Catholic Sexual Ethics

[Cathy]

Only women can bear children. It should not be too difficult, therefore, to accept that only men can confect the Eucharist. Jesus certainly could have chosen a woman to be one of the twelve. He was not constrained by cultural conventions of the time from selecting women disciples, which he did do. He did not choose women apostles. We can confidently believe he chose only men for a good reason that had nothing to do with cultural taboos.

Men and women need one another, and that is a good thing. We are very different, and it is good for us to learn to get along closely and charitably with people who are very different from ourselves. I think many people who think women should be priests not only misunderstand priesthood, but also misunderstand the very great importance and power of motherhood.

The priest is called to be servant to all, as Jesus explained to his apostles at the Last Supper. In the world in general, it is more common for women to wait on men. However, Jesus turned the world upside down. He called for the men to feed the women (and their fellow men). So it is rather ironic that the so-called “feminists” are clamoring for women to serve men in the Church as well as in the rest of the world.

To me, the saddest thing about the push to have women act as priests is the implication that motherhood is not a great privilege and an exalted position. Both spiritual and physical motherhood are crucially important in every aspect of life. There would be no priests without mothers, and without Catholic priests, there would be no respect for mothers nor for motherhood. We need each other. We are called to love and respect each other. As the Church teaches over and over in many ways, equal dignity does not mean sameness.

As a practical matter alone, it seems a bad idea. A woman friend of mine (PhD in biochemistry) has observed that if it were possible for women to be priests (and it is not possible), the men would disappear even more from roles of service and leadership in the Church, because they would just as soon let the women do the jobs. I am a convert from Methodism. The advent of women clergy was not a boon to vocations nor to membership.

The Catholic Church is the only major Christian Church left which guarantees its members a spiritual father in her parishes. This is especially important in this secular age with so many broken homes. A fatherless family is a tragedy. A fatherless parish would be a multiplied tragedy. But the role of the mother in the family is absolutely crucial. If she is not home to nurture and feed her family, they either cannot survive at all, or they cannot flourish. Similarly, parishes need a mother’s touch, in many, innumerable ways. Motherly women inspire the priest and give him the disinterested love he needs to continue to serve. Creative and energetic women help teach all kinds of classes so important for the education of parish families. They provide stable, safe friendships for those of us who have not had the nurturing we needed in the past, often because our mothers were persuaded that they would be more “fulfilled” by leaving their homes and families and seeking fulfillment in careers and/or extramarital affairs.

My father, a doctor, was so brainwashed by liberal ideas that he taught me as a young teen that there was no difference between men and women except in the bedroom. Believing the lie, I tried to act in a way I thought men acted. How crazy is that? When I finally read Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women, I was in my 40’s, but I felt genuinely loved and affirmed in my womanhood for the first time in my life. John Paul II gets it! Yes, he was a celibate old man when he wrote it, but he understood me better than I understood myself. I knew that could only be from the Holy Spirit. I decided then and there that I wanted to join the Catholic Church, through which the Holy Spirit affirmed me as a woman.

Praying the Holy Spirit will guide you,

Cathy

 

[Abu]

Correction
In post #12 the quote is not from *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930), but from Paul VI in *Humanae Vitae *(1968). Casti Connubii, #56: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

PJD1987 #15
I look like I’m not approaching the class with an open mind if I start to defend the Church…

In any setting the truth is paramount and thus so is the factual presentation of dogma, doctrine and discipline. An “open mind” is one attuned to listen to the teaching of the Church.

#17
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.

See wf-f.org/ChristiFidel.html (Women for Faith and Family), recommended already, and a commentary at catholicity.com/mccloskey/spirituality.html

What do you need still?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Only women can bear children. It should not be too difficult, therefore, to accept that only men can confect the Eucharist. Jesus certainly could have chosen a woman to be one of the twelve. He was not constrained by cultural conventions of the time from selecting women disciples, which he did do. He did not choose women apostles. We can confidently believe he chose only men for a good reason that had nothing to do with cultural taboos.

