C
Crow_and_dove
Guest
Yes, this seems to be part of the trouble, as the conversations tend to assume that our modern conceptualization of these issues are as ancient as the issues themselves.
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Intersex is a biological reality - some persons are not readily classified as man or woman by virtue of inconsistent biology. The Church expresses no position and provides no teaching in regard to this given the limited understanding of these medical conditions. The existence of Intersex persons is not in conflict with any aspect of the Faith.
The teachings you list apply to men and women. Eg. Priest must be men, not women, and by implication, not a person that we cannot determine to be a man or a woman.
The existence of Intersex does not disturb the teachings you list.
J
JimG
Guest
Modern conceptualization does nothing to change biology or anatomy. Those are what have not changed. Genetic issues regarding indeterminate sex are quite rare, and do not change the classification of the human species into male and female.
C
clem456
Guest
As with anything, understanding (or ignorance) does not alter reality. The ability to explain something does not invent the thing itself.
Ancients could not see or express atomic physics. Now we can. Were atomic physics in operation in ancient times?
C
Crow_and_dove
Guest
They absolutely were! And gender variance of all kinds existed then as well. Many cultures include a concept of a “third sex”, however ours does not. But just because we are ignorant of something doesn’t make it go away. I predict that Catholic teachings will continue to evolve as they have done in the past in ways that may be hard to imagine now. I doubt St. Augustine would have been able to imagine women in general having political power, as indeed it was hard for the Church to accept during the early days of woman’s suffrage movements. After all, is it not natural and apparent that women should be solely defined in terms of motherhood, and therefore have no need to vote as men do? Today the Catholic Church is a major ally to women voters, but that represents a shift in language and priorities… not a shift in the truth. The truth that women are equally deserving of dignity has always been the truth, but it has not always been well emphasized.
My point is, even if we limit our conversation to cisgendered heterosexual people, there are still scientific, sociological, and theological issues that make complementarianism problematic. (To limit our discussion in that manner is itself disingenuous, however). That is why I would like to find the origin if the term itself, so I can try to understand the process that led to the Chuch’s current understanding of gender relations.
C
Crow_and_dove
Guest
Perhaps you could elaborate on how hierarchy has nothing to do with it? The word “hierarchy” comes from the Greek hierarchia, which means “rule of a high priest”. This is particularly apropos is considering the impact of complementaritianism on the ordination debate. As currently employed, (hierarchical) complementarianism asserts that women are not just forbidden from being ordained, they are ontologically inept as priests - their very nature renders them incapable. As this is not something the science of biology has established, so there must be some other basis.
J
JimG
Guest
Not ontologically inept. Ineptitude doesn’t apply to ontology. But the ontological portion is correct. Simply stated, women can not become priests because they are not men. In much the same way that men cannot become mothers because they are not women. It wasn’t the Church that decided it; it was Christ. The Church has not the slightest authority to change it.
C
Crow_and_dove
Guest
That men cannot birth children is a biological fact. That women cannot be priests is a dogmatic interpretation. The Church chose that particular interpretation. Now, you may feel they chose the one and only correct interpretation, but it was still a choice - one with considerable consequences. If you don’t like the word “inept” you may substitute “incapable”. Either way it makes a statement: men and women are all created in the image of God… but men more so. Men and women are equal in Christ, but only men can represent Christ on Earth. Men are not higher than women, except in the hierarchy of the Church.
And all because of of our “complementary nature”. What if it were reversed? Would you still be comfortable if I said that since God was born of a woman, had his feet washed by a woman, and was seen and proclaimed first by women after the Ressurection, only woman may serve as priests? That since only women can bring new life into being, only women can bring Spiritual life to the Church? That men’s natures are not suited to the nurturing demands of the priesthood?
If you see that as oppressive, you may see what I’m getting at here.
R
Rau
Guest
Actually, I don’t see what you are getting at. The person of Jesus Christ was a man - another reality. Pope Francis’ comments on this subject:
“104. Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected, based on the firm conviction that men and women are equal in dignity, present the Church with profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded. The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general. It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power “we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness”.[73] The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others. In the Church, functions “do not favour the superiority of some vis-à-vis the others”.[74] Indeed, a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops. Even when the function of ministerial priesthood is considered “hierarchical”, it must be remembered that “it is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members”.[75] Its key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people. This presents a great challenge for pastors and theologians, who are in a position to recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life.”
