You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
_L
Guest
I am taking a faith and critical reason class at my catholic university, and for HW before every class we read articles by various theologians of different points of view both catholic/non catholic, examine what is is they are trying to prove and how they attempt to do that. (the professor isn’t teaching everything these people say is true, its just an exercise in analyzing theological arguments) And the article for this week was written by a feminist theologian in support of a leadership role for women in Christianity (not specifically at Catholic Church) but she obviously supports female priests.
Some of the points she makes is that men and women equally partake in being made in the “image of God” and so they are equally redeemable by Christ, and so they should be equal in terms of participation in the Church (including the priesthood)
She also used the “there is neither slave nor free gentile or jew” discourse by Paul to show that gender does not matter in terms of spiritual participation in the church.
So how would I go about refuting these specific arguments?
Some of the points she makes is that men and women equally partake in being made in the “image of God” and so they are equally redeemable by Christ, and so they should be equal in terms of participation in the Church (including the priesthood)
She also used the “there is neither slave nor free gentile or jew” discourse by Paul to show that gender does not matter in terms of spiritual participation in the church.
So how would I go about refuting these specific arguments?
1
1ke
Guest
Equal in dignity does not mean “the same” in all things.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
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/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html
W
WMM
Guest
***That is simple. The Church has spoken, infallibly, through the Ordinary Magisterium.I am taking a faith and critical reason class at my catholic university, and for HW before every class we read articles by various theologians of different points of view both catholic/non catholic, examine what is is they are trying to prove and how they attempt to do that. (the professor isn’t teaching everything these people say is true, its just an exercise in analyzing theological arguments) And the article for this week was written by a feminist theologian in support of a leadership role for women in Christianity (not specifically at Catholic Church) but she obviously supports female priests.
Some of the points she makes is that men and women equally partake in being made in the “image of God” and so they are equally redeemable by Christ, and so they should be equal in terms of participation in the Church (including the priesthood)
She also used the “there is neither slave nor free gentile or jew” discourse by Paul to show that gender does not matter in terms of spiritual participation in the church.
So how would I go about refuting these specific arguments?
The Church is not empowered to ordain females.
This is a belief binding on all Catholics; it is not open to discussion or revision.
God love you!***
O
Odell
Guest
Many of the arguments Catholics and conservatives put forward on the issue of women’s ordination are insufficient. The most common argument offered against the practice is that Jesus never chose women. That is indeed true, and the argument is valid; however, it isn’t a particularly strong one. It is an argument that seems to be incomplete, as if there were some other critical factors which need to be explained.
First of all, it is important for everyone to understand that the feminist argument is predicated on the notion of human dignity and equality being based on utility and function. This underlying assumption is rarely discussed when the issue of women’s ordination and equality is raised. However, it is critical to appreciate and acknowledge this point so the debate can advance intelligently. Too often in these types of debates, obvious assumptions and presuppositions are not dealt with upfront which invariably means both sides waste too much time and effort talking past one another.
For the feminist, dignity and equality depends on allowing women to do the same things#/# as men. And only in doing the same things – or at least having the capability to do so – can the two genders be equal in dignity. To deny a women the same function, under this rubric, would necessarily mean denying them equality and dignity. The connection is indeed logical, but the foundation itself is erroneous.
Contrary to this, the Christian worldview does not attach dignity and equality with function or utility. A human person is not any less dignified or equal to another person based on what they can or cannot do. Performing a specific function does not make anyone more worthy or dignified than someone who cannot perform that function. That is why the Church values all human life equally, independent of the supposed value that society attaches to a particular function or “quality of life” assessment. The Church values all human life equally, including the disabled or those bedridden with a serious sickness.
The rise of euthanasia and related “quality of life” ethic is also predicated on this feminist principle. One person decides that the utility and function of the disabled person does not meet the “quality of life” standard, and then proceeds to pull the plug or dehydrate the person to death. Instead of treating the individual with dignity and respect because of the intrinsic dignity bestowed by God, the arbiters of “equality”, through their dark lenses of utility and function, objectify the human person for their own base aspirations. Usually, this means unburdening themselves with the suffering of another human being.
