Priest stripped of his duties after performing Mass with a woman priest

[Lochias]

The Church does not practice moral relativism because moral relativism is a self-contradictory idea in and of itself (it is not internally logically coherent).

James Rachels pointed this out quite a while ago in philosophical ethics (not even Christian ethics, but by the basic rules of logic). Moral relativism is a self-defeating idea.

Agreed.

 

[Elizabeth502]

True. I was referring to the likes of John T. Noonan, respected jurist and consultant to the Vatican. He points out that the Church has a history of moral relativism.

Are you talking about this lay person

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Noonan,_Jr.

non-theologian, non-authority on the Church? (Even though he, as the wikipedia article suggests, is an ethicist, was raised Catholic, etc.) In my reading on Noonan, he does not speak of the term “moral relativism.” That is your phrase, which you keep on attributing to the Church without authority on your part to do so, and which you keep, along with this false premise, asserting that our Holy Father “denies,” as if PBXVI is being deliberately disingenous. (Lying) As here:

This denial is just an anomaly associated with Benedict XVI.

Again, this is offensive. You are making a false statement and accusing the Pope of prevaricating on your false premise and what you assume are the true (not) premises of certain lay figures who are not part of the Magisterium and not authorities on how doctrine develops (as opposed to “changing”) in the Church. Development of a doctrine is a different dynamic and is not even in the same galaxy as “moral relativism.” That is the false equation, one you keep on making, and then asserting that our Pope is “denying.”

Moral relativism refers to shifting standards which change according to circumstances, especially of the actor. Moral relativism is the opposite (obviously) of absolute moral standards, which, as a system, asserts certain principles which are fixed.

One thing that non-experts in moral thelogy (of which, I’m sorry, both you and Mr. Noonan are) often do not understand is that it is the principles which are fixed. Variables are indeed taken into account in moral theology, but without understanding the process for placing those variables in the correct hierarchy within the absolute structure of moral decision-making, it is possible to get derailed. (Or to assume “relativism.”) This is why fully trained Catholic apologists with credentials spend years in Rome, learning these principles and their application, and are able to speak lucidly and authoritatively, having understood these dynamics and their structure within a theological and philosophical framework.

 

[estesbob]

True. I was referring to the likes of John T. Noonan, respected jurist and consultant to the Vatican. He points out that the Church has a history of moral relativism. This denial is just an anomaly associated with Benedict XVI. My sense is that it will pass, and the Church will continue to progress, though slowly and deliberately.

Assuming the church could why should they change their doctrine on Female Ordination?

 

[fix]

True. I was referring to the likes of John T. Noonan, respected jurist and consultant to the Vatican. He points out that the Church has a history of moral relativism. This denial is just an anomaly associated with Benedict XVI. My sense is that it will pass, and the Church will continue to progress, though slowly and deliberately.

So, nothing authoritative.

 

[epan]

So, nothing authoritative.

I’m not going to beat the dead horse, too much. But any student of history knows that the Catholic Church has changed it’s moral stance on a number of issues over the centuries. Granted, it does not happen often. This does not take any special authority to state accurately.

Elizabeth finds such a statement as offensive. That is not my intent I am simply stating facts, as they are generally accepted. I rather see the attempt to deny such things as a revisionist approach to history.

 

[epan]

Are you talking about this lay person

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Noonan,_Jr.

non-theologian, non-authority on the Church? (Even though he, as the wikipedia article suggests, is an ethicist, was raised Catholic, etc.) In my reading on Noonan, he does not speak of the term “moral relativism.” That is your phrase, which you keep on attributing to the Church without authority on your part to do so, and which you keep, along with this false premise, asserting that our Holy Father “denies,” as if PBXVI is being deliberately disingenous. (Lying) As here:

Again, this is offensive. You are making a false statement and accusing the Pope of prevaricating on your false premise and what you assume are the true (not) premises of certain lay figures who are not part of the Magisterium and not authorities on how doctrine develops (as opposed to “changing”) in the Church. Development of a doctrine is a different dynamic and is not even in the same galaxy as “moral relativism.” That is the false equation, one you keep on making, and then asserting that our Pope is “denying.”

