Catholic Sexual Ethics

[PJD1987]

Hello everyone,

This is a follow up to my first thread on this issue, link here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=636678&highlight=Catholic+Sexual+Ethics

As stated in that thread, I am taking a class at my university that is supposed to be about Catholic Sexual Ethics. I know I should approach it with an open mind and realize we’re tackling the issues from an “academic” perspective, but alas, I find it very difficult to do. It seems to me that this class isn’t much about learning what or why the Catholic Church teaches what it does, but instead reading Encyclicals and Apostolic Letters and then pulling them apart to determine why they don’t make sense.

It is not a very Catholic friendly environment, and I am trying my best to just get through it. In any case, we read Mulieres Dignitatem this past week and a chapter from a book by a “progressive, liberal” Catholic, Kevin T. Kelly that advocates for women priests and I gave the standard defense of why we can’t have women priests, namely that we don’t have authority to do so. (This by the way was something I read on a thread here once, cannot remember where.) In any event, I was taken aback by the fact that this argument apparently rings hollow when Matthew 16:19 is thrown in your face. If “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven,” then why don’t we have the authority to create women priests? The “Jesus was a man, and thus a woman cannot stand in persona Christi” argument was shot down by the professor, by the way, because, “Well the focus, seems to me, to always have been on Jesus’ humanity and not necessarily his masculinity, that God humbled himself to become one with humanity”

This is all also in the context of Casti Conubii and Mulieres Dignitatem and the “changing” teaching of the Church on the role of women. And what exactly does it mean to be a man and a woman, and JPII’s emphasis on Ontological Complementarity and gender roles. And if it is ordained that men and women have different roles to fulfill, well what are they, and why? What does it mean to be a man, and what does it mean to be a woman? If a woman is supposed to be a nurturer, loving, gentle, soft-spoken, homemakers, well why? There are women who are very aggressive, who work outside the home, who provide for their families monetarily, who are not mild-tempered and mannered, so…and there are men who are more “effeminate”. If Mary is supposed to be the model for women, why is Jesus the model for men? Jesus’ characteristics were not particularly “manly”, they are more modeled for all of humanity, regardless of gender…

I don’t know if any of that all makes sense, I tried to summarize a month worth of class as best I could, but it’s really got me thinking about how the Church has “changed” its definition and expectations of what it means to be a woman, and also why it doesn’t have the authority to just create women priests? I suppose its better to wrestle with these topics to strengthen my faith, but any thoughts would surely be welcome to help me out on that account!!!

Thank you in advance!

God bless,
Paul

 

[Gorgias]

I gave the standard defense of why we can’t have women priests, namely that we don’t have authority to do so. (This by the way was something I read on a thread here once, cannot remember where.) In any event, I was taken aback by the fact that this argument apparently rings hollow when Matthew 16:19 is thrown in your face. If “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven,” then why don’t we have the authority to create women priests?

Paul,

If the pope were to say, “Jesus never rose from the dead”, would that be a legitimate exercise of the authority granted in Mt 16:19? That is, does this passage grant absolute authority to the successor of Peter? Are there any other principles in play, here, that affect this sort of proxy, and if so, how do they come into play with the question of the ability to ordain women as Catholic priests?

 

[cjmclark]

Paul,

If the pope were to say, “Jesus never rose from the dead”, would that be a legitimate exercise of the authority granted in Mt 16:19? That is, does this passage grant absolute authority to the successor of Peter? Are there any other principles in play, here, that affect this sort of proxy, and if so, how do they come into play with the question of the ability to ordain women as Catholic priests?

Matthew 16:19 and the corresponding text of Matthew 18:18 are widely regarded and accepted as referring specifically to the practice of excommunication, not as carte blanche for the Apostles (and therefore their successors) to decree whatever they please.

usccb.org/bible/matthew/16/#48016019-1

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

The enemies of the Church think that if they can change the Church they can end it.

 

[Nita]

…In any event, I was taken aback by the fact that this argument apparently rings hollow when Matthew 16:19 is thrown in your face. If “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven,” then why don’t we have the authority to create women priests?

The power overseeing the truth of any official binding proclamation by the Pope is the power of God – not the wisdom or power of the male pope. It is God who ensures that what a pope decrees is only what is bound in heaven.

So, the reason the pope can’t change the teaching is because it is not something God has or wants bound in heaven. God is quite capable of intervening to prevent a pope from declaring something contrary to His truth and will.