In light of these different foundations, therefore, it is important to point out to our opponents that their very conception of equality is fundamentally different than our own. There is a false assumption that both sides view equality in the same way. As we can see, however, that is not a valid assumption at all. It is no surprise, therefore, to find that there is a divergence of opinion on the issue of women’s ordination. Feminists believe they don’t have equality in the Church because they are denied a function, but this is a distortion of what true equality is. Catholics say women already have equality because of their intrinsic dignity as human persons. Women complement men but are not the same as them.
continued…
First of all, it is important for everyone to understand that the feminist argument is predicated on the notion of human dignity and equality being based on utility and function. This underlying assumption is rarely discussed when the issue of women’s ordination and equality is raised. However, it is critical to appreciate and acknowledge this point so the debate can advance intelligently. Too often in these types of debates, obvious assumptions and presuppositions are not dealt with upfront which invariably means both sides waste too much time and effort talking past one another.
For the feminist, dignity and equality depends on allowing women to do the same things#/# as men. And only in doing the same things – or at least having the capability to do so – can the two genders be equal in dignity. To deny a women the same function, under this rubric, would necessarily mean denying them equality and dignity. The connection is indeed logical, but the foundation itself is erroneous.
Contrary to this, the Christian worldview does not attach dignity and equality with function or utility. A human person is not any less dignified or equal to another person based on what they can or cannot do. Performing a specific function does not make anyone more worthy or dignified than someone who cannot perform that function. That is why the Church values all human life equally, independent of the supposed value that society attaches to a particular function or “quality of life” assessment. The Church values all human life equally, including the disabled or those bedridden with a serious sickness.
The rise of euthanasia and related “quality of life” ethic is also predicated on this feminist principle. One person decides that the utility and function of the disabled person does not meet the “quality of life” standard, and then proceeds to pull the plug or dehydrate the person to death. Instead of treating the individual with dignity and respect because of the intrinsic dignity bestowed by God, the arbiters of “equality”, through their dark lenses of utility and function, objectify the human person for their own base aspirations. Usually, this means unburdening themselves with the suffering of another human being.
In light of these different foundations, therefore, it is important to point out to our opponents that their very conception of equality is fundamentally different than our own. There is a false assumption that both sides view equality in the same way. As we can see, however, that is not a valid assumption at all. It is no surprise, therefore, to find that there is a divergence of opinion on the issue of women’s ordination. Feminists believe they don’t have equality in the Church because they are denied a function, but this is a distortion of what true equality is. Catholics say women already have equality because of their intrinsic dignity as human persons. Women complement men but are not the same as them.
continued…
O
Odell
Guest
But even if this were true and there was no more contention regarding women’s ordination, it still begs the question as to why only men can be priests. First, it is important for our opponents to understand that the liturgical act in the Mass is an act of marriage. That is why Jesus is called the bridegroom and the Church is considered His Bride. In fact, the Scriptures are replete with this imagery:
Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.” (Mark 2:19-20)
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear. (Revelation 19:7-8)
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. (Revelation 21:1-2)
The Blessed Virgin is sometimes called the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” because of her union with the Holy Spirit in conceiving the incarnation within her womb. There is a type of marriage between these two Persons. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, would then go on to describe Himself as the bridegroom for His beloved Church, his disciples. That is why the Church is always referred to in the feminine “she” and never “he”, precisely because of this marital covenant between Christ and His Church. So we can see a clear indication why there is an important symbolism and reality to retaining the masculine and feminine qualities of the Church’s faith tradition – not only in the language it uses but also in how it is lived out in its various ministries, not the least of which is the priesthood.