Moral relativism refers to shifting standards which change according to circumstances, especially of the actor. Moral relativism is the opposite (obviously) of absolute moral standards, which, as a system, asserts certain principles which are fixed.

One thing that non-experts in moral thelogy (of which, I’m sorry, both you and Mr. Noonan are) often do not understand is that it is the principles which are fixed. Variables are indeed taken into account in moral theology, but without understanding the process for placing those variables in the correct hierarchy within the absolute structure of moral decision-making, it is possible to get derailed. (Or to assume “relativism.”) This is why fully trained Catholic apologists with credentials spend years in Rome, learning these principles and their application, and are able to speak lucidly and authoritatively, having understood these dynamics and their structure within a theological and philosophical framework.

First of all, I impute no ill intent to anyone, particularly the Pope. But I believe that the statement that the Catholic Church has never changed any moral position is pure hogwash.

There are several examples which come to mind, but one of the least controversial would be money lending. For centuries, the lending of money at interest was a sin. Now it is accepted as not being sinful at all.

No, am not an expert in Theology. Your claim that Mr. Noonan is not may be unfounded. His expertise was sufficient enough to be published in Notre Dame’s theological periodical for peer review on the topic of changing morality in the Church’s teachings. This would imply some stature in the field. Yes, he was a lay person, as many theologians are. He was also a federal judge, which implies a scholarly aptitude and excellence in logic.

 

[Lapey]

First of all, I impute no ill intent to anyone, particularly the Pope. But I believe that the statement that the Catholic Church has never changed any moral position is pure hogwash.

There are several examples which come to mind, but one of the least controversial would be money lending. For centuries, the lending of money at interest was a sin. Now it is accepted as not being sinful at all.

No, am not an expert in Theology. Your claim that Mr. Noonan is not may be unfounded. His expertise was sufficient enough to be published in Notre Dame’s theological periodical for peer review on the topic of changing morality in the Church’s teachings. This would imply some stature in the field. Yes, he was a lay person, as many theologians are. He was also a federal judge, which implies a scholarly aptitude and excellence in logic.

Please list any moral teachings which have changed, not culture issues or disciplines, moral issues. No, head dress of women and lending and borrowing do not qualify as “changed moral doctrine.” Sorry, you’ll have to dig deeper into your bag of tricks.

I too find it offensive that a non-Catholic will come here and spew hearsay and non-authoritative writings and call it fact to prove the Church wrong. Then to top it off when evidence and truth is presented, you simply ignore it smugly.

Personally I think your comments and your “facts” are hogwash. When the Church proclaims something as true, it is true. It never changes. The truth of the sacrament of Holy Orders has and never will change. Men only can validly receive this sacrament. The sacrament can be conferred by an errant bishop but would have no affect on the woman’s soul, she is still just a lay person who has excommunicated herself by her disobedience.

And by the way, you do not have to tell us that you are no expert in theology, your words show that without saying it. If Noonan talks of anything against the Pope or the Church, he is in error as many who call themselves experts in the faith. The Church is not the mistake, listening to those who find themselves at odds with Her is the mistake.

Now a little about you, why the interest? You had your religious affiliation as Methodist if I remember, now it is discerning; what gives? What is your motive in continuing your abstinent rejection of what we Catholics have faithfully tried to help you learn?

 

[Ender]

I believe that the statement that the Catholic Church has never changed any moral position is pure hogwash.

The Church has three types of doctrines: those that are declared infallible, those that are taught infallibly, and ordinary doctrines. Since ordinary doctrines are not claimed to be infallible the possibility obviously exists that they could be in error and could change. Usury is not an example of either of the first two types of doctrines. The male priesthood is; it is an infallible teaching so even if your assertion that the Church has changed her position on usury was correct it would still be irrelevant to the question regarding women priests - and to the assertion that the Church has ever changed an infallible doctrine.

Ender

 

[adrift]

First of all, I impute no ill intent to anyone, particularly the Pope. But I believe that the statement that the Catholic Church has never changed any moral position is pure hogwash.