Source: w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html
(Para 104)
A
Abu
Guest
The same Christ, God the Son, the Third Person of the male Blessed Trinity who created the world and made men and women equal, chose:
- Only men for the priesthood, personally in the Twelve, so that as the consecrators of His Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist they are in persona Christi.
- Founded His Church on St Peter, with the other Apostles mandating “He that hears you hears Me.”
- Chose to be born of the Blessed Virgin Mary who He chose as the ONLY human to be conceived without Original Sin, in her Immaculate Conception as Mother of God, and made her Queen of the Universe.
J
JimG
Guest
No, it is not a dogmatic interpretation that women can not be priests. The Church has no authority except to hand down what it received from Christ. It did not study the bible and make an interpretation. It handed down what had been received. The magisterium is a continuum. If someone were to change what had been handed down, some one else would quickly correct him, saying, “that is not what we were taught.” After all, the Church preceded the bible, which arose from the Church.
If the Second Person of the Trinity had become incarnate as a woman, I’m sure that men would never be priests. But that is mere theological speculation.
C
clem456
Guest
Is it possible, that before we go round on this topic now, that you read what the Church teaches?
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
Before you say “No thanks I’ll just keep opining…”, please consider that aside from being a Pope, Karol Wojtyla is highly respected philosopher. Surely his thinking is worth considering, especially if you want to get hold of Catholic thought.
C
Crow_and_dove
Guest
I read, as you suggested, and will continue reading. I have much to learn.
At this time, I feel that the teaching of - and practices stemming from - the notion of complementarianism largely go against reason, Scripture, and conscience. I perceive complementarity (at least as presented by Church officials) to be a marginally less offensive version of mysogeny, which is not something the God I pray to endorses. I have read every piece of evidence put forth on this thread, including references, but I realize it is not exhaustive. I will be working closely with a Deacon in the coming weeks to make sure I am exposed to as much as possible on this topic, and I will endeavor to keep an open mind in hopes of coming into humble accord with the Church.
I want to sincerely thank everyone who participated in this conversation, for it has been an enlightening experience. I will check back occaissionally in case any new information is added, but I will not be responding regularly, and I will not respond at all to posts that simply reiterate what has already been stated. However, you all may continue the conversation as you wish.
Again, thank you all for your time and insight.
At this time, I feel that the teaching of - and practices stemming from - the notion of complementarianism largely go against reason, Scripture, and conscience. I perceive complementarity (at least as presented by Church officials) to be a marginally less offensive version of mysogeny, which is not something the God I pray to endorses. I have read every piece of evidence put forth on this thread, including references, but I realize it is not exhaustive. I will be working closely with a Deacon in the coming weeks to make sure I am exposed to as much as possible on this topic, and I will endeavor to keep an open mind in hopes of coming into humble accord with the Church.
I want to sincerely thank everyone who participated in this conversation, for it has been an enlightening experience. I will check back occaissionally in case any new information is added, but I will not be responding regularly, and I will not respond at all to posts that simply reiterate what has already been stated. However, you all may continue the conversation as you wish.
Again, thank you all for your time and insight.
R
Rau
Guest
As a reminder, the following are the teachings the OP identified as flowing from the notion of complementarity:
- pre-marital sex
- heteronormative perspective on marriage
- contraception
- ordination of women
C
clem456
Guest
Earlier in the thread you came to accept the obseration that a man and woman constitute a unique union, uniquely participating in human existence. Now you have again turned your head. Now suddenly the Church is is misogynistic and the word complementarity means nothing. Again. Why? What has changed?
Which point of view violates reason?