While the Church corporately can be described as “feminine”, even the physical sanctuary in the Church building retains this quality. Within the sanctuary is the divine presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The mirror of this, of course, is the Blessed Mother who carried Our Lord in her womb for nine months. Christ was “enclosed” within the feminine person just like the liturgical act of the priest is “enclosed” within the femine sanctuary of the Church. The unborn Christ and His Mother, therefore, were the prototype of the liturgical act which Catholics participate in every Sunday.
The priest stands in the person of Christ, “persona Christi”. It is not the priest himself who acts principally, but the Person of Christ HIMSELF who acts through the performance of the movements, gestures, and pronouncements of the priest during the Mass. And since Christ was male, the priest in whom Christ acts, must also be male in order to reflect the Incarnation in its fullness. The Incarnation, which was realized through a woman and a man, was not only a redemption of men and women, but also a redemption (and reconciliation) between men and women. At the altar, therefore, the male priest represents this incarnational reality of Jesus Christ within the womb of the sanctuary.
When the bread and wine are consecrated by the priest, the priest in persona Christi then comes down from the altar and presents the body and bloody of Christ to His betrothed, the people of God. It is there that this one flesh union between the divine bridegroom, Jesus Christ, through the instrument of the priest, and His Bride, the Church, is consummated. This supernatural union between the Lord and His people is the mystical and ultimate reflection of natural marriage between spouses.
As a corporate body, therefore, the Church as Bride will always be feminine just as a singular body the Priest in persona Christi must always be masculine. It reflects the divine nuptial banquet between husband and wife.
In today’s society, however, the Catholic priesthood has been reduced to the last frontier of the feminist power-play, and it is hardly surprising or a coincidence that the push for female priests comes at the same time when same-sex “marriages” are all the rage. Since the liturgical act mirrors the reality of marriage in society, a female priest with the Church as Bride would merely reflect the culture’s approval of homosexuality in general and same-sex “marriage” in particular. As we Latins say, lex orandi, lex credendi.
John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/WhyWomenCantBePriests.aspx
Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.” (Mark 2:19-20)
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear. (Revelation 19:7-8)
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. (Revelation 21:1-2)
The Blessed Virgin is sometimes called the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” because of her union with the Holy Spirit in conceiving the incarnation within her womb. There is a type of marriage between these two Persons. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, would then go on to describe Himself as the bridegroom for His beloved Church, his disciples. That is why the Church is always referred to in the feminine “she” and never “he”, precisely because of this marital covenant between Christ and His Church. So we can see a clear indication why there is an important symbolism and reality to retaining the masculine and feminine qualities of the Church’s faith tradition – not only in the language it uses but also in how it is lived out in its various ministries, not the least of which is the priesthood.
While the Church corporately can be described as “feminine”, even the physical sanctuary in the Church building retains this quality. Within the sanctuary is the divine presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The mirror of this, of course, is the Blessed Mother who carried Our Lord in her womb for nine months. Christ was “enclosed” within the feminine person just like the liturgical act of the priest is “enclosed” within the femine sanctuary of the Church. The unborn Christ and His Mother, therefore, were the prototype of the liturgical act which Catholics participate in every Sunday.
The priest stands in the person of Christ, “persona Christi”. It is not the priest himself who acts principally, but the Person of Christ HIMSELF who acts through the performance of the movements, gestures, and pronouncements of the priest during the Mass. And since Christ was male, the priest in whom Christ acts, must also be male in order to reflect the Incarnation in its fullness. The Incarnation, which was realized through a woman and a man, was not only a redemption of men and women, but also a redemption (and reconciliation) between men and women. At the altar, therefore, the male priest represents this incarnational reality of Jesus Christ within the womb of the sanctuary.
When the bread and wine are consecrated by the priest, the priest in persona Christi then comes down from the altar and presents the body and bloody of Christ to His betrothed, the people of God. It is there that this one flesh union between the divine bridegroom, Jesus Christ, through the instrument of the priest, and His Bride, the Church, is consummated. This supernatural union between the Lord and His people is the mystical and ultimate reflection of natural marriage between spouses.