Men and women need one another, and that is a good thing. We are very different, and it is good for us to learn to get along closely and charitably with people who are very different from ourselves. I think many people who think women should be priests not only misunderstand priesthood, but also misunderstand the very great importance and power of motherhood.

The priest is called to be servant to all, as Jesus explained to his apostles at the Last Supper. In the world in general, it is more common for women to wait on men. However, Jesus turned the world upside down. He called for the men to feed the women (and their fellow men). So it is rather ironic that the so-called “feminists” are clamoring for women to serve men in the Church as well as in the rest of the world.

To me, the saddest thing about the push to have women act as priests is the implication that motherhood is not a great privilege and an exalted position. Both spiritual and physical motherhood are crucially important in every aspect of life. There would be no priests without mothers, and without Catholic priests, there would be no respect for mothers nor for motherhood. We need each other. We are called to love and respect each other. As the Church teaches over and over in many ways, equal dignity does not mean sameness.

As a practical matter alone, it seems a bad idea. A woman friend of mine (PhD in biochemistry) has observed that if it were possible for women to be priests (and it is not possible), the men would disappear even more from roles of service and leadership in the Church, because they would just as soon let the women do the jobs. I am a convert from Methodism. The advent of women clergy was not a boon to vocations nor to membership.

The Catholic Church is the only major Christian Church left which guarantees its members a spiritual father in her parishes. This is especially important in this secular age with so many broken homes. A fatherless family is a tragedy. A fatherless parish would be a multiplied tragedy. But the role of the mother in the family is absolutely crucial. If she is not home to nurture and feed her family, they either cannot survive at all, or they cannot flourish. Similarly, parishes need a mother’s touch, in many, innumerable ways. Motherly women inspire the priest and give him the disinterested love he needs to continue to serve. Creative and energetic women help teach all kinds of classes so important for the education of parish families. They provide stable, safe friendships for those of us who have not had the nurturing we needed in the past, often because our mothers were persuaded that they would be more “fulfilled” by leaving their homes and families and seeking fulfillment in careers and/or extramarital affairs.

My father, a doctor, was so brainwashed by liberal ideas that he taught me as a young teen that there was no difference between men and women except in the bedroom. Believing the lie, I tried to act in a way I thought men acted. How crazy is that? When I finally read Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women, I was in my 40’s, but I felt genuinely loved and affirmed in my womanhood for the first time in my life. John Paul II gets it! Yes, he was a celibate old man when he wrote it, but he understood me better than I understood myself. I knew that could only be from the Holy Spirit. I decided then and there that I wanted to join the Catholic Church, through which the Holy Spirit affirmed me as a woman.

Praying the Holy Spirit will guide you,

Cathy

Beautiful, beautiful post! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and story.
,

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

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

Wait… if that’s true, how does the Church have any authority to teach on anything… to clarify positions, etc.???

 

[Abu]

VeritasLuxMea #24
Exactly.

Cjmclark #3
Matthew 16:19 and the corresponding text of Matthew 18:18 are widely regarded and accepted as referring specifically to the practice of excommunication

What a farce – “widely regarded” by whom, and “accepted” by whom? – another dreamer.
Real Catholics listen to Christ and His Church – Vatican I in *Pastor Aeternus *develops the teaching on the exercise of papal infallibility in a dogma and *Vatican II *reaffirms that dogma.

 

[Ancient1]

It’s curious no one ever comes at this issue from the opposite angle, namely:
what the heck is a really good reason to have women priests?

Because a few feminists and “progressives” are jumping up and down saying they want to be ordained? People who by their very actions and emotional instability show their unsuitability for Holy Orders? Because “it’s not fair”? Because we are now in the advanced era of feminism and equality? These are the closest things I’ve ever heard to “rational” explanations and I would not apply that adjective myself.

