then it is going to be extremely difficult to make a rational case for the reservation of orders to men.
Only if you assume ‘essential’ and ‘important’ are synonymous. Or, conversly, if you assume ‘accidental’ and ‘unimportant’ are synonymous. Just because sexual identity is not determined by our substantial form doesn’t mean that it is unimportant with respect to what we can do and what God calls us to be.
“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”
The question remains how this revelation of God was apprehended. And what was apprehended? “Divinity” is not a thing or an essence that can in ITSELF be apprehended or even known about.
God did not somehow secretly ‘tell’ Peter who Jesus was. Peter knew who Jesus was because he knew Jesus. And that in itself was a miracle, an act of the Father, yes. How did he know Jesus — meaning, God in Jesus?
God is perfect and simple and absolute, therefore not an object, correct? That means divinity, God’s essence, can’t be known about without entering into it, without sharing in it. For Peter to know Jesus as divine meant that he had entered into a relationship with the person of Jesus — and that was how he knew who Jesus was. He knew him because he loved him. Love includes knowledge and action. It was the relation that Jesus, through the Father’s will, instituted with Peter that revealed to Peter who Jesus was. What was that relation? In what did consist? We can read about it in the Gospel — we know how Jesus made Himself known to Peter by loving him. And that was how Peter knew him. He let himself be loved.
“While it is indeed true that everything Chist says and does reveals his divinity, in order to know that this is the case, we must first know that Jesus is divine.”
Are you saying that Peter knew Jesus was divine before knowing Jesus? He could only know Jesus through their shared words and acts, through their relations. How could he know Jesus was divine APART from his actual experience of the man Jesus? You really seem to be saying that Peter could know Jesus was divine before knowing Jesus Himself. This has to be a serious mistake. It is quite anti-incarnational. Jesus is the FULL revelation of the Father. What cannot know something about Jesus because God whispers something in one’s ear ABOUT Jesus.
We have to understand what was attractive about Jesus to understand Jesus. His divinity was APPREHENSIBLE. That was what was taught on Mt Tabor. That does NOT mean that people could look at him and somehow see his divinity, as if this were a visible or invisible “characteristic.” It means HE was divine. The divinity is not a fact about him. It is him — all of him, his body, his words, his acts, his acts in us, all of it. His divinity is not an invisible essence, not a mysterious characteristic, not a divine designation — these would all foreclose the full presence of divinity in the life and act of Jesus, from birth through death and resurrection.
That’s the bottom line: you can’t know Jesus’ divinity without knowing Jesus.
Do you really want to say that Peter knew Jesus was divine APART from all of his knowledge and experience of Jesus of Nazareth, in the flesh?
Mark,
That’s what I struggling with. The other acount seems to suggest (to me at least) that there is an essential difference between men and women since God created man as 2 kinds. The account of the formation of Eve out of Adam seems to suggest that the differences between the sexes are inessential.
I want to have it both ways, but there is that darnes principle of non-contradiction getting in my way.
Br. Matthew,
I get the difference between accidental and unimportant. There are many important accidental differences between an embryo and an 40 year old that make one a possible candidate for orders, but not the other one, but gender does not seem to be in that same category.
I also realize the argument from authority is the best one, I just want to work out the others to glorify God.
Ben,
Your desire to deepen your understanding of God and his revelation is already bringing him glory, so keep up the good work.
G Alkon,
I’ll hopefully be able to address your points sometime this evening. God bless until then.
Ben
Then women could also image Christ.
Of course, in biology, we start out female in the womb in terms of physical characteristics, rather than the other way round….
I would also note that, in the time of Jesus, gender was not always considered more distinctive as being a Gentile – for example, Jewish women had a court closer to the Holy of Holies than Gentiles (including Gentile men). At least for worship at the Temple, being a Gentile was more differentiating than being a woman.
Which is not to prove that the Church can ordain women to the priesthood or episcopate. It’s to illustrate the limits of the arguments offered. So far, “I don’t know” is carrying the day.
“Jesus is able to save women because woman was created out of the side of Adam”
Eve the spare rib ? To what fundamentalist buck-toothed yokel would that be a worthwhile argument ? Sometimes I think online Catholics all graduated from Bob Jones U or somesuch. Fides et irratio.
News flash. Genesis is not exactly historical. Talking, legged snakes hang out with unicorns. ‘Eve’ being a spare rib might qualify her for a cannibal Tony Roma’s, but not really for arguments made by people living in a scientific age. And that’s before we even get to the misogynist aspect of “Eve” being made as “Adam’s” lil helper. Talking about “Adam” as if he really existed is about as silly as claiming “Noah” & Co. were the only people left on the planet 4000 years ago. It wasn’t even written as a literal account. Sheesh. I’d always thought that Catholics had long moved on from literalism. Then again, I’ve had a lot of wrong assumptions.
“Only men can be priests.”
does not mean,
“This is a man’s world! At last, a place where women know their subservient place!”
Agreed?
Well, Gerald. I don’t know who you are or where you were in Eden, but I take God’s word on it. Please think about your Faith, its place in your life, and why you are throwing away your Salvation to satisfy contemporary cultural ideology. Faithful Catholics are not bucktoothed yokels, and being a feminist whipped man doesn’t make you a sophisticated elite.
OK, that was not nice of me and I apologize for my harsh tone, though not for the message. Gerald, guard you heart against Calypso. She will make you forget home. I will pray for you and your wife that you may hear and LISTEN to the voice of God. Please pray I do the same.
As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I laud the Roman Catholic Church stand in not ordaining women priest. Missouri Synod has only male pastors, although there is some agitation for women pastors. The problem is women ordination is usually the first step for openly homosexual ordination.