As a corporate body, therefore, the Church as Bride will always be feminine just as a singular body the Priest in persona Christi must always be masculine. It reflects the divine nuptial banquet between husband and wife.
In today’s society, however, the Catholic priesthood has been reduced to the last frontier of the feminist power-play, and it is hardly surprising or a coincidence that the push for female priests comes at the same time when same-sex “marriages” are all the rage. Since the liturgical act mirrors the reality of marriage in society, a female priest with the Church as Bride would merely reflect the culture’s approval of homosexuality in general and same-sex “marriage” in particular. As we Latins say, lex orandi, lex credendi.
John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/WhyWomenCantBePriests.aspx
M
Monica4316
Guest
Being a priest is not a “right”.
O
Odell
Guest
Here is a interview with a Harvard graduate who became a nun thesacredpage.com/2010/08/harvards-valedictorian-to-become.html
This is her response to a question asked about the Church being anti woman. It is the best short complete answer I have heard.
I feel privileged to represent the Catholic Church in a visible way, because it is an organization of sinners and sinners-turned-saints, emphatically alive, expanding, and responsive to the needs of the time, an organization that has been enormously effective in promoting the spiritual and material well-being of women and men throughout the 2,000 years of its existence.
From its earliest years, the Church’s doctrine of the equality of all humans as beloved children of God and its reverence for** Mary as the spouse and mother of God elevated women to a status previously unheard of. In our own times**, the Church’s unequivocal opposition to practices such as abortion and contraception, which harm women physically and psychologically, and threaten to render them victims of their own and others’ unchecked desires, makes the Church a lone voice above the chaos, promoting women’s dignity and happiness.
This is her response to a question asked about the Church being anti woman. It is the best short complete answer I have heard.
I feel privileged to represent the Catholic Church in a visible way, because it is an organization of sinners and sinners-turned-saints, emphatically alive, expanding, and responsive to the needs of the time, an organization that has been enormously effective in promoting the spiritual and material well-being of women and men throughout the 2,000 years of its existence.
From its earliest years, the Church’s doctrine of the equality of all humans as beloved children of God and its reverence for** Mary as the spouse and mother of God elevated women to a status previously unheard of. In our own times**, the Church’s unequivocal opposition to practices such as abortion and contraception, which harm women physically and psychologically, and threaten to render them victims of their own and others’ unchecked desires, makes the Church a lone voice above the chaos, promoting women’s dignity and happiness.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
The issue is all about employee. There is no such thing. Holy Orders in the Catholic Church is not the same as protestantism. That is what is happening here. These people are looking at the CC in the same way they see protestantism.In argument before the Supreme Court on an anti-discrimination case, the solicitor general–representing the Obama administration–said that the government would uphold the right of the …
More…
The way the world is going i would not doubt that such will happen. China ordains bishops for the CC of course they are not true bishops but this causes great pain for Catholics.
The more our leaders coward to governments and politics , the more they feel the right to press their authority into the Church.
Of course this could be part of the chastisement that is coming against Catholics for our rebellious behavior towards our God.
S
Stephentlig
Guest
Women can no more represent Christ and stand in his place than a man can the Blessed Virgin Mary. Does this help refute?
Women dont want equal rights they just wanna be men.
Women dont want equal rights they just wanna be men.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Anyone have any idea what this sentence means from the article?the government would uphold the right of the Catholic Church to preserve an all-male priesthood, but only “because the balance of relative public and private interests is different in each case.”
G
Godfollower
Guest
Please remember that, whenever you answer the question “How do I refute such-and-such an argument?” with the response “Because the Church said so, so shut up!” (or words to that effect), you empower the people who say “You only believe that because the Church tells you what to think.”***That is simple. The Church has spoken, infallibly, through the Ordinary Magisterium.
The Church is not empowered to ordain females.
This is a belief binding on all Catholics; it is not open to discussion or revision.
God love you!***
It actively pushes inquiring minds away from the Church.