These are all theoretical situations. In a huge and very old institution like the Church, an organization unlike any other religion, Divinely established, throwing a monkey wrench into things to accommodate contemporary trends can have long-ranging devastating effects. Everyone clamors for change. But they don’t, they cannot, foresee what might happen to the Church if women were ordained. We can speculate and in some cases make some darn good predictions, and there certainly is no consensus that it would be a pretty picture.

Holy Orders is not available to women. Period. The question is not, “Why can’t it be?” But, “Why should it be?” I don’t see any positive and definitive answer, nor does Holy Mother Church in her infinite wisdom. End of story. Unless we have some logical, clear reasons that go beyond politics and selfishness, it seems to me wiser to rely on the decisions of the Holy Father, irrespective of how anyone might like to twist history or Bible verses.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

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

I don’t know if this has already been said but in the Last Supper, Christ became the new lamb of the Paschal feast, it’s why we call Him Agnus Dei, or Lamb of God.

According to the strict ritual laid out in the Book of Exodus, and the Mishnah, paschal lambs had to UNBLEMISHED MALES. Since Jesus abrogated the former practice when He instituted the Eucharist, the Eucharist is essentially the modern temple sacrifice that Catholics have inherited from Judaism. That’s why priests, acting in persona Christi, as the OP has noted, MUST be males.

And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: This month shall be to you the beginning of months; it shall be the first in the months of the year. Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, and say to them: On the tenth day of this month let every man take a lamb by their families and houses. But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbour that joineth to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb. And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year; according to which rite also you shall take a kid. And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month; and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice it in the evening. (EXODUS 12:1-6)

So your liberal professor’s opinion is completely mistaken…whether it’s a case of ignorance or willful negligence, I cannot say.

A great book on the subject is ‘Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist’ by Brant Pitre. It will totally debunk your professor’s objection to the all-male priesthood.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Only women can bear children. It should not be too difficult, therefore, to accept that only men can confect the Eucharist. Jesus certainly could have chosen a woman to be one of the twelve. He was not constrained by cultural conventions of the time from selecting women disciples, which he did do. He did not choose women apostles. We can confidently believe he chose only men for a good reason that had nothing to do with cultural taboos.

Men and women need one another, and that is a good thing. We are very different, and it is good for us to learn to get along closely and charitably with people who are very different from ourselves. I think many people who think women should be priests not only misunderstand priesthood, but also misunderstand the very great importance and power of motherhood.

The priest is called to be servant to all, as Jesus explained to his apostles at the Last Supper. In the world in general, it is more common for women to wait on men. However, Jesus turned the world upside down. He called for the men to feed the women (and their fellow men). So it is rather ironic that the so-called “feminists” are clamoring for women to serve men in the Church as well as in the rest of the world.

To me, the saddest thing about the push to have women act as priests is the implication that motherhood is not a great privilege and an exalted position. Both spiritual and physical motherhood are crucially important in every aspect of life. There would be no priests without mothers, and without Catholic priests, there would be no respect for mothers nor for motherhood. We need each other. We are called to love and respect each other. As the Church teaches over and over in many ways, equal dignity does not mean sameness.

As a practical matter alone, it seems a bad idea. A woman friend of mine (PhD in biochemistry) has observed that if it were possible for women to be priests (and it is not possible), the men would disappear even more from roles of service and leadership in the Church, because they would just as soon let the women do the jobs. I am a convert from Methodism. The advent of women clergy was not a boon to vocations nor to membership.

The Catholic Church is the only major Christian Church left which guarantees its members a spiritual father in her parishes. This is especially important in this secular age with so many broken homes. A fatherless family is a tragedy. A fatherless parish would be a multiplied tragedy. But the role of the mother in the family is absolutely crucial. If she is not home to nurture and feed her family, they either cannot survive at all, or they cannot flourish. Similarly, parishes need a mother’s touch, in many, innumerable ways. Motherly women inspire the priest and give him the disinterested love he needs to continue to serve. Creative and energetic women help teach all kinds of classes so important for the education of parish families. They provide stable, safe friendships for those of us who have not had the nurturing we needed in the past, often because our mothers were persuaded that they would be more “fulfilled” by leaving their homes and families and seeking fulfillment in careers and/or extramarital affairs.

