F
fix
Guest
Amen. The world does not accept the reasoning of Christ’s Church not because it is poor reasoning, but because so many refuse to change the way they lead their lives. In many respects, it is that simple.
- Status
P
Philip_P
Guest
Closing off discussion, though, transforms questioners into dissenters. Why the mania, among some, to throw people out of the Church? Again, I say that if we truly believe the Church holds the Truth, we should welcome, not hide, from discussion. Retreating to the ramparts and bolting the gate is an act of fear, not confidence.
Look at historical controversies, for instance. Arianism is now thorougly debunked. No one within the Church seriously advocates this position. It was not always so, however. The dialog surrounding the questions it raised were critical for the Church’s formation of doctrine and theology. The Church emerged from the Arian controversies stronger, not weaker.
Issues like women’s ordination and technologically-driven contraception are fairly recent. The Church’s arguments are still undeveloped and far from satisfying. Through true dialog, we will get to the point where the Church’s position is as well-articulated and accepted as her position on Arianism. We’re not there yet, though, and stifling debate won’t get us there.
F
fix
Guest
Philip P:
I am all for new and better arguments, but dissent is not the answer. Teaching the truth with love is the answer.
Arguments do not convert souls, the Holy Spirit does. The Church’s reasons on these subjects are long, tested and very logical. That so many reject them is not because the Church is deficient, but because so many do not want to reform their lives.
I am all for new and better arguments, but dissent is not the answer. Teaching the truth with love is the answer.
B
Brendan
Guest
Philip P:
There is Objective Truth and anything contrary to that would be, by definition, Objectively False.
Would a Mathematics journal even consider publishing a paper that articulate that pi=4?
Or would the AMA publish a paper that encouraged treatment of migraines by decapitation?
Of course not, because a respectable Academic Journal is not in the business of publishing what is known to be false, even to demonstrate contrast.
America regularlly published similarly Objectively False articles.
And because of that, the Editor failed miserably in his task.
When the Church teaches on a matter of faith or morals, there ceases to be 2 sides to an issue. In fact, there should be no controversy at all.
There is Objective Truth and anything contrary to that would be, by definition, Objectively False.
It goes further than that, publishing an article showing teachings contrary must be done in a way to articulate the falsehood of the incorrect teaching. America failed miserable in this capacity.
Would a Mathematics journal even consider publishing a paper that articulate that pi=4?
Or would the AMA publish a paper that encouraged treatment of migraines by decapitation?
Of course not, because a respectable Academic Journal is not in the business of publishing what is known to be false, even to demonstrate contrast.
America regularlly published similarly Objectively False articles.
And because of that, the Editor failed miserably in his task.
B
Brendan
Guest
Philip P:
The purpose of a question is to receive an answer, is it not? If the answer has already been given, what is the point of questioning?
The answer to their question is presented, they can either accept the answer or deny the authority of of the Answer Giver.
But in each case, it is the person doing so that makes this decision, not the Church. The Church throws no one out, people leave of their own accord because they do not accept the validity of the answer. The Church happily welcomes back any who leave
Does it matter that the ‘pill’ then was an extract from a puffer fish, and the condoms were made of sheepskin, and now they are hormones and latex?
They knew they were immoral a thousand years ago, and they are still immoral now.
They are not new, the are old and have been addressed.
Would one argue with Christ over these issues, or just accept His Word as Final?
Who is throwing people out of the church, or turning questioners into dissenters.
The purpose of a question is to receive an answer, is it not? If the answer has already been given, what is the point of questioning?
The answer to their question is presented, they can either accept the answer or deny the authority of of the Answer Giver.
But in each case, it is the person doing so that makes this decision, not the Church. The Church throws no one out, people leave of their own accord because they do not accept the validity of the answer. The Church happily welcomes back any who leave
How productive would it be to argue of 2+2=5? Would would the purpose of such a discussion be? Would an authority be wrong to state continuously and without reservation that 2+2 does, in fact, equal 4. Would an Authority be justified is stating that any mathematics teacher conform to the axiom 2+2=4 if they wish to teach in the schools name?
No both have been discussed for millenia. Both the Diache and the Epistle of St. Barnabas discuss the immorality of women taking ‘medicines’ to avoid pregnancy. The Romans and Greeks of Christs time were well familiar with condoms.
Does it matter that the ‘pill’ then was an extract from a puffer fish, and the condoms were made of sheepskin, and now they are hormones and latex?
They knew they were immoral a thousand years ago, and they are still immoral now.
They are not new, the are old and have been addressed.