 

[Nita]

Matthew 16:19 and the corresponding text of Matthew 18:18 are widely regarded and accepted as referring specifically to the practice of excommunication, not as carte blanche for the Apostles (and therefore their successors) to decree whatever they please.

usccb.org/bible/matthew/16/#48016019-1

That may be the case for Mt. 18:18 where the context is excommunication and the words are spoken to the disciples (“you” is plural). But Mt. 16:18-19 is addressed to Peter alone, even though all the other disciples were present. ("you is singular). Context in Mt. 16 is declaration of faith.

 

[Rainaldo]

The enemies of the Church think that if they can change the Church they can end it.

They are correct. If they could change it, it certainly would end.

 

[Rainaldo]

In any event, I was taken aback by the fact that this argument apparently rings hollow when Matthew 16:19 is thrown in your face. If “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven,” then why don’t we have the authority to create women priests?

I thought the definitive denial of ordination to women was an exercise of the power to bind and loose. Is there a logical paradox here?

 

[Gidras05]

The power overseeing the truth of any official binding proclamation by the Pope is the power of God – not the wisdom or power of the male pope. It is God who ensures that what a pope decrees is only what is bound in heaven.

So, the reason the pope can’t change the teaching is because it is not something God has or wants bound in heaven. God is quite capable of intervening to prevent a pope from declaring something contrary to His truth and will.

I completely agree with the rest of this thread in defending the Papal authority, and why we believe what we believe, but… in regards to this comment, weren’t there a couple of Popes in the past that kinda… steered the Church in the wrong direction? I’m not well informed of the Catholic history in terms of Popes… but just trying to think off the top of my head, weren’t the Inquisition, or Indulgences or something… weren’t they Papal declarations?

I don’t know. I’m not saying that the Pope is either fallible or infallible. What I’m wondering is that if the Pope couldn’t change a teaching since God would prevent him (i.e. he’s infallible in that sense), then how could the Popes of yesteryear have made changes (even briefly) that were quickly fixed by successor Popes?

I mean, I could’ve sworn I read on here that there were lesser things that Popes declared in the past, then saw negative repercussions, then decided to change. Granted, a lot of these were -practices-, and this thread deals with a little more than that, but I think the roles of women in some sense would be an argument about a practice, as much as something of faith.

I are confused. =p

 

[Gorgias]

Matthew 16:19 and the corresponding text of Matthew 18:18 are widely regarded and accepted as referring specifically to the practice of excommunication, not as carte blanche for the Apostles (and therefore their successors) to decree whatever they please.

usccb.org/bible/matthew/16/#48016019-1

:doh2: they were meant as rhetorical questions, for Paul’s benefit, in the process of grappling with the issues that he has encountered in this class…

Blessings,

G.

 

[Nita]

I completely agree with the rest of this thread in defending the Papal authority, and why we believe what we believe, but… in regards to this comment, weren’t there a couple of Popes in the past that kinda… steered the Church in the wrong direction? I’m not well informed of the Catholic history in terms of Popes… but just trying to think off the top of my head, weren’t the Inquisition, or Indulgences or something… weren’t they Papal declarations?

I don’t know. I’m not saying that the Pope is either fallible or infallible. What I’m wondering is that if the Pope couldn’t change a teaching since God would prevent him (i.e. he’s infallible in that sense), then how could the Popes of yesteryear have made changes (even briefly) that were quickly fixed by successor Popes?

I mean, I could’ve sworn I read on here that there were lesser things that Popes declared in the past, then saw negative repercussions, then decided to change. Granted, a lot of these were -practices-, and this thread deals with a little more than that, but I think the roles of women in some sense would be an argument about a practice, as much as something of faith.

I are confused. =p

Not everything a pope says is infallible. It is when he speaks as head of the Church declaring that what he is saying is unchangeable doctrine and binding. For example, in upholding the constant teaching of the Church regarding the ordination of women as priests, Pope John Paul closes his Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” with the following words: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.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
No infallible doctrine has ever been negated or altered. Infallible doctrine is concerned with faith (nature of God, Jesus, grace, sacraments…) and morals (eg. divorce, abortion,…)…

The Church has many practices and regulations that are not infallible and can be changed.

 

[Abu]

PJD1987
Matthew 16:19 is thrown in your face. If “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven,” then why don’t we have the authority to create women priests?