There are several examples which come to mind, but one of the least controversial would be money lending. For centuries, the lending of money at interest was a sin. Now it is accepted as not being sinful at all.

No, am not an expert in Theology. Your claim that Mr. Noonan is not may be unfounded. His expertise was sufficient enough to be published in Notre Dame’s theological periodical for peer review on the topic of changing morality in the Church’s teachings. This would imply some stature in the field. Yes, he was a lay person, as many theologians are. He was also a federal judge, which implies a scholarly aptitude and excellence in logic.

A RESPONSE TO JOHN T. NOONAN, JR. CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CATHOLIC MORAL DOCTRINE
Patrick M. O’Neil

 

[Elizabeth502]

From the same wikipedia page I referenced earlier:

Many of Noonan’s works deal with both historical and contemporary developments on legal or moral issues, including areas where law and morality overlap. A selection from his book The Morality of Abortion entitled “An Almost Absolute Value in History” is widely anthologized in ethics textbooks. He is a strong opponent of abortion, aligning himself with Catholic moral teaching on this topic, however his 1968 book on Contraception expressed support for this practice, a topic on which he has been relatively silent since the church formulated its doctrine opposing birth control during that same year. His works often detail changes in moral or legal views over time, including within the Catholic Church, a focus continued in his 2005 book A Church That Can And Cannot Change and his 1993 article “Development in Moral Doctrine,” in Theological Studies 54 (1993): 662-677.

[bolding mine]

Again, this is a lay-person’s non-authoritative, non-theological interpretation of the word “change.” The Mass has also changed. The Holy Days of Obligation have changed. The theological explanations of moral doctrine have not only changed, they have, as Noonan says, developed. “Explanations” and “development” are not the same thing as a fundamental change in the doctrine itself. In fact, the Church must adapt to societal developments, such as changes in technology, and the Church has addressed such developments, with applied theology of its own. Recently our Holy Father (I believe in 2012) publicly addressed some issues in technology. Ethicists and moral theologians within the Church have spoken to medical technology in particular, not inventing new doctrine, but rather applying the same settled moral principles which have always guided the Church: the primacy of life, the primacy of the traditional family, the inseparability of the body (of men, of women) from the sacred, divinely-ordained character of reproduction, etc.

“Change” is a multi-dimensional word in a complex field such as Catholic apologetics.

I will note that science “changes” as well. Does that mean that suddenly gravity has reversed itself, that chemical mixtures cannot be predicted, based on their properties? Of course not. It means that as our secular knowledge broadens to new horizons, we develop (“change”) our understandings of absolute scientific principles such as gravity, centrifugal force, etc. This is why scientific textbooks need to be rewritten, even when the absolute truths of science remain.

epan,
BXVI is not any different from his predecessors, in his understanding of what “change” is and is not, relative to Catholic moral theology and doctrine proceeding from the Magisterium. He is not “in denial.” He does not “have a fatal flaw.” He is not deceiving his flock.

 

[curlycool89]

There are several examples which come to mind, but one of the least controversial would be money lending. For centuries, the lending of money at interest was a sin. Now it is accepted as not being sinful at all.

Your example is not very good because you don’t even use the proper terms.

What the Church has always taught is that usury is a sin. Usury is a very specific term that sometimes is incorrectly translated simply as “charging interest”. A quick look on Wikipedia shows that there is a very old understanding that interest can be changed, say, as an administration fee (the bankers need to eat too and they are owed a just wage).

Now, this example doesn’t come up until the Medieval period because up to that point there was no such thing as professional banks. Money lenders before that time seem to have been more akin to loansharks. The Knights Templar are often given the title of running the first bank (taking deposits in one location and allowing withdrawals in another) .

There is also a great difference between old money and new money. Money in our century is known as fiat currency, which means there is nothing underlying the value of the money itself (unlike the gold standard, where money could in theory be traded for an “equivalent” in gold). Money has a time value in our age that is consistent with inflation. If inflation is 2% for the next year, then $100 will be actually worth $102 this time next year. So, to lend you $100 for the next year at cost alone means I have to charge you 2% interest just to break even, never mind make a profit if I’m a professional banker who has kids to feed.