I am not an intellectual. Unfortunately, rhetoric is not my specialty. So, sorry icannot argue with the poise and agility of some of yall.
But.
A little common sense needs to be invoced here. I wont say that all femenists mean that liberation means equal to men, thus doing everything that a man can do. I work in the construction industry, Im a foreman for large electrical contractor. There are some female electricians, most of whom are zealous that they can do anything that a man can do; they cannot. I sympathize with them. Mostly because they are victims of the said pov. I give them lighter jobs. Would it not be profane to give them a task that only the strongest of men could do? But the attitude is that women can do everything a man can do. What about humility?
Women are the weaker sex. Physically.
(sorry im ranting)
im gonna stop now.
Thanks Br Matthew, I appreciate the exchange –
Just to clarify: we are talking about basic hermeneutics — the identity of Jesus can’t be known apart from the person and the work, AND vice-versa.
Or, in other words, Jesus’s identity as Son can’t be grasped apart from his words and acts and full bodily life; AND his full bodily life and action can’t be seen in all their splendor without grasping who he is, his divinity. It works both ways. It must work both ways. One can’t know Jesus’ divinity apart from Jesus Himself, as bodily living man; one can’t see Jesus’ actual personal living uniqueness apart from recognizing him as Son of the Father.
Still, two points further: 1) no Jew could have known, before Christ, what Sonship actually even meant; there were of course prophecies and premonitions — but these were grasped in retrospect. So the idea of Sonship — the nature of Christ’s identity — was something that had to develop in time, in relation to the words and acts and memory of Christ. 2) Good evidence of this is given by your quotation of Peter’s “recognition” of Christ. For of course this was only a partial recognition — Peter had then only a small understanding of what it meant for Jesus to be Son — that it meant obedience unto death, that it meant abandonment, that it meant the Son would suffer separation from the Father and be made sin for the sinners. Peter’s incomplete understanding of Jesus’ identity is of course evidenced by his willingness to fight to stop Jesus’ capture, etc. So Peter could not have fully “known” yet who Jesus was (is) when he said “you are the Son,” etc.
The point of all of this is that the human grasp of Jesus’ identity as Son is something that HAD to develop in time, that couldn’t have happened by a divine ‘zap’. And that was not needed anyway. Again, the fullness of revelation in Christ means that no other ‘secret’ revelation is required to see God in Christ. What is needed is the power of sight in the Holy Spirit. But that is not an ADDITIONAL revelation; that is the God-in-us who allows us to recognize the God-in-Jesus. It is not an ulterior revelation — it is the divine power to SEE and RECOGNIZE revelation — for our apprehension of divinity must be miraculous.
The action of the Holy Spirit unfolds in time. That is why the Spirit is the guardian of tradition. Tradition is identity-in-difference; it is the love that holds different ideas in together. That is how tradition can actually and substantially grow and change and not lose its living heart. The Holy Spirit allowed Peter to continue to better see and know Jesus for his entire LIFE. And to know Jesus is to be Jesus — for God is known by participating in, by loving, his being.
So Peter spent his life growing into the knowledge and stature of Christ. And that growing has occurred for the Church’s entire history. That is why we can say the Spirit is in the Church.
I’m only going to point out that not all Protestant denominations accept female leadership. This is well illustrated by Henry’s comment above, but even very Reformed and evangelical congregations struggle with the issue. I witnessed a church split not too long ago over the issue.
However, I also think the point is rather moot with regard to Catholic ordination. Most (not all) Protestant congregations do not operate from a sacramental basis, nor understand “ordination” the way Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do.
Oh my, now the Catholic Church is being praised by Missouri Synod Lutherans?! What’s next, Rome entering into agreements with Southern Baptist Convention?!
G Alkon,
Thanks, I too appreciate the exchanges. You’ve thrown a quite a bit of stuff out there for me to digest. Let us see if we can’t get to the crux of our disagreements (and agreements, for that matter).
In response to my first comment, you said, “The question remains, why have they been ‘accepted as having been revealed by God’?” My answer to that question was basically this: God’s gratuitous and unmerited gift of faith.
In response to this you said, “The question remains how this revelation of God was apprehended. And what was apprehended?” I took this “How apprehended?” question to be a new and distinct question; not merely a restatement of the first “Why accepted?” question. You mention that it sounds like I’m suggesting a ‘God whispered in Peter’s ear’ kind of scenario, which makes me suspect that you took my answer to the first question to be more like an answer to the second question. My first answer was an attempt to account for the cause of faith. Now it seems I need to explain the character of the assent of faith (whether Peter’s or any other persons). It is not surprising why someone could see my ‘why’ answer as implying a ‘how’. The reason is this: when we say God is the cause of some effect, we naturally think that he is the sole agent, and that we cannot concomitantly ascribe agency to anyone else. You see this alot in theological debates surrounding scriptural inspiration. Fundamentalists see the scripture scholar’s insistence that the Bible is a human document as a denial of inspiration, while scripture scholars see the fundamentalist’s insistence on the inspiration of scripture as suggesting the quaint scenario of the human agent either being dictated to by God or being ‘taken control of’ by God. Thomistic metaphysics, however, is able to concomitantly affirm both that God is the universal cause and that the actions of human beings are truly their actions, even when those actions fall under, and not merely alongside, God’s Will as the efficacious cause of all being. I’m not sure Balthasar and Barth’s systems are capable of articulating this as clearly. Therefore, Peter recognized Jesus’ divinity not by being told by an outside agent, but, as you say, by observing Jesus’ words and works- through Peter’s experience of Jesus. Because God created Peter, and preserves him at every moment in being, God’s grace can be at work at the very root of Peter’s native faculties (i.e., intellect and will) such that Peter will infallibly recognize and affirm Christ’s identity without destroying the free character of those faculties or making the acts of those faculties any less Peter’s. Similarly, in recognizing and assenting to the tenets of deposit of faith as being true by God’s authority, we use our native faculties freely [and, phenomenologically, such acts seem completely ours- we don’t become God-possessed zombies] even though the act itself is only possible by God’s gratuitous gift. This is what I meant by saying that the “inspired zap” theory was in some sense true, though by saying so I was probably not being very clear or helpful, which is why I added that characterizing it as an “inspired zap” is very crude. Summing things up: No, I do not believe that “Peter knew Jesus was divine APART from all of his knowledge and experience of Jesus of Nazareth, in the flesh”. I hope what I’ve said is somewhat helpful. Now, on to some further thoughts…
“Divinity” is not a thing or an essence that can in ITSELF be apprehended or even known about.