C
Crow_and_dove
Guest
I’m sure it will be interesting! I don’t have any interest in persuading him to my viewpoint however, only to put effort towards both of us understanding each other and the Church. I don’t need his views to conform to mine. If that were my goal with everyone I would be very frustrated indeed! However the brief discussion we’ve had already leads me to believe we agree on more than not. He compared the Church’s struggle with the issue of homosexuality with Her past struggles over woman’s suffrage and racial equality. It was a welcome and unexpected response to my questioning, and I am eager for more conversations.C&D - your discussions with the Deacon should be most interesting. I hope you’ll keep us posted as the discussions progress, and on your success in persuading him to your viewpoint
C
Crow_and_dove
Guest
I think perhaps you have misread what I’ve posted. You will note I never said the Church was mysogenistic.
I believe I stated previously that the uniqueness of female to male unions does not conflict with my acceptance of non-heteronormative coupling or gender fluidity. The uniqueness of the former is in no way threatened or devalued by the latter. Indeed, how one could believe otherwise baffles me, since it is the only union that carries the potential for offspring. Such a blessing alone should be enough, without any need to place artificial constraints on all who cannot share this blessing directly.
Complementarianism means much more than nothing. It is currently being used to justify the ban on contraception and medical procedures that have the ability to save human lives… but (merely) women’s lives, so clearly how we rank people ontologically is a factor here in the pursuit of “valuing life”. It is used to ban woman from full participation in the Church and tell half the human race that they do not reflect God as nearly as the other half does. This is inhuman, to say that Christ only lives in men, not in everyone. It is also not internally consistent with Church teachings and practices. It is used to justify ostracism against not just gay Catholics, but all gay, transgendered, and intersex children of God. As currently employed, complementarianism seeks to justify patriarchy. I cannot in good conscience support it, and neither science nor Scripture supports such a forced and artificial way of forming relationships or self-understanding. The term could be salvaged, but not if it continues to force an ontological hierarchy on humankind. I don’t believe God ranks people that way. I think the essence of complementarity, that we depend on and complement each other in order to thrive, is of great value… but the gender politics surrounding it have no value to me.
C
clem456
Guest
Good Lord. You do have an agenda…
You cling to what you want to believe. Fine.
What you say the Church teaches and what the Church actually teaches are not the same thing. That’s not fine. Twisting the words of the Church to your own pleasure, misrepresenting what we believe is…what…?
That’s what? Prejudice? Slander? What is it? You shouldn’t misrepresent the faith if you choose not to understand it.
C
Crow_and_dove
Guest
You may correct whatever part you feel was innaccurate.
C
clem456
Guest
? We have not had a trace of honest discussion then.
Your words:
The idea that male/female complementarity is against reason is against reason itself. When something self evident is denied, that is the definition of unreasonable.
Then why are you adding those things to the discussion? It is you that are adding them, no one else, from the very beginning of the thread. Who is threatened? It is you that insists on this agenda. Those other issues have nothing to do with male/female complementarity. Man and woman uniquely participate in human existence. “Non-Heteronormative” is simply a different issue. It’s like saying
“My body does not regulate metabolism well, I am cold. The sun does not provide warmth.”
It’s the same disingenuous reasoning.
None of these things threaten complementarity of male/female. Complementarity is simply an observation of what is.
Complementarity is a blessing. How is the observation that a man and woman are made for each other placing constraints on anyone?
Really and truly, what are you talking about?
Complete nonsense. Show us the money please.
It is you who are doing that by denying the self evident, and trying to conflate it with all sorts of extraneous issues. It doesn’t work, everyone sees your tactic for what it is. You demonstrated earlier that you don’t understand the word “ontology”, and you know this has nothing to do with ranking people. You know it, but don’t let it slow your agenda down.
But despite the evil that the Catholic Church engages in, your good conscience is leading you to a deacon for RCIA? Really?
Pardon me for noticing the transparency of your disingenuousness.After a couple of posts, and before being referenced to the Catechism and Theology of the Body, and to Scripture, some questions are understandable.
But the above is slander, and you should apologize. The Church does not say any of the things you are claiming. You know it doesn’t say them, and you are fooling no one.
The observation that a male and female complement one another supports a forced and artificial way of forming relationships? Really? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Well thank God you’re here to do that, we wouldn’t want the ravings of a madman like Saint John Paul 2 to catch hold of humanity.
Your slanderous interpretation. It is you who insist on ranking human beings, no one else brought that up. You did.
- Status