Would one argue with Christ over these issues, or just accept His Word as Final?
F
fix
Guest
There it is. If He did appear to many of these folks I think they would say they disagree, not because they want a better argument, but because they want to do what they want to do.
It always comes down to authority.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is unable to work through logic and argument? As to the subjects that are currently seen as controversial, they are new. With women’s ordination, for instance, it’s not simply a question of whether women should be priests, it’s a question of women’s role in the Church and in society in light of the revolution in our understanding of human equality and women’s roles. The questions being asked now did not exist in, say, the middle ages. Surely you are not arguing that women’s roles today should be the same as they were in the Middle Ages? Men’s aren’t. In fact, the role of the laity has also radically changed, as the lay have become more active. None of this leads to the conclusion that women ought to be priests, but we as a church are being willfully blind if we ignore that we are facing new and different questions now which require new and different answers.
-Brendan, a mathematics journal would not have a paper arguing that 2+2=5, but journals do regular publish proofs for various mathematical problems. These proofs undergo critique, and are revised. Just because you have the answer doesn’t mean you’ve successfully argued your point. What I’m advocating for is the legitimate and vitally important role of critics who expose the weaknesses in an argument.
Look at contraception. The majority of Catholics, including church going, devout Catholics, do not accept the official line. Somehow the Church has failed to make her position adequately convincing. Catholics don’t regularly question the Trinity, the morality of abortion (though they may question it’s legality/illegality), the sacraments. These basic issues have, by and large, been put to rest. On the controversial issues, they haven’t. You can’t simply declare a discussion closed to make it so.
F
fix
Guest
Philip P:
They do not question the hypostatic union because they are not interested. Why is that someone who claims to be enlightened would accept that a man can die and rise again or be present under the appearance of bread, yet cannot accept that contraception or sodomy is evil? Why, because to accept those things means changing the way one lives their life, that is why.
Nope, I am saying He has given many logical arguments and many reject those arguments for selfish reasons, not because they are illogical.
This has been explained many times. The role of women, men and the clergy has been explained in many ways in many avenues. The same ones keep agitating because they do not like the answers. The answers are logical, they just are not what folks want to hear.
Asked and answered.
The answers are given, many do not like the answers.
On these issues the Church is speaking as Christ. What part of Christ’s answers need revision?
What weakness? The argument is not weak. The folks rejecting the argument are the ones who are weak. Get it?
I would not call a contraceptor a devout Catholic. That is unreasonable.
The Church has dropped the ball, but not because of weak arguments, but because of not giving the arguments. There are many reasons for that, but that is another thread.
They only question issues of genital sexuality and gender. Hint- there is a reason for that!
They do not question the hypostatic union because they are not interested. Why is that someone who claims to be enlightened would accept that a man can die and rise again or be present under the appearance of bread, yet cannot accept that contraception or sodomy is evil? Why, because to accept those things means changing the way one lives their life, that is why.
C
chicago
Guest
Well, let’s take sexual morality as an example. The Church can say that contraception, homosexuality, or whatever is not allowed. She can point to a centuries old tradition. Yet that argument might not be effective if it is made in a way that doesn’t communicate to contemporary sensibilities. It has been argued, for instance, that perhaps Humanae Vitae was not written with the sort of dynamic phenomenological apologetic that the Theology of the Body brought to light, for example. The latter speaks better to the experience and questions which modern man asks. But if one only said, “Don’t ask that question. We don’t have to answer it. Just accept the previous articulations which approached the matter from another approach”, then people will discard your argument entirely and not see you as a serious and worthy interloquoter.
E
estesbob
Guest
Philip P:
I think the Church has made the case against contraception very clearly and succinctly. If you are not sure of what the church’s position is i suggest you start with vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
The number of “Catholics” who disagree with the teachings of the Church is irelevant. We err if we look upon the Church’s mission as to draw more members to it. Filling up the pews is NOT what the Misson of the Church is-saving souls and leading the people to experience the joy of “living in the presence of the Lord in the land of the living” is . Arguing with those who want the Church to change thier stances to fit their lifestyle and/or politics does nothing to advance this mission.
I dont think the TRUTH requires new and different answers. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture, the traditions of the Church and the writings of 2000 years of the Church fathers that would support ordaining women as Priests. The argument for Ordination of women is grounded in “presentism”-the attitude that our age is the most enlightened of all and we need to undo the ignorance of the past.