On the contrary, I would say God’s essence is supremely knowable in itself, even though it is supremely unknowable in relation to our limited mode of knowing.
God is perfect and simple and absolute, therefore not an object, correct?
If by ‘object’ you mean something within the realm of created being or thing-like then yes. If by ‘object’ you mean the object of knowledge, then no. Nevertheless, such knowledge can only come about on God’s initiative- or, as you rightly put it, “God’s essence, can’t be known about without entering into it, without sharing in it.” Moreover, this knowledge is never a comprehensive and complete knowledge.
His divinity was APPREHENSIBLE. That was what was taught on Mt Tabor. That does NOT mean that people could look at him and somehow see his divinity, as if this were a visible or invisible “characteristic.” It means HE was divine. The divinity is not a fact about him. It is him — all of him, his body, his words, his acts, his acts in us, all of it. His divinity is not an invisible essence, not a mysterious characteristic, not a divine designation — these would all foreclose the full presence of divinity in the life and act of Jesus, from birth through death and resurrection.
I think I would be more comfortable saying his humanity was apprehensible, and in apprehending his humanity his divinity was apprehended, though in a dark and veiled way. (“He who has seen me has seen the Father” Jn 14:9 and “We seen now as through a mirror darkly, but then face to face” 1 Cor 13:12) Moreover, though Jesus, as the eternally begotten Son, shares the divine nature with the Father, I don’t think the life of Christ is the only place in which that divinity is manifest. It is also manifest, though in a dim way, in Creation, through which we can know God’s existence and certain divine attributes such as unity, simplicity, goodness, impassibility, etc. Moreover, certain attributes of the divine nature can be known through God’s revelation prior to Christ. However, such knowledge of the divine nature was not sufficient to “recognize” Jesus as divine. This is shown by the stubborn resistance of the experts on the Law and the experts in pagan wisdom (“…a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks.”) Rather, Jesus was recognized as divine by way of God’s grace and this graced recognition provided us with an insight into the divine nature which was impossible short of the incarnation. God was now revealed as a communion of persons and as self-sacrificing love and this new revelation animated and colored everything we thought we knew about God previously. Now the Old Testament was understood under the aspect of the coming Christ. Now God’s essential attributes were colored by this self-revelation in the person of Jesus.
I’m hesitant to disagree with my esteemed brother Matthew Augustine, and even more so with my more-esteemed brother Thomas Aquinas, but I have to point out that the human person as seen in Catholic theology does muddy the crystal clarity of classical hylomorphic (form-matter) theory.
One of these muddy points is that the human soul, aka the substantial form, subsists after death without a material body. This would seem to imply that the principle of individuation (the reason we are not all exactly the same) lies in the soul, rather than in the matter, as in all other hylomorphic beings.
The question of sex and Holy Orders is another muddying point. If Holy Orders is restricted to men, then there must be something essential to Holy Orders which requires something distinctively masculine. If the principle of individuation lies in the human soul, then the principle of sex (which is one aspect [not sure if that's the right word] of the individual) would be found in the soul as well.
Not being an expert on Thomistic physics, metaphysics, anthropology, or anything else, I hesitate to state more than this: it seems that the hylomorphic language is limited and perhaps insufficient to answer these questions clearly.
What I would say is this: the only reason Jesus or the Apostles or the Magisterium of the Church defended from fault by the Holy Spirit would restrict Holy Orders to men is that it is somehow true to the nature of Holy Orders to be given to men, and false to the sacrament to be applied to women. We can and should question and explore why this would be so, and (as with all mysteries) expect to continue to find more food for inquiry as we discover more and deeper aspects of the truth. But the only answer to whether it is so lies in the authority of God who created man and woman and the sacrament of Holy Orders. That authority is made known to us through the Magisterium, and to question the authority of the Magisterium is to question the authority by which we know all that we know of Christ and the Holy Spirit. This requires an act of faith — not blind faith, but not faith that sees everything or perfectly clearly, either. Faith does not oppose reason, but it asks more than reason can conclude by its own power. Faith is placed in a person: in this case, in the person of the Holy Spirit and in the persons of the saints and bishops and doctors of the Church who claim to speak with his voice.
So, despite the fact that I find none of the arguments either for or against women’s ordination to be conclusively convincing to mere reason, I believe the authoritative statements from the Magisterium (including JP2′s statement) and seek to understand why rather than arguing about whether.
So, despite the fact that I find none of the arguments either for or against women’s ordination to be conclusively convincing to mere reason, I believe the authoritative statements from the Magisterium (including JP2’s statement) and seek to understand why rather than arguing about whether.
Well stated. I believe that infallibility is an absurdity, and episcopal authority is entirely man-made, but yours is a position I respect, even if we disagree.