You are in the midst of real dummies it seems, who nothing about Christ or His Church. Facts:
He established His Church and explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

So as Nita quoted (post #11) from Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Bl JPII is exercising his authority to define infallibly on male only priests. This is from the time of the Apostles.

Casti Connubii defines infallibly against contraception “every action…to render procreation impossible” is “intrinsically evil” – thus this binds the consciences without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of any opinion opposed to this teaching.

What else can we nail them on? Specifics are needed.

 

[Cathy]

There’s a good recent (Feb. 8, 2012) article on Humanae Vitae, and why it was right, in a secular business journal. I hope this is the right link:
articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-08/politics/31036663_1_sexual-revolution-moral-standards-marriage#ixzz1m2mrxive

The article is called “Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control,” by Michael Brendan Dougherty and Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry

The authors have a sense of humor. I enjoyed the read.

I’ll say a prayer tonight for your intentions in the class.

Regards,
Cathy

 

[vsedriver]

I thought the definitive denial of ordination to women was an exercise of the power to bind and loose. Is there a logical paradox here?

the definitive denial of ordination to women was exercised by Jesus, himself at the last supper. He selected only men. These men were to act ‘in the person’ of Christ. Christ as human, but a human Male. Women would not be valid matter for the priesthood. Just as Jesus used unlevened bread and wine so then we can’t use beer and pretzels. They would not be valid matter for the sacrament.

 

[PJD1987]

You are in the midst of real dummies it seems…

Couldn’t have said it better myself…however, the professor is a religious ethics professor who studies the Catholic Church specifically and has read all these documents and countless others numerous times; it is very difficult to argue any points with someone who knows their stuff so well, so well that they can play semantics and change the meaning of them to fit their argument. And of course, I look like I’m not approaching the class with an open mind if I start to defend the Church…

Pray for me!

God bless,
Paul

 

[Nate13]

the definitive denial of ordination to women was exercised by Jesus, himself at the last supper. He selected only men. These men were to act ‘in the person’ of Christ. Christ as human, but a human Male. Women would not be valid matter for the priesthood. Just as Jesus used unlevened bread and wine so then we can’t use beer and pretzels. They would not be valid matter for the sacrament.

Exactly, I don’t understand why people take such offense to this. We already know that God has a different plan for males and females biologically, so why would it surprise us that we have been created to have different roles spiritually? A woman complaining that she cannot be a priest is the exact same as a man complaining he cannot bear children or breast feed a child.

 

[PJD1987]

Exactly, I don’t understand why people take such offense to this. We already know that God has a different plan for males and females biologically, so why would it surprise us that we have been created to have different roles spiritually? A woman complaining that she cannot be a priest is the exact same as a man complaining he cannot bear children or breast feed a child.

Interesting point, no one has really picked up on the second part of the issue I posted about, and that is gender roles as defined by the Church…I’d love if someone would comment on that aspect of all this.

 

[Nate13]

Interesting point, no one has really picked up on the second part of the issue I posted about, and that is gender roles as defined by the Church…I’d love if someone would comment on that aspect of all this.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

 

[PJD1987]

Yes, we read Mulieres Dignitatem and Familiaris Consortio for class

 

[Nate13]

Yes, we read Mulieres Dignitatem and Familiaris Consortio for class

Hmm I think you are looking towards the wrong place for reasons as to why women cannot be priests. There really is no biological reason. Men may be more naturally inclined towards some of the characteristics that a priest needs to have, but as you said many women also display these characteristics. A call to the priesthood though is a supernatural calling, and is not reliant on biological characteristics. God can give the biological characteristics needed to be a priest, prophet, etc… to anyone he wishes as was shown in the case of Moses. So, even if there was a clear biological reason as to why men were more inclined to be priests that wouldn’t matter in terms of whether God wished to use them and call them to a supernatural purpose.

The way we should look at this though is in terms of supernatural reasoning since the priesthood as well as life in a monastery is a supernatural calling. My point earlier was that it should not surprise us that God has different callings for men and women spiritually, since its apparent that we have different callings and purposes biologically to at least some degree. Complaining about the different roles God has designed for us in the spiritual realm is similarly irrational as complaining about our biological roles is.

So in other words don’t try and come up with some biological reason as to why men are more suited to be priests as opposed to women, because it really doesn’t exist.