My father, a doctor, was so brainwashed by liberal ideas that he taught me as a young teen that there was no difference between men and women except in the bedroom. Believing the lie, I tried to act in a way I thought men acted. How crazy is that? When I finally read Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women, I was in my 40’s, but I felt genuinely loved and affirmed in my womanhood for the first time in my life. John Paul II gets it! Yes, he was a celibate old man when he wrote it, but he understood me better than I understood myself. I knew that could only be from the Holy Spirit. I decided then and there that I wanted to join the Catholic Church, through which the Holy Spirit affirmed me as a woman.

Praying the Holy Spirit will guide you,

Cathy

 

[edwest2]

Only women can bear children. It should not be too difficult, therefore, to accept that only men can confect the Eucharist. Jesus certainly could have chosen a woman to be one of the twelve. He was not constrained by cultural conventions of the time from selecting women disciples, which he did do. He did not choose women apostles. We can confidently believe he chose only men for a good reason that had nothing to do with cultural taboos.

Men and women need one another, and that is a good thing. We are very different, and it is good for us to learn to get along closely and charitably with people who are very different from ourselves. I think many people who think women should be priests not only misunderstand priesthood, but also misunderstand the very great importance and power of motherhood.

The priest is called to be servant to all, as Jesus explained to his apostles at the Last Supper. In the world in general, it is more common for women to wait on men. However, Jesus turned the world upside down. He called for the men to feed the women (and their fellow men). So it is rather ironic that the so-called “feminists” are clamoring for women to serve men in the Church as well as in the rest of the world.

To me, the saddest thing about the push to have women act as priests is the implication that motherhood is not a great privilege and an exalted position. Both spiritual and physical motherhood are crucially important in every aspect of life. There would be no priests without mothers, and without Catholic priests, there would be no respect for mothers nor for motherhood. We need each other. We are called to love and respect each other. As the Church teaches over and over in many ways, equal dignity does not mean sameness.

As a practical matter alone, it seems a bad idea. A woman friend of mine (PhD in biochemistry) has observed that if it were possible for women to be priests (and it is not possible), the men would disappear even more from roles of service and leadership in the Church, because they would just as soon let the women do the jobs. I am a convert from Methodism. The advent of women clergy was not a boon to vocations nor to membership.

The Catholic Church is the only major Christian Church left which guarantees its members a spiritual father in her parishes. This is especially important in this secular age with so many broken homes. A fatherless family is a tragedy. A fatherless parish would be a multiplied tragedy. But the role of the mother in the family is absolutely crucial. If she is not home to nurture and feed her family, they either cannot survive at all, or they cannot flourish. Similarly, parishes need a mother’s touch, in many, innumerable ways. Motherly women inspire the priest and give him the disinterested love he needs to continue to serve. Creative and energetic women help teach all kinds of classes so important for the education of parish families. They provide stable, safe friendships for those of us who have not had the nurturing we needed in the past, often because our mothers were persuaded that they would be more “fulfilled” by leaving their homes and families and seeking fulfillment in careers and/or extramarital affairs.

My father, a doctor, was so brainwashed by liberal ideas that he taught me as a young teen that there was no difference between men and women except in the bedroom. Believing the lie, I tried to act in a way I thought men acted. How crazy is that? When I finally read Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women, I was in my 40’s, but I felt genuinely loved and affirmed in my womanhood for the first time in my life. John Paul II gets it! Yes, he was a celibate old man when he wrote it, but he understood me better than I understood myself. I knew that could only be from the Holy Spirit. I decided then and there that I wanted to join the Catholic Church, through which the Holy Spirit affirmed me as a woman.