Thanks for backing me up Br. Robert.
It is not anyone’s contention here that the current position of the Catholic Church on the ordination of women involves an infallible teaching of the Church on the nature of men and women, is it?
More people should declare themselves infallible. It’s fun. If someone argues with you, you can say “Nuh uh! I’m infallible!” – “Oh, crap.” Of course if everyone did it, it’d lose its effectiveness.
Thanks Br Matthew, I see that I misunderstood what you were saying and that we are on the same page on the issues of revelation and recognition, etc. I still think we probably wouldn’t agree on the degree to which the nature of revelation implies a temporal dynamic of apprehension and assent, and therefore a certain necessary dialectic of heresy and dispute and re-affirmation. I say this without meaning to challenge the nature of Church authority, exactly. But it does indeed disturb me that we see notions of infallibility and unquestioning obedience thrown around a bit unthinkingly, when we all know that Catholic popes over the 2000 year history of the church did many things that God would have positively required Christians to resist. The miraculous nature of the papal guardianship of Christian Truth does not mean that this or that pope, this or that curia, was not gravely misled and worse…
I don’t believe that it is anyone’s contention that the current position of the Catholic Church on the ordination of women involves an infallible teaching of the Church on the nature of men and women. However, several people believe that the teaching that ordination is reserved to men alone is an infallible teaching.
My personal belief is that this is likely because there is a difference between the nature of men and women, but the Church has not spoken infallibly on that topic.
If a woman feels called to the priesthood, nowadays there are many ways for her to fulfill part of her vocation. She can use the media to teach, she can use the moral authority coming from her wisdom to possibly lead others. Only the sacraments are off. Why insist on being ordained and thus create divisions? It is clearly a controversial topic. Why not wait a few generations until it (perhaps) becomes straightforward and consensual? No great harm done to any individual person, as I see it.
Allowing married priests has a much greater urgency in my view. It would, I suspect, help prevent sexual abuse and make for many happier priests (as well as possibly spur vocations). It would make a big difference for many priests’ lives. The celibacy vows are causing great harm!
Would it be either “oragmatic” of me or “sentimental” of me to ask where the organ that allows transubstantiation is located?
It is an attribute of the male soul, not a physical organ.
Unlike many of the commenters here, I imagine, I’m not one to throw around the term “heresy” lightly. But attributing the sacramental change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ to the male soul is indeed heresy.
MJO – This thread shows how many Catholics, especially those who have come to the RC Church from Protestant churches, simply operate with a Catholic version of biblical fundamentalism. And that they do not want to continually engage tradition and ecclesial practice with the Gospel to see if we can be more faithful to it. They would rather invent shoddy, mindless theological justifications for current Church practice such as “[transubstantiation] is an attribute of the male soul.”
It is not anyone’s contention here that the current position of the Catholic Church on the ordination of women involves an infallible teaching of the Church on the nature of men and women, is it?
It certainly, unfortunately, seems that way.
If a woman feels called to the priesthood, nowadays there are many ways for her to fulfill part of her vocation. She can use the media to teach, she can use the moral authority coming from her wisdom to possibly lead others. Only the sacraments are off.
Clare, are you married? How would you like to be “allowed” to fulfill only “part” of the vocation of marriage? Think of a marriage in which, for example, the man “allowed” the woman to cook for him, to clean the house, to fulfill his sexual needs, and denied the fullness of his wife’s humanity, denied procreation, etc.
Why insist on being ordained and thus create divisions?
In one sense I agree with you. I can’t stand the tactics of groups like “WomenPriests” who conduct faux ordinations. They’re false and destructive and rely on a faulty ecclesiology (or none at all). However, one could say that the division is not caused by those Catholics who desire the inclusion of women to the priesthood, but by ecclesial practices which are exclusionary.
In the above example of the “partially fulfilled” sacrament of marriage, one could ask, “why insist on your full personhood as a woman and a wife? Why create division in your marriage by insisting upon your human dignity?”
Which heresy is it?
Which heresy is it?
Not sure if it would have an official name, since the idea is so freaking bizarre.
Michael & Ben
I believe it is not accurate to state that the Church teaches that the soul has sex. Aquinas himself, according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, distinguished the qualites of soul and body thusly:
1. The rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311;
2. The soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;
3. Though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism.
The last point would seem to eliminate the idea of the soul being essentially sexed.
And this anthropological point would seem to be confirmed by the angelogical parallel (since the study of angels is often with a view to the study of mankind by comparison and contrast): angels have immortal and intelligent souls but no sex because they have no bodies.
To be quite clear here, I would not say that transubstatiation is an attribute of the male soul, but that the capacity to recive orders is an attribute of the male soul. The capacity to transubstantiate bread into the Body of Crhist would have more to do with the effect that reciveving orders has on the human person.
Considering the Church has always maintained that only men can recieve orders, it does not seem bizarre. Clearly Br. Robert who opined on this question above doesn’t seem to think it too bizarre.
I should add as a clarification that, in treating the issue of the whether women may validly receive orders, Aquinas leaves undisturbed the objection in the affirmative (that is, saying they may) that the soul does not have sex, but rests his reply to the objections pretty impossibility of the female sex to signify eminence of degree because women are in the state of subjection.
That reply would not have been much gainsaid in Aquinas’ day, but leaves something to be desired today and thus where the need for development.
So there is no such thing as a “male soul” but there are male bodies, female bodies, and, as we are learning, intersexual bodies.
I would not say that transubstatiation is an attribute of the male soul
Considering the Church has always maintained that only men can recieve orders, it does not seem bizarre.
But what IS bizarre was your initial statement that transubstantiation is an “attribute of the male soul.” That statement is both bizarre and heretical. But you corrected it.