As odd as it sounds, money is not free. Hense the development in the understanding of what usury means. I remember Jack Layton (before he died) saying that credit cards were charging rates that were usury (rates normally run around 19% annually). Is he right? No idea, I’m not an economist and I don’t know if they are charging way more then overheard and risk would justify.

 

[Cleb_Calimutan]

A prayer for all the Catholic Priests

 

[raikou]

How can women be ministerial priests if they have to consecrate bread and wine in the person of Christ (who is MALE) and say “This is my body. This is my blood.”?

Who can give any bishop the power to ordain women if Christ himself didn’t exercise such power?

How can these women call themselves Catholic if they contradict the Pope and Catholic doctrine?

 

[nordskoven]

CHECK OUT THESE UN-STAND-UP GUYS, UH…GALS:

*"This website was created and is maintained by Roman Catholic Womenpriests-USA, Inc. (RCWP-USA, Inc.), a California 501 (c) 3 non-profit corporation, as an educational and informational service to the public. RCWP-USA, Inc. promotes and supports the ordination of women and men in a renewed priestly ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. This website provides information about RCWP worldwide, with special focus on RCWP in the USA. ****Every ministry convened by a RCWP member operates separately and independently from Roman Catholic Womenpriests-USA, Inc. RCWP-USA, Inc. disclaims any responsibility for the operation of these ministries. The biographical information and descriptions of the ministries are for informational purposes only. This website also contains links to third party sites. Such links do not constitute or imply an endorsement and/or sponsorship by RCWP-USA, Inc. RCWP-USA, Inc. is not responsible for such third party websites and is not liable for the contents therein.
*© 2012 Roman Catholic Womenpriests-USA, Inc."
The enemy discloses their weakness by what they defend the most, and that isn’t the RCC they claim to be “in.” It’s their pocketbooks and their highest fear isn’t frying in Hades, it’s being sued. Attack there. Somebody sue 'em for copyright infringement or something.
OK, me first:
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH copyright 0033 Gerard Nordskoven

WHISTLE by Gerard Manley Nordskoven

I wished as how I was a whistle
Then, bellows-esque, I could blow on thistles.
My whirring, chirring maelstrom’d strip
The thistle of its razor lip.
Then, when I have to chop and hack,
I won’t prick myself cutting thistles back.

I was practicing academic puffery so I could be fortified, street cred-wise, for fist bumping. Gotta plump up those Jesuitical jibes and mystical metaphrands. Casting one’s self as a bad poet gives refuge for bad scholasticism and a dignified retreat as modeled by Teilhard deChardin. Here’s why women cannot be priests: THE SIN OF ADAM. Was that so hard? Males alone can atone for the SIN OF ADAM. Sorry, Peter Kreeft and Alice Von Hildebrand. The “man active, woman receptive” musings circumlocute around the forensics. Sorry, all ye experts. MAN GUILTY, WOMAN INNOCENT OF THE “SIN OF ADAM.” Adam had his mandate of divinely-granted superpower and authority and he blew it, bringing sin and death into the world. Nothing happened when the woman ate the forbidden fruit. It’s all man’s corporate opprobrium and sin-guilt and the atonemen began with the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world because God saw it coming. You’d think the priestessessessessess would go for that “shame 'n blame man only” thing. Genesis 3:15, God’s cursing Lucifer and his minions with the Woman & Seed is the mandate for women and children to flex their divinely-granted superpower and authority. You go, girl! Crush that snakey skull.

 

[jwinch2]

You are missing one other very important one: The individual knows what the church teaches, why the church teaches it, the person’s conscience has been formed (in the sense that his or her frontal lobes are developed such that he or she is capable of weighing all the arguments), and is still compelled to believe otherwise. That is the situation that Blessed Newman was referring to when he said that there was nothing on this earth with more authority than one’s conscience.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/537403_10200283721319746_416447301_n.jpg

 

[NoBama]

It seems that the priest did not violate any biblical law, but rather the church’s controversial doctrine which has been receiving increasing scrutiny in the recent past. I think’s it’s time to consider ordaining women as priests. Most other religions do. Why not allow women to serve God in the same capacity that a male (priest) can?