Praying the Holy Spirit will guide you,

Cathy

Cathy,

Being a man does not prohibit men from helping or understanding women. However, the media culture that surrounds us is the end result of a campaign to destroy the family and to remove love from sex and turn it into "just sex,’ like going to the bathroom.

I invite you to read the following book by a Catholic writer and former TV reporter:

amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Transformed-Conformed-Culture/dp/1586175610

Peace,
Ed

 

[cjmclark]

VeritasLuxMea #24
Exactly.

What a farce – “widely regarded” by whom, and “accepted” by whom? – another dreamer.
Real Catholics listen to Christ and His Church – Vatican I in *Pastor Aeternus *develops the teaching on the exercise of papal infallibility in a dogma and *Vatican II *reaffirms that dogma.

Well, as Nita elaborated (much more politely than you, I might add) in an earlier post, I did misspeak. Mt 18:18 is the verse that refers specifically to giving the power of excommunication to the Apostles. Mt 16:19 refers to Peter alone and implies both excommunication and authoritative teaching. Both are referenced in the link provided, which is to the NABRE, courtesy of my fellow “dreamers” at the USCCB.

I’ll thank you not to take it upon yourself to determine the “reality” of my Catholicism (especially based on a rhetorical error), unless you fancy you’re stepping in for God for a bit. Cheers.

 

[PJD1987]

Correction
In post #12 the quote is not from *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930), but from Paul VI in *Humanae Vitae *(1968). Casti Connubii, #56: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
In any setting the truth is paramount and thus so is the factual presentation of dogma, doctrine and discipline. An “open mind” is one attuned to listen to the teaching of the Church.
See wf-f.org/ChristiFidel.html (Women for Faith and Family), recommended already, and a commentary at catholicity.com/mccloskey/spirituality.html

What do you need still?

I suppose what I’m getting at is the point that my professor has made in class that in Casti Connubii it is apparent that the Church’s teaching is that women should stay in the home, note the call for a “living wage” which equals a call to pay men enough to provide for their families without women having to work (#117). Also, paragraphs 74 and 75 where Pius XI is clearly stating that women and men are not equal, getting at this false notion of “unnatural equality” (#75). He goes on to say that “keeping in view what the natural disposition and temperament of the female sex, good morality, and the welfare of the family demands, and provided always that the essential order of the domestic society remain intact,” (#77).

So the question becomes, why is “the natural disposition” of women what Pius XI defines it as? I’ve posted earlier about how some women have more “masculine” identities and characteristics, and some men have more “feminine” identities and characteristics?

Then, we move on to Mulieres Dignitatem where JPII states, “The fact of being a man or a woman involves no limitation,” (#16), but also seems to state that the rightful place of the woman is embracing her role as mother. Modeling women after the Virgin Mary, women seem to have two roles, virgin and mother, but there are strong-willed and assertive woman who are successful in the workplace and balance profession and family life quite well. JPII seems to want it both ways, by trying to alter the Church’s teaching on women, while simultaneously reaffirming the roles of women as previously defined by the Church.

Then we get to the question of whether the Church is simply reactionary, seeing the social makeup of the world changing, did it simply respond to the reality that had already existed for some time by changing its teaching on women to more accurately reflect the reality of life that had already expressed itself through feminism and women’s rights movements?

These are all things we talk about in class, and I simply do not know how to defend the Church, I would love to, I want to, I feel as though the Church’s teaching is being misrepresented. However, when this particular interpretation is what is being taught in the class, it is difficult for me to try to “re-interpret” them in a way that I think would be more accurate, when I simply don’t know enough. Plus I don’t want to engage in revisionist history, either…I don’t know…

As stated this is all in the context of whether or not the Church is “changing” and what it means for the Church to “change” and whether or not it has authority to teach on anything if it simply just changes its teachings. Especially in light of the idea that the Church does NOT change, if we make the concession that, yes the Church did change, then what happens to “the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against” and being “guided into all Truth”. These are all things that have been going through my mind during this class, which is essentially an assault on my faith. I apologize if I’m all over the place, I’m trying to summarize a lot in a very little time…

Any continued commentary and thoughts would be very helpful and appreciated!