Liam I do think you’re right that sex is part of what it means to be embodied souls.
Liam,
I would agree the soul is not sexed, which is why I have used the term gendered. Gender is broader than the corporeal extension of the body.
For instance, going way back to whomever it was who spoke about inter-sex babies; I think the fact that so much care must be taken do diagnose and correct the physical defect of children born with confusing genitals, and the fact that it can be done incorrectly and the child can be “assigned” the worng sex, points towards the reality of a gendered soul.
What I’d like to know is why ANYone would quote Aquinas ! (Well, the not (yet) embarrassing parts, that it)
Aquinas views women, following Aristotle, as defective, as “something that is not intended but is caused by a defect” (II sent. 20,2,1,1; De verit. 5,9 ad 9)
One reason for women to come into being to begin with (S.Th I q 92 a1) are humid winds blowing from the South because they produce humans with a bigger water percentage, ie women – which is, because water, uh, makes waves, why women are so fickle. Quote from S. Th. III q42 a.4 ad5): Because women contain more water, they can be seduced more easily by sexual lust.”
Resisting seductions if particularly tough on them because they possess less intelligence than men. He agrees with his teacher, Albertus Magnus (!) who thought that North winds produced men, because North winds are pure and cleanse the air. Woman as a product of pollution.
Women do not correspond to the “first intention of nature” but rather to the secondary, namely “foulness, deformity and weakness of old age” (S. Th. Suppl. q52a, a. 1 ad2). But, hey women have one use after all – giving birth. (S. Th. I q 92a a.1). Other than that, the company of men is preferable. Says the celibate monk.
He also thinks children should love the father more than the mother: “because he is the active principle of conception, the mother the passive”. He also thinks that men have the ‘nobler part in the marital act and this is why he has to blush less when he demands the marital duty than the woman. (S. Th. Suppl. q64 a.5 ad2)
This general submission is also the reason why they can’t be priests (S. Th. Suppl q.39 a1)
The only way to rise to the level of the man ? By becoming a widow or remaining a virgin (promoventur in dignitatem virilem)
Well oorah ! Now THERE is someone whose opinion matters.
Above quotes translated from the phenomenal, the one, the only Uta Ranke-Heinemann’s Eunuchen fuer das Himmelreich (Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven). Uta wipes the floor with the chauvinists, baby!
For some reason I am thinking of Georg Buechner’s famous cry “Peace to the huts, war to the palaces!” (Friede den Huetten, Krieg den Palaesten !)
Br. Robert,
There are certainly theological issues where Aristotelian physics seems to be insufficient or limited in terms of its explanatory power. Transubstantiaton and the soul’s seperation after death are two such issues. Following Aquinas, I think it would be better to just admit that, from this particular philosophical paradigm, we cannot seem to make much sense of the situation rather than jumping to certain hasty conclusions. For instance, if problems surrounding the seperated soul implies that the soul is the principle of individuation, we would essentially be abandoning a major and crucial tenet of Aristotelian-Thomistic thought. Rather than doing so, perhaps we could examine the issue from another philosophical or theological perspective- for instance, Personalism might be more fruitful with regard to understanding such issues surrounding Holy Orders.
Heresy is the rejection of certain aspects of the deposit of faith. While Ben may be incorrect with regard to the human soul, I don’t see how he is denying any particular dogma within the deposit of faith. With regard to Ben’s line of thought, it isn’t without precedent: Scotus believed humans had more than one substantial form- one for the soul and one for the body. That said, I’m not sure he would say that the soul is the principle of the particular sex of an individual- that souls are sexed. Somebody more well versed in Scotus would have to answer that.
Gerald
I quoted Aquinas to demonstrate that even he does not go so far as what was speculated earlier in this thread. Even with that Aristotelian biology.
Yes, Liam. It just reminded me how often Aquinas is cited as the be-all and end-all, when in reality he held the most absurd, insulting opinions. If someone wants to be a diehard thomist – only missionary position for you :P I’m just in the middle of the Heinemann book and can’t shut up about it :) Alas, I’m driving to Oregon now, so I’ll be gone for the day =)
Ben
“Gendered” soul is the same thing as “sexed” soul. You’ve used different words for the same thing. (Unless you really meant “gender” in its strictly grammatical sense, in which case I would have other objections, namely confusion of categories…).
As for intersexual persons, as I noted way up towards the beginning of the thread, we can be glad that Genesis 1 describes the sex of humanity conjuntively rather than disjunctively…but it does mean we should be a bit shy of assuming that *every individual* person is either simply male or female as a biological matter of fact.
Gerald,
If you are going to write off all philosophers or theologians who ever said anything incorrect or silly, you are going to be working with a pretty limited corpus (like, none at all). Be careful lest someone apply the same standard to you. Should we cease listening to anything you say because you have held false beliefs or said strange things? Moreover, a good number of your qoutations (from the supplement) were not even written by Thomas- and attributing such beliefs about women to the fact that he was a celibate “monk” (he was a friar) is a little misleading given that such beliefs were common amongst the celibate and non-celibate alike.
Heresy is the rejection of certain aspects of the deposit of faith. While Ben may be incorrect with regard to the human soul, I don’t see how he is denying any particular dogma within the deposit of faith.
The “heresy” that I was referring to was the idea that the priest’s “male soul” is the source of transubstantiation. The “male soul” part is, of course, wrong, but the heretical part, I think, is attributing the eucharistic change to the priest himself and not to the Triune God. But Ben corrected himself.