I think the Church has made the case against contraception very clearly and succinctly. If you are not sure of what the church’s position is i suggest you start with vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
The number of “Catholics” who disagree with the teachings of the Church is irelevant. We err if we look upon the Church’s mission as to draw more members to it. Filling up the pews is NOT what the Misson of the Church is-saving souls and leading the people to experience the joy of “living in the presence of the Lord in the land of the living” is . Arguing with those who want the Church to change thier stances to fit their lifestyle and/or politics does nothing to advance this mission.
F
fix
Guest
The Church has “new” and "old’ arguments for Her proscriptions regarding contraception and the like. Few take the time to read them all.
When speaking about Catholics who claim to accept the authority of the Church on issues of faith and morals, it really seems odd that so many desire a better argument when really it is that they do not want to hear any argument that would lead them to change the way they are living.
I am not against more information or so-called “better” arguments, what I am saying is that is mostly a smoke screen. As I said it seems disingenuous that someone would accept all manner of doctrine that are not verifiable like the ascension, or Mary as Virgin, yet they demand a “better” proof for not contracepting.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Actually, issues such as the hypostatic union WERE intensely questioned at one point. Virtually every tenet of Church doctrine at one point was a subject of fierce dispute.
Keep in mind that sex and gender issues have undergone a significant revolution, both in society at large, and within the Church. THAT’s why their currently the subject of such intense focus. Theology and approaches to toward sexuality and marriage are different. Procreative AND unitive? Augustine was very suspicious of any sort of sexual pleasure, even if it was “unitive.” This is a new Church. Combine this with a revolution in the role of the laity. Even strongly conservative lay groups like Opus Dei are a break with the past simply by their existence. Having the laity play such a prominent role is unprecedented (taking the long historical view here - the laity’s role has been increasing since the 19th century). Not to mention, the laity is far more educated and well-read than in the past, too.
We’ve undergone a revolution in the last 40 years, but the top level of the Church thinks the same answers will suffice. If forums for dialog such as America are shut down, I fear the hierarchy will only become increasingly disconnected and unable to speak to the average Catholic.
E
estesbob
Guest
Philip P:
The question we all must ask ourselves is does our Faith form our politcs and our views on morality OR does our politcs and views on morality form our Faith. For too many (as laid out in the magazne “America” , the latter is true.
What we have undergone is not a “revolution” but a descent into relatavism and situation ethics. Too often what we have is Catholics who want the Church to change its teachings to affirm their beliefs or politics(thus plethora of so called catholic politicians who support abortion).
The question we all must ask ourselves is does our Faith form our politcs and our views on morality OR does our politcs and views on morality form our Faith. For too many (as laid out in the magazne “America” , the latter is true.
F
fix
Guest
Philip P:
America magazine and like minded publications need to be cleaned up. I am glad Reese is gone and I hope and pray the next editor is more faithful to the Church in presenting the faith.
There is nothing to dialogue about. Did Christ say to go and dialogue about the truth to all nations? The Church has, and continues, to give explanations of the faith. Too many reject those truths because they do not want to accept them, not because they are unconvincing.
America magazine and like minded publications need to be cleaned up. I am glad Reese is gone and I hope and pray the next editor is more faithful to the Church in presenting the faith.
C
chicago
Guest
well, seeing as how entering into dialogues which respect human persons may be how the truth is further exposed, then why not?
And yet, how does She come to those articulations save through challenge and refinement in dialogue?
True enough. Yet others may well be convinced because of the deepening and adaptation in articulation which comes from the discussion.
That said, I happen to agree that America wasn’t a good forum for genuine dialogue and often took up editorial positions were just plain outright dissident.
T
tcreek1
Guest
*The magazine America *and some people on this forum seem to think that the Church has not spoken clearly on the issue of women priests. They are obviously ignorant of authentic Church teaching or simple refuse to accept the teaching.
Letter of Pope Paul VI to Donald Coggan, Archbishop of Canterbury, 30 November 1975
“Your Grace is of course well aware of the Catholic Church’s position on this question. She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church”
Pope John Paul II
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS,
May 22, 1994
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
From the Vatican, on 22 May, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.
Joannes Paulus Pp. II
Responsum ad Dubium October 28, 1995
Concerning the Teaching Contained in
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2).
Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to bepublished.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Letter of Pope Paul VI to Donald Coggan, Archbishop of Canterbury, 30 November 1975
“Your Grace is of course well aware of the Catholic Church’s position on this question. She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church”
Pope John Paul II
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS,
May 22, 1994
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
From the Vatican, on 22 May, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.
Joannes Paulus Pp. II
Responsum ad Dubium October 28, 1995
Concerning the Teaching Contained in
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2).
Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to bepublished.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
- Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect
- Status