Thank you.

God bless,
Paul

 

[Hokomai]

The ‘women can’t be priests because Jesus didn’t choose any to be apostles’ requires in logic for us to accept that only young-to-middle-aged Jews born in a small geographic area in modern Israel-Palestine. Oh and their first languages should be Aramaic, and possibly Greek. They should also not, at the point of ordination, be committed to being celibate for life. Why do we think the Apostle’s sex was a more important criteria than these?

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

The ‘women can’t be priests because Jesus didn’t choose any to be apostles’ requires in logic for us to accept that only young-to-middle-aged Jews born in a small geographic area in modern Israel-Palestine. Oh and their first languages should be Aramaic, and possibly Greek. They should also not, at the point of ordination, be committed to being celibate for life. Why do we think the Apostle’s sex was a more important criteria than these?

You are completely leaving out the mysticism of the Mass ritual, which Catholicism views as the fulfillment of the Paschal feast in that it both abrogates the original requirements of the Jewish ritual and fulfills it at the same time, inasmuch as Jesus is the new Paschal Lamb. Even if I were to concede your other points, which I do not (see below), the doctrine of the priest in persona Christi is entirely sound.

I don’t know if this has already been said but in the Last Supper, Christ became the new lamb of the Paschal feast, it’s why we call Him Agnus Dei, or Lamb of God.

According to the strict ritual laid out in the Book of Exodus, and the Mishnah, paschal lambs had to UNBLEMISHED MALES. Since Jesus abrogated the former practice when He instituted the Eucharist, the Eucharist is essentially the modern temple sacrifice that Catholics have inherited from Judaism. That’s why priests, acting in persona Christi, as the OP has noted, MUST be males.

And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: This month shall be to you the beginning of months; it shall be the first in the months of the year. Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, and say to them: On the tenth day of this month let every man take a lamb by their families and houses. But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbour that joineth to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb. And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year; according to which rite also you shall take a kid. And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month; and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice it in the evening. (EXODUS 12:1-6)

Secondly, your view on the ‘logical’ basis of Catholic doctrine/rituals is entirely too simplistic. Catholic beliefs are predicated on three essential ingredients:

1. Tradition
2. Sacred Scripture
3. Magisterium of the Church (Church teaching)

When you realize that Catholic doctrine is determined by each of the above, the institution of an all-male priesthood is entirely consistent with the above.

 

[Hokomai]

You are completely leaving out the mysticism of the Mass ritual, which Catholicism views as the fulfillment of the Paschal feast in that it both abrogates the original requirements of the Jewish ritual and fulfills it at the same time, inasmuch as Jesus is the new Paschal Lamb. Even if I were to concede your other points, which I do not (see below), the doctrine of the priest in persona Christi is entirely sound.

Secondly, your view on the ‘logical’ basis of Catholic doctrine/rituals is entirely too simplistic. Catholic beliefs are predicated on three essential ingredients:

1. Tradition
2. Sacred Scripture
3. Magisterium of the Church (Church teaching)

When you realize that Catholic doctrine is determined by each of the above, the institution of an all-male priesthood is entirely consistent with the above.

Well yes. Teaching tends to be consistent with teaching. Tradition tends to be consistent with teaching. Scripture is a bit dependent on interpretation to fir the other two however - as in this case.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Well yes. Teaching tends to be consistent with teaching. Tradition tends to be consistent with teaching. Scripture is a bit dependent on interpretation to fir the other two however - as in this case.

Yes, and you can disagree with Magisterial interpretations of Scripture (and the resultant teachings) all day long, as I’m sure you do, but I’m not sure you can impugn the logical consistency of the process. Each aspect of the above augments or is amalgamated with the others to produce the final doctrine.