Gerald
I object to the reduction of Aquinas to that caricature. If you are at all progressively inclined, you owe an enormous debt to him and others like him. For without their work, the very scientific method you probably prize would not have developed with a similar assurance that reason and faith are fundamentally friendly rather than in emnity. If you would like to see a faith tradiiton where that development was not developed as much as it needed to be developed (though it started development before the age of the Schoolmen), look to Islam, where it fell apart as far as the larger culture was concerned.
I have my relatively modern and not terribly learned critiques of limitations of the assumptions of the Schoolmen. But I would hope to know better than to reduce their work to those assumptions.
Liam,
Anachronistically pointing out ancient and medieval philosophy’s (shocking!- they should have known better!) blindspots with regard to biology and gender is easier than bothering to engage them.
Br. Matthew Augustine, I hope my conclusion that the hylomorphic language raises certain problems is not a hasty one. I agree that other approaches might be more appropriate, and I think that the personalist work of JP2, esp. in his Theology of the Body addresses, lays some groundwork for this. Though personalism has its limitations as well.
Ultimately, since both the human person and the sacraments are mysteries, I think we’ll find every form of description to have some insights and some limitations. Such is the finite nature of human thought and language.
The limits that seem to be cropping up here, esp. with Ben, Liam, and MJI, regard the relationship of soul to body. One of the great insights of hylomorphic language is that the body is the fulfillment and complete manifestation of the soul, that the soul and body are not separate substances from each other, but that the soul naturally expresses itself bodily. But clearly not every aspect of the body is simply or exclusively an “attribute” of the soul; many aspects of the body are determined by environment, for example.
I think it’s an interesting philosophical question whether sex is determined by the soul, just as it’s an interesting question about the relationship of recombinant DNA to the unique creation of each individual soul. I have no idea what the answers are. But I do see some significance for the question of why ordination is restricted to men.
Again, I return to the need for a foundation of intellectual humility. These are questions that we can explore, but never fully comprehend; they deal with matters that are bigger than we are, larger than mere reason. This is why the only final answers rely on revelation rather than rational argument. And Gerald, Aquinas is not the be-all or end-all; but he is perhaps the most excellent starting point we have to avoid re-inventing wheels and so on.
I hope my conclusion that the hylomorphic language raises certain problems is not a hasty one.
No, that conclusion is definitely not hasty. Saying that the substantial form is the principle of individuation, however, would be. I guess I misunderstood you there.
But clearly not every aspect of the body is simply or exclusively an “attribute” of the soul; many aspects of the body are determined by environment, for example.
I’m not sure any aspect of the body is an attribute of the soul- I realize you are using the term loosly, given the quotes. A body is a substance which has two principles- a form and matter. The form is the principle of its actuality and universality. Its matter is the principle of its potentiality and particularity (such as the fact that it is of this particular sex).
BTW, its good to talk to you. I miss disputing with you over dinner in the refectory.
Br. Matthew Augustine,
I also miss our disputations. I’m not sure this is the place for it, but perhaps our philosophizing will be useful to other readers. Maybe I’ll post something about this on my own blog.
I guess the nit I’m picking at is the simple equating of soul and substantial form. I see no reason to doubt that the soul is the form of the person (I’m reserving “body” for the physical manifestation of the person), but I’m hesitant to limit the soul to being only and merely a substantial form. Liam stated above, citing the old Catholic Encyclopedia, “The soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance,” which is a muddy concept if ever there was one. Certainly we hold that the soul persists after the death of the body, whereas a mere substantial form does not persist after a substantial change in the substance.
Moreover, each soul is unique, and while it is by our soul that each individual human participates in the universal of human nature, it is also by our soul that we are the unique person that each of us is. This uniqueness does not seem to be lost in death or in resurrection. (Our Lord is still Jesus of Nazareth, even after his resurrection, and his resurrected body bears the unique marks of his mortal experience.) So it seems to me that we are individuated in our souls in some way. As you say, this individuation is not from the substantial form; so I am led to think that there is something more than mere substantial form involved when we talk about the soul.
I’m also reluctant to relegate sex to being “merely” an accident, or merely a material property — at least in the human person. When I ask, “If I had been born a woman, would I be the same person?” my instinctive answer is, No. My person, my being who and what I am, is defined in part by being masculine. And, again, if the soul is the principle of the person, the entire person, then it seems at least possible that the soul is sexed in some way.
I’ll grant that our Lord’s words, “They will be like angels, neither marrying nor giving in marriage,” may imply that in heaven we will not be sexed, and that therefore the soul is not sexed either. But I would find such an interpretation to be speculative rather than conclusive.
If I get a chance, I’ll post something on my own blog, and link to it from this thread, so that we can continue this tangent there. Till then, God bless!
Here’s a speculative question to go along with that: is being (or not being) an identical twin more or less defining of who a person is?
Our Lord is still Jesus of Nazareth, even after his resurrection, and his resurrected body bears the unique marks of his mortal experience.
And yet there are several accounts of post-Resurrection encounters in which those who knew Jesus well (for example, Mary Magdalene) don’t recognize Jesus. And it’s not because he looks otherworldly, since Mary Magdalene thinks he is the gardener.
I can respect and appreciate Br. Roberts way to frame the issue – however since I do actually think that the authoritarian structure of our church is more than ripe to be tossed into the Tiber in our day and time Papal declarations and musings do not do it for me. And JPII in my view was a particularly murky thinker. For me it does also not add up when on one hand recent Popes like JPII and Benedict XVI clearly relate to God to a large extend through the Virgin Mary yet they consider actual real mothers and women not worthy of the apostolate.
Our church desperatly needs charismatic priests.
