Best Response To Give Feminst On No Women Priest

[Gorgias]

To be rational and to have hair are of the essence of the thing–it is what humans are.

To be rational is certainly the definition of what it means to be human.

To have hair? Not so much. I know many bald folks… and they’re definitely human.

 

[Magnanimity]

It didn’t keep him from the other things that the “patriarchal society” forbade – like conversing in the open with Samaritans, and women, and women to whom you’re not related, to boot! We’re willing to tout Christ’s open-mindedness in these situations… but in the same breath, we’re going to say that He was constrained by society? C’mon… I don’t know how many folks buy that line of reasoning!

I’m sure many do. As a rabbi, he would read in temple (as rabbis did). Christ was not so “other” that he would not follow the customs of the time and place into which he performed his ministry. Sometimes, he was counter-norm, to be sure. In other senses, he was doing what those around him did. One foot in, one foot out. There is no evidence to suggest that every move he made was contrary. So, in a way, I’m not even sure that JP2 means by the statement, “Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time.” If one is in history, as He was, there is no way of acting that does not take into account sociological and cultural peculiarities…

 

[Gorgias]

I’m sure many do.

I agree with you. And, I wonder, how many of them buy into it because they want it to be true for the sake of allowing women to be ordained?

There is no evidence to suggest that every move he made was contrary.

On the other hand, nearly the entirety of His teaching ministry was about telling the Pharisees, “you’ve got it wrong – here’s what God really wants!” If He was willing to do that, and He didn’t change the notion of a male priesthood, how do we read that decision? (I think the answer tends to say more about the person answering than about what Jesus intended… )

 

[Magnanimity]

However He wasn’t trapped by the culture.

No doubt. That would be a very strong claim, and I’m certainly not making it. However, there is a difference between being ‘trapped’ by culture and having one’s behavior be ‘historically-conditioned.’ Like the book of Hebrews emphasizes, Christ lived a fully human life, doing things we do, tempted like we are. He was fully human, here on Earth during a certain (patriarchal) time-period. He was fully God, of course, but he didn’t float around on the air. Not trapped but not ignoring Jewish cultural norms either.

 

[Magnanimity]

I agree with you. And, I wonder, how many of them buy into it because they want it to be true for the sake of allowing women to be ordained?

True enough. I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I don’t have personally strong feelings whether it’s one gender at the alter or both. I just wanted an answer to the question - what is it about ‘maleness’ (what quality) that makes that gender particularly suited to serve at the alter (and the other gender not suited).

BTW, I listened to two long lectures by Sr. Butler on YouTube. She definitely knows her stuff and gives the reasons mentioned in the JP2 letter. I didn’t hear quite what I was looking for, but she does a good job of making the “sacramental sign” argument. That is, as a male, the priest standing in persona christi is a physical sign (since Christ was male) during the eucharistic prayer. And being a sign is part and parcel to all sacraments. It’s a good point, and maybe that’s as “essential” a point as the church can offer at this time.