Gender of priests

[HomeschoolDad]

I also am aware of at least one intersex person who just stayed intersex and had a reasonably normal happy life.

Good for them.

HomeschoolDad:

And I say this as a traditionalist conservative who would otherwise pretty much freeze society around 1958, minus, of course, racism and Jim Crow.

Hmm, that’s the year I was born. I’m of a more mixed mind. There are some things from 1958 that I would like to have frozen in time, but some I’m not so sure. Actually I’m pretty sure wouldn’t freeze liturgy at 1958. I am glad Vatican II happened on all its levels.

Oh, I would definitely freeze liturgy in 1958!

If I had been around then, and if my opinion had been solicited, I might have trimmed a rubric here and there, but that’s about it. If there was such a burning desire to have the liturgy in the vernacular, then just translate what we already had. It’s not rocket science.

The issues with which Vatican II was concerned, could have been resolved more simply and succinctly in a synod or perhaps a series of synods. But then again, my opinion wasn’t solicited. (I was only two years old, I really wouldn’t have had an opinion )

Please let it be noted that I accept Vatican II when interpreted according to the analogia fidei, and I accept the Novus Ordo Missae, either in Latin or in a faithful vernacular translation, as entirely valid and licit.

One thing I would freeze though, is attitude towards abortion. You see, I was born to an 18 y.o. single mom. My father’s name was never on the original birth certificate. Fortunately abortion was not something even on the radar scopes of a poor rural girl from Nova Scotia. Instead, she was sent away from her village, to Ontario, where she gave birth to me, and put me up for adoption. The attending physician was my adoptive mother’s brother. That was the good kind of casual hook-up

Glad it all turned out well. But I am happy to see that unwed pregnancy these days carries not nearly the stigma that it used to — in secular circles, it carries no stigma whatsoever — and that a woman (and man!) who bring this about have not committed the unforgivable sin, nor should they be ramrodded into marrying, just because they have a baby, or giving the baby up for adoption if they’d rather keep it.

 

[hope]

You can suppose anything.

 

[InThePew]

In what official source might I find this stated?

Good question, well asked. Unfortunately, I can’t help you with that given I don’t presently have access to a library. to hazard a guess, it may well be related to the notion of the fecundity of Christ.

Something Rome might want to consider, or at least offer dispensation in individual cases?

Interesting question also. Again, without access to sufficient resources I can’t be certain but, given that almost anything else can be dispensed, I guess it’s possible.

Still, returning to the original topic of this thread, here’s a very good article on the subject from the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly journal which addresses the question.

 

[OraLabora]

Interesting question also. Again, without access to sufficient resources I can’t be certain but, given that almost anything else can be dispensed, I guess it’s possible.

Sorry for the thread drift, but from January 13th until February 13th, I spent a month living and working in a Benedictine monastery, and I faithfully attended every Office from Vigils at 5 am onwards. After about a week one of the monks asked me jokingly “when are you going to take the habit?” I replied “I’d love to but I have a canonical impediment: I’m married”. He replied basically what you said “just ask for a dispensation, you can get one for anything!”

 

[dochawk]

And I say this as a traditionalist conservative who would otherwise pretty much freeze society around 1958, minus, of course, racism and Jim Crow.

The horror . . . that would mean no 1959 Cadillac and thus no 1959 Cadillac tailfin–the most overdone of the overdone fins:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

while the '58 fins were the same size, they lacked the oh-so-overboard tailing dual nacelles . . .

 

[HomeschoolDad]

1950s cars were indeed something to see. I noticed that 1960 (the year of my birth) was when they quit making the rounded-top type cars (such as the 1957 Chevy Bel-Air below), and went for a more streamlined look.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Margaret_Ann]

God bless your mom!

 

[Margaret_Ann]

acanonlawyer:

In what official source might I find this stated?

Good question, well asked. Unfortunately, I can’t help you with that given I don’t presently have access to a library. to hazard a guess, it may well be related to the notion of the fecundity of Christ.

I thought it had to do with the prescription for the Levitical priesthood. In the OT a man from the line of Aaron could not be made a priest if he had physical defects. Since Our Lord has a perfect human nature, obviously He has no physical defects.

 

[poche]

The key word in Latin is ‘vir.’

 

[OraLabora]

Some of the '50s cars looked really cool. I’m partial to the 57 Chevy myself and rode in my upstairs neighbour’s a few time as a kid. It was a base model though, with three-on-the-tree manual transmission. And by the time I rode in it, it was over 10 years old and in pretty ratty shape, My neighbour was a mechanic and would buy old cars and get and keep them running.

That said, this video cured me of the notion that old cars were better:

Moreover cars have made great strides in fuel efficiency. I have a 2018 Golf station wagon, all-wheel drive with manual transmission, 1.8 liter turbocharged gasoline engine. It averages 40 mpg US on the highway with regular gas, with a highway range of just over 500 miles on a tank of gas. It puts out the same horsepower and torque as a small V8 from that era. My wife has the same car but with front-wheel drive and it gets 42+ mpg on the highway.