What I saw happening in Europe during my recent visit is that due to the lack of actual Priests , Lay people take matters into their own hands . Women and men lead in the rosary. They schedule their own time to worship and pray. The actual Priests is forced to hopp from one church to the next and is clearly rushed and overwhelmed. It is not a pretty sight from the perspective of the official church.
Lay people will force the equality they come to appreciate in their regular life upon the monsignores.
Respect for church authority has to be earned – for me Vatican II was lost ever since Humanae Vitae. Ever since we have a drain out of the priesthood of fine Priests that clearly would have loved to be married and live normal instead of this artificial silly and unantural celibate lifestyle.
These days we have plenty of barely closeted weak Priests – big surprise.
I would like to see more charismatic normal people of both gender as priests rather than this tossed mix of lonely, tired, uninspiring men – often with issues – guys that would not make it far in the real world but are deemed sufficient to head huge parishes.
I would like to see more charismatic normal people of both gender as priests rather than this tossed mix of lonely, tired, uninspiring men – often with issues – guys that would not make it far in the real world but are deemed sufficient to head huge parishes.
Ouch.
Br. Robert,
We’ll have to take up this question with Fr. Kromholtz sometime.
Ah, charisma. Roman culture – from well before the Christian era – has traditionally tried to separate authority from charisma. The marriage of power with charisma more or less tends towards abuse (as we know from the sexual abuse scandal – predators tend to be gifted with charisma). I know many communities that, while they thrive briefly under charismatic leadership, suffer terribly when the charismatic leader departs. It’s not usually worth the pain.
The Roman way is the relatively dry way (as in spiritual dryness) – learning to take responsibility for growth without the regular consolations of charisma. And that is a more mature way. It’s just very alien to the latter-day American-type cultural addiction to charisma.
Btw, when was the last time you witnessed homilies and catechesis that really grappled with spiritual dryness (not merely to comfort them away)? Most mature Christians experience it but no longer with much knowledge of the what or why of it. We’re busy spending lots of effort trying to elide it – but it’s an important part of The Way for most souls.
Anyway, this is an elliptical way of explaining why in the ROman way charismatic curates typically stay as curates and why dull but competant administrators are more likely to become pastors, bishops and popes.
I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again. The problem with the current, and new, arguments against the notion that female human beings are valid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders (dreamt up to replace the old ones that women were invalid matter due to their inferiority and inherent subjection), is that they are unbalanced. Thus:
Everything that is held to be uniquely and inherently female can be symbolically appropriated by men (who can genderbend and play the part of the “bridal” laity in the pew), but everything that is held to be uniquely and inherently male CANNOT be symbolically appropriated by women (who thus cannot genderbend and play the part of the “groomal” clergy at the altar). This is unequal, unfair, and incoherent.
(If anyone tires to justify it with a chromosome argument I’ll bop them on the nose!)
It leads ultimately to a picture of God as inherently male and creation as inherently female, and puts the imago dei status of women qua women seriously in question.
Groups like the Moravians who went for this sort of picture in centuries past, rapidly got up to all sorts of weird interpretations of their bedroom antics. This happens in some Jewish mystical circles as well.
There may be a good argument for the postion that a woman is no more valid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders than a pumpkin, but I’ve yet to hear one, and the current von Bathasar/JPII argument isn’t it.
Having said this I generally dislike the neo-modernists who like to point these sorts of things out, and think it a matter to be left until the next ecumenical council that follows reunion with the Orthodox (who, if they do not simply use the “ugh, menstural blood! run!” type of argument, are much more less dogmatic about this than we might think, especially in Greece and the Western Orrthodox diaspora: see Elisabeth Behr-Siegel, or Kallistos Ware, who has changed his mind on that subject). Arguments on this subject must revolve around Christology and the Chalcedonian Definition, not shrill rhetoric about “equal rights”
Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Pope John Paul II: “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.”
This is an infallible statement by the Supreme Pontiff
This is an infallible statement by the Supreme Pontiff
Actually, no, the statement itself does not follow the formula for infallible statements. But, you are right that when JPII used the term “definitively held,” he (and the later CDF document explaining the pope’s statement) was referring to what he understood to be the consistent teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, i.e. that all bishops have been unanimous and in communion on the issue, thereby making the prohibition of women’s ordination an infallible teaching of the Church. But, as I understand it, that is precisely what is disputed in discussions of whether the teaching is infallible — have the bishops really been in communion on the issue? There is plenty of evidence that they were/are not.
Wow, a lot to digest here. Where to begin…
First, I see that much of the debate has led to either accounts of Genesis or to hylomorphism to try and rationally articulate the reason why Orders should be reserved for men.
The problem with these approaches seems to me that no one has explicitly addressed a crucial dimension: hermeneutics. The creation accounts of Genesis were inspired within a specific, contingent, culturally unique (ancient Jewish) conception of human nature. The relative values and manners of parsing masculinity and femininity, and how the soul is related to the body and gender, function on a horizon that is not necessarily our own. Nor does it neatly correspond to Medieval notions. We need not adopt these conceptions, but in order to fully understand what is being Revealed in these accounts, we are forced to engage with that unique, imbedded horizon of understanding. The same holds for hylomorphic conceptions of human nature. The great advantage of the Aristotelian view is its far more phenomenological, far more realist capacity to explain the dynamics of the human condition as it is lived, ie. embodied. But as with physical science, the Aristotelian categories encounter phenomena they cannot fully articulate, and if they are to survive a “crisis of tradition,” are forced to expand beyond their current conceptual resources.
I am by no means historicist. But the “embedded” nature of these conceptual frameworks should guard us against any shallow exegesis of the creation accounts, perhaps reading into them anachronistically Platonic/Aristotelian conceptions that have since become cut-out and abstracted from their lived contexts. We approach these concepts from quite different perspectives, and in order to understand the value they have for us, we engage in both opening our own horizons to be alterred and shaped by them and for them to be evolved and modified by our hoirzons. It is a dialogical process and has no easy, a priori way to explain how things will unfold.