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
WHat about a man who lost his male anatomy in an accident, can he still represent Christ?Women can no more represent Christ and stand in his place than a man can the Blessed Virgin Mary. Does this help refute?
Women dont want equal rights they just wanna be men.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Yes. Maleness is not confined to empirical appearances alone.WHat about a man who lost his male anatomy in an accident, can he still represent Christ?
O
Odell
Guest
“The body expresses the person. It is, thus, in all its materiality…penetrable and transparent, as it were, in such a way as to make it clear who man is (and who he ought to be).” Theology of the Body, 7:2WHat about a man who lost his male anatomy in an accident, can he still represent Christ?
What the Pope is saying is that what we are called to communion with God, ect is reveled and experienced through the body. The invisible determines man more that the visible. It is also true that the visible expresses the invisible. John Paul insists that the “body expresses the person.”
So that being said the person does not change if the body is mortified. The person remains the same. In other words the male anatomy is not all that makes up masculinity. So a male person who lost his male anatomy remains a male person and can still represent Christ.
M
m134e5
Guest
Actually, I believe in order to be ordained (though Rome may be able to dispense from this rule in extraordinary cases), a man must have intact genitals.Yes. Maleness is not confined to empirical appearances alone.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
To be a fuller sign of the bridegroom? Do you have a magisterial text on that?Actually, I believe in order to be ordained (though Rome may be able to dispense from this rule in extraordinary cases), a man must have intact genitals.
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
I suggest a few lectures by Dr. Peter Kreeft in the area of souls, specifically his lecture about Sex In Heaven rationally explains that our souls are gender specific to our bodies. That is to say, after death our gender identity is still intact regardless of possession of our body. Another good read would be Dr. David S. Oderberg and Dr. Edward Feser on hylemorphic dualism, otherwise known as Thomistic dualism, of the soul and body (the soul is the form and the body is the matter). That is to say the soul and body are one complete substance thus follows their gender act as one as well.
Is a person any less of a human being if his legs were cut off? The essence of the person is still intact regardless of material deformity. Thus follows with men who lost their male anatomy still hold the essence of a male and thus still able to act In Persona Christi.
In response to this case, haven’t governments learned not to interfere with the Church? Everytime they do, their nation falls. This administration is hell bent on destroying the Constitution, if that’s what they want then they will receive an opposite effect of what they desire.
Is a person any less of a human being if his legs were cut off? The essence of the person is still intact regardless of material deformity. Thus follows with men who lost their male anatomy still hold the essence of a male and thus still able to act In Persona Christi.
In response to this case, haven’t governments learned not to interfere with the Church? Everytime they do, their nation falls. This administration is hell bent on destroying the Constitution, if that’s what they want then they will receive an opposite effect of what they desire.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
I think the impediment to which he refers would only concern self-mutilation, either of the genitals or hands, under Canon Law 1041.5: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3S.HTM#4.1.0.6.2.3.1041.To be a fuller sign of the bridegroom? Do you have a magisterial text on that?
I don’t think it was intended against someone who suffered an accident or violence from another. Self-mutilation of the first sort would be a sign of mental pathology, and/or someone from a heretical sect that practiced self-castration, such as the Skoptsys, neither of which would be acceptable for a priest, (I think there is also a requirement to have hands in order to consecrate the Eucharist.)
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I think you are right since they pair self-mutilation with attempted suicide. Also, I seem to recall one of the American martyrs got a dispensation to confect the Eucharist even though he didn’t have thumbs because his captors mutilated him.I think the impediment to which he refers would only concern self-mutilation, either of the genitals or hands, under Canon Law 1041.5: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3S.HTM#4.1.0.6.2.3.1041.
I don’t think it was intended against someone who suffered an accident or violence from another. Self-mutilation of the first sort would be a sign of mental pathology, and/or someone from a heretical sect that practiced self-castration, such as the Skoptsys, neither of which would be acceptable for a priest, (I think there is also a requirement to have hands in order to consecrate the Eucharist.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.