So I am not against progress by any means (add to that things like cancer treatment, workplace safety, other medical advances, etc. etc. and yes, even liturgical renewal).

That said, '50s cars still look cool! I would freeze them in '57 though. The '58 Chevy became really bloated in comparison to the 57 and was nowhere near as handsome. Compare a '57 t-bird to a '58 as well. No comparison, the '57 is so much more svelte and attractive. The '56 even more so. But I wouldn’t want any of them as a daily driver.

 

[TomH1]

I would very much like to see a source for this. In the meantime here’s my two-penneth worth. The ontological change to a man’s soul cannot be undone or changed. Ever! He is a priest for eternity.

Although this is not a topic I have explored in great depth it is my understanding that the Church teaches that one cannot change your sex. You may take various medicines, have your body mutilated by surgery, undergo psychiatric treatment and even be taught how to behave as a person of a particular sex. However, you cannot change your sex.

I would imagine the church would take a very dim view of a priest who went through this process. I am also certain the Church would be engaging with him, or trying its best to engage him, over time because this is a process and does not happen over night.

If he went ahead with it I think the Church would have applied censures against and withdrawn all his facutlies. Nonetheless he would remain a priest. Even if he were to disregard the Church and celebrate a Mass he would do so validly. Likewise, I think he would be able to hear confession, anoint and give Viaticum to the dying.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

So I am not against progress by any means (add to that things like cancer treatment, workplace safety, other medical advances, etc. etc. and yes, even liturgical renewal ).

Of course I am all in favor of temporal advances that have taken place in the past 65 years. Even people of modest means live like kings compared to people 100-200 years ago.

Not sure “liturgical renewal” was needed. I can concede that there was maybe a need for vernacularization of the Mass (alongside its Latin equivalent), and possibly some trimming of the rubrics (though many traditionalists assure us that the organic development of each and every little detail of the Mass took place for a reason, prompted by the Holy Spirit). But I wouldn’t have totally re-thought every aspect of the Mass from top to bottom as Bugnini et al did — “take everything apart and put it back together again”. There are many schools of thought on why all of this took place, but beyond that, I am not going to hijack a thread on priestly gender to dissect it all. Again, many schools of thought, some problematical, some not.

 

[acanonlawyer]

I thought it had to do with the prescription for the Levitical priesthood. In the OT a man from the line of Aaron could not be made a priest if he had physical defects. Since Our Lord has a perfect human nature, obviously He has no physical defects.

Yes. Historically, there have been physical defects that were deemed impediments to ordination. Most famously, perhaps, was the requirement that a man have his “canonical digits” so that he could hold the Host and chalice. The prior Code of canon law didn’t get into particulars, but just said that a man had to be physically able to safely and decently carry out his ministry at the altar.

Nowadays, there is no explicit statement, in law, that says certain physical impairments impede ordination. (The exception being that grave and malicious self-mutilation is an impediment.) Nevertheless, a bishop can decline to ordain a man whom he judges is incapable of carrying out the ministry of a priest.

Dan

 

[Margaret_Ann]

(The exception being that grave and malicious self-mutilation is an impediment.)

I’m not a canon lawyer but imnvho getting an operation to “change” his sex falls under “self-mutilation”.

 

[acanonlawyer]

I’m not a canon lawyer but imnvho getting an operation to “change” his sex falls under “self-mutilation”.

I think basically everyone would agree that it is, canon lawyer or not.

This “mutilation” would both prevent a man from being licitly ordained and, if a man did this after ordination, he would be unable to licitly exercise the order he has received.

Dan

 

[OraLabora]

I’m not a canon lawyer but imnvho getting an operation to “change” his sex falls under “self-mutilation”.

But probably not “malicious”.

 

[InThePew]

Margaret_Ann:

I’m not a canon lawyer but imnvho getting an operation to “change” his sex falls under “self-mutilation”.

But probably not “malicious”.

In the sense of being harmful, yes. Bear in mind “mutilation” here means an intentional act which limits a person’s capacity for acting in an authentically human way.

 

[OraLabora]

I’ll have to start this with a caveat. I am the parent of a transgendered adult child (male to female). The mutilation is, as a parent, a far far better solution than suicide.

That’s why in certain cases I don’t think of it as “malicious”.

 

[PetraG]

A person posing as a male who went through the rite of ordination is not validly ordained. A person who is a male and is ordained who honestly does not believe himself to be a male would be duty-bound to inform his bishop of this and would be relieved of all priestly faculties and duties, but would still be a priest as surely as any other priest who physically or mentally lost the capacity to administer the sacraments. Whether the person would be laicized or not, I could not say. It probably depends on whether or not the bishop discerned the condition to be permanent or not?

 

[Uriel1]

IOW

The Church would still consider her a priest, because they would consider her to be a him. They probably would not give her an assignment, for the same reason. IOW @halogirl is exactly right.

I have had online conversations with someone who was laicised and then transitioned to being a woman. (not immediately) It has happened.

How do you know Halogirl lives on the Isle of Wight ?