An example is Aquinas’ use of the hylomorphic conception. I agree with him on so many points: Aristotle had given us a means of explaining the body-soul relation far more accurately than the Platonic school. But, as has been noted, in his “materialism,” it is entirely incoherent to conceive of the soul (as substantial form) enduring in existence apart from the dying body. Yet Aquinas as Christian theologian has inherited a Biblical theology born of Babylonian and Hellenistically-influenced Judaism, having conceived of both bodily resurrection as well as a state of the post-mortem existence of the soul. In attempting to synthesize this with the Aristotelian framework, he is forced to combine it with a bit of Plato, walking a middle path. He must then explain the post-mortem existence of the soul as in a sense “unnatural” and an “incomplete” manner of existence. In fact, according to the Aristotelian logic, as disembodied souls experiencing the Beatific Vision, WE do not actually exist (because you and I ARE embodied subjects, and what we mean by “you” and “I” are not souls). He is then (though I could be mistaken) forced to conclude that saints like Peter do not actually exist until the resurrection of their bodies, and we do not actually pray to Peter, but rather to what amounts to a metaphysical “part” of Peter.
Suffice it to say, I find this element of the synthesis as failing to do justice to the Biblical Revelation. This I would deem as an inadequate “translation” or mediation of the First Century Jewish concepts with the Medieval-Aristotelian.
This is one example where truly understanding Revelation demands that the tradition expand its horizons of understanding beyond hylomorphism to a more sophisticated mediation of the Jewish concepts. The same, I dare say, would seem to apply to sexuality.
The fact that Aquinas was forced, in order to rectify Hellenistic philosophy with the world-view of Biblical Judaism, to combine Aristotelian and Platonic accounts of the soul seems to raise questions about its capacity to explain sexuality. It would seem that a strong notion of Aristotelian realism would utterly deny any imlicitly dualist way of talking about body and soul. To act as though your soul is a genderless thing hovering inside you that has been draped by matter with genetalia is Platonically begging the question. The matter is only only ever male or female because it is ensouled matter, informed matter. The soul only ever actually exists as embodied, as enfleshed with sexuality (whatever that may be). Body and soul are just principles, and its rather pointless to even go around attributing to them things its only meaningful to attribute to the subject they make up (even if they are “that by which” a certain characteristic comes about). To conceive of the body without the soul or the soul without the body is to dwell in unreal abstractions. There is simply no such thing.
Things get sticky when Christian tradition posits a notion of post-mortem existence of the soul. Now the soul must be conceived of not only as a form but also as a “thing.” Now language that was meaningless to Aristotle becomes necessary. The abstractions (one of them at least) is no longer just an abstraction. We are forced to ask to what extent this enduring existent “thing” is or is like the embodied “us.” But if its possible to talk about a soul apart from the elements of embodiment, it seems possible, and appropriate, to conceive of it as sexless. Something that was metaphysically a part of us endures in existence and apart from our bodies.
As Aquinas held that the soul was not the form of sexuality, it follows that the disembodied soul cannot meaningfully be conceived of as gendered. But at the same time, nor can it (seemingly) meaningfully be conceived of as “US!” Technically, the fully human subject does not exist beyond death, but “that by which” he/she is a fully human subject does. Now this is described by St. Thomas as an “incomplete” state of existence, which it surely is in the Biblical world view. But how accurately does it do justice to that world view? Further, does it do justice to our contemporary world-view, or at least our more developed ways of thinking about consciousness and mind-body?
More to come…..
Pax Christi,
A quick note: Alasdair MacIntyre described this area of Thomas to me as something like the following. We are not our souls (souls are but the form by which we are human beings). But we are bodies. Not Cartesian machines: as human, we “are” just ensouled/informed bodies. That’s simply what it is to be human (definition). So when I pointed out that the disembodied state of experiencing the Beatific Vision is, techincally, NOT experienced by “Us,” and that what is said to be man’s ultimate happiness is technically not experienced by what is by definition a human (we do not see God), he responded: “that is quite true, which means that according to Thomas, in that state of beatitude you have only incompletely achieved your final good as a human being.” Something like that.
Anyways, sorry for the tangent. Perhaps the good Dominicans can clear that up for us.
More to follow actually dealing with women and ordination…
Pax Christi,
I’m sad to see that this conversation has drifted away from the main topic (hi ho hi ho off to genderless abstraction we go!) but nonetheless that hasn’t stopped it from being interesting!
I have often wondered why we feel the need to speak of an immortal soul in the first place. Surely the statement “the ‘soul’ (whatever it is) survives the death of the body need not necessarily imply that the soul is immortal, from a Christian point of view? Surely all it should imply is that the soul survives for the duration between death and resurrection? In other words, even if the soul survived the death of the body, without the resurrection at the eschaton, even the soul would perish? [If this has been formally condemned, please let me know!]
Please let me know what you think, especially all you learned Dominicans out there!
Stuart:
The immortality of the soul is complex; however, it has been defined to be immortal (Fifth Lateran Council).
Things are, to be sure, complex. The reality of humanity is that we are to be in bodies. When the soul, the personality, continues after death, it is in part a gift from God (hence, why the early Christians would point to our dependence on God for our continued existence), yet it is a gift inherent to the essence of soul itself.
The kicker, however, is that this existence is an existence in death; even in beatitude the soul is not all that we are meant to be, and it is an imperfect, even mirky existence. The resurrection is necessary for us to be true to ourselves.