For example, while Scripture does not touch specifically on the prerequisites of ordination, it is supplemented by the Traditions of the Early Church priesthood, which are added to the Scriptural commandment of Christ to eternally commemorate the Last Supper, or Eucharist. There isn’t ONE reason why Catholic priests must be males, it is consistent with all three aforementioned determinants.

 

[Hokomai]

Yes, and you can disagree with Magisterial interpretations of Scripture (and the resultant teachings) all day long, as I’m sure you do. …

No not all day. I try to restrict my disagreements with the Magesterium on scripture to 8-10pm on Wednesdays and Sundays! There are so many other things to disagree with it gets hard to fit them all in.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…

These are all things we talk about in class, and I simply do not know how to defend the Church, I would love to, I want to, I feel as though the Church’s teaching is being misrepresented. However, when this particular interpretation is what is being taught in the class, it is difficult for me to try to “re-interpret” them in a way that I think would be more accurate, when I simply don’t know enough. Plus I don’t want to engage in revisionist history, either…I don’t know…

**As stated this is all in the context of whether or not the Church is “changing” and what it means for the Church to “change” and whether or not it has authority to teach on anything if it simply just changes its teachings. ** Especially in light of the idea that the Church does NOT change, if we make the concession that, yes the Church did change, then what happens to “the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against” and being “guided into all Truth”. These are all things that have been going through my mind during this class, which is essentially an assault on my faith. I apologize if I’m all over the place, I’m trying to summarize a lot in a very little time…

Any continued commentary and thoughts would be very helpful and appreciated!

Thank you.

God bless,
Paul

The Church is a “body”, a “live organism” therefore it changes.
Having said that you can not turn your head 180 degrees back. There are things that can not be changed. The core of the issue is to know what is changeable and what is not.
The Church is reacting to some issues but also prophetic on others.

One can not know everything. As a class tip, pick a small issue, study it, from the point of view if it’s changeable or not, make sure you know why it’s like that. You never know you might surprise your teacher and the whole class.

Good luck!

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

No not all day. I try to restrict my disagreements with the Magesterium on scripture to 8-10pm on Wednesdays and Sundays! There are so many other things to disagree with it gets hard to fit them all in.

And to that I say have at them. I think honest discussion is only a positive for all parties concerned.

 

[Abu]

As Deus_lo_vult in #27 has pointed out it is God the Son Himself who came not to destroy but to fulfill, and who instituted the New Covenant of which His Church is His Bride. That is why He instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper for His male Apostles who became in persona Christi, that is, in the very person of Christ, who becomes truly present at the consecration at Mass. It should be quite obvious why Christ chose only men as no woman could be in persona Christi. There is no flaw there, but a failure to accept reality. The fact that Jesus commanded them to “teach all nations” leaves out no one from that mandate.

PJD1987 #30
So the question becomes, why is “the natural disposition” of women what Pius XI defines it as? I’ve posted earlier about how some women have more “masculine” identities and characteristics, and some men have more “feminine” identities and characteristics?

Don’t these “brains” know of original Sin and its effects? The fact that a natural disposition is not that of everyone seems to escape these giant intellects! Forget their posturing and take the assumptions apart.

The Church is NOT changing Her “teaching” on women She is simply reaffirming the role of wife and mother as natural and necessary and is not against women who have the ability and choose to (also?) run business etc.

As stated this is all in the context of whether or not the Church is “changing” and what it means for the Church to “change” and whether or not it has authority to teach on anything if it simply just changes its teachings.

The authority from Christ is crystal clear from post #12.

She NEVER changes Her teaching on faith or morals on which She teaches infallibly. Doctrine may develop but never as a contradiction.

From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The three levels of teaching are:

1. Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2. Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3. Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See *Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl JPII]

Use Google for the internet to get whatever documents you want.

You don’t need to be bamboozled by dissenters.