Your statment is very weak, please do not state “why not allow women to serve god in the same capacity that a male preist can” in a certain way they can but not as priests. There simply called nuns, now im talking to you as if you were a child but maybe this is the only way to explain it too you. Who came first man or women? Was jesus a man or women? two very simple facts showing that MAN is to be the leader. Now there are two ways for a man too be a shepherd.

1. Becoming a priest and being a shepherd for his parish and praising the gospel of the lord to the fullest.
2. Marrying within the church and leading your children through the sacrements and supporting them 100% on either married life or spiritual life (i.e. Preist of Nun)

Therefore there cannot be anyway of a women priest becouse she is not the shepherd.

 

[jwinch2]

imaginesisters.org/what-is-authentic-femininity/

The ladies from Imagine Sisters on what is and is not authentic femininity.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Jason, I read the essay, and, while I know you are sincere in posting it, I disagree with it. Not that I think that women are not, or should not be, receptive, but because it merely stops there, which is a weak way to describe, in my experience and my own self-concept, authentic femininity.

Authentic femininity is every bit as active and strong as authentic masculinity is; it’s just a different manifestation of strength.

For those of us lucky enough to have had for role models, sisters in habits, members of Orders faithful to their original charism, who taught us in schools, we perceive authentic femininity to be such women:

Receptive spriitually, yet leaders practically.
Women of daily prayer.
Women who modeled authentic, othodox Catholic spirtuality.
Women who knew their faith inside and out (the history of the Church, the writings of the Church, Scripture, the mystics, etc.)
Women who could be seen regularly in chapel when not teaching, preparing to teach, or counseling their students – spiritually, personally, and academically.
Women whose lives defined service.
Women who radiated joy, and who supported each other in community.
Active women, valiant women, strong women, fearless women, self-confident women, accomplished women, mature women of whatever age. Intelligent, intellectual, and well-read. Very much In the world. Very much not Of the world.
Women who valued men – both priests and lay.
And all of them wore their Order’s habit.

These were not merely receptive, in some one-sided way, although undoubtedly in their spiritual lives they had to be receptive to produce such spiritual fruit in themselves and others. I cannot imagine women more active than such women I was privileged to know and blessed to have in my life.

It is not as if men are loud and women are quiet; men active, women passive.
The ideal woman of God is as active as any man but in a different way, in a female way, with an intuitive female identity that does not try to be male, but neither apologizes for her strength.

You ask (implicitly), What is Femininity? I have asked (explicitly), What is Power? Even power in the Church. Power in the Church is leading souls to God. (Hmmm.) That doesn’t necessarily lie primarily in confecting the Eucharst and in hearing Confessions, although ultimately there resides grace. Nevertheless, priests, certainly parish priests, are rarely spiritual directors as well. They have not the time, and in former times they had not the inclination/desire.

Both formally and informally, women (such as the Sisters I knew) lead people powerfully to God, sometimes by spiritual direction as a role, sometimes by being a role-model, an approachable woman of God. That’s why I discussed earlier the misconception of power in the spiritual realm. Jesus was clear on the difference between God’s power and man’s power. Catholic women who “seek” the priesthood are lusting after worldly power, not spiritual power – even if it were possible that their “ordination” had any validity whatsoever, and that they could validly administer sacraments – which of course, no woman ever can.

Such women are seeking “position,” which Jesus was explicit in telling us to avoid. That is not a holy pursuit, and such women who persist in that, and fool themselves that “the Holy Spirit is guiding me” are being led by a very different spirit: the Capital Sin of Pride, which is the by-product of an elusive and artificial “power.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Let me further clarify that men who seek the preisthood for purposes of earthly (or ecclesial) “power” are also lusting after secular power, and for the same wrong reasons misguided women are. A man who actively seeks the priesthood for “position” rather than as a received call is a man who lacks a true vocation. If, in the course of his priesthood, he happens to acquire “position” within the Church, that can be as a result of his being led by the Spirit, within an authentic vocation, if he is following as much as he is leading.

 

[adrift]

Jason, I read the essay, and, while I know you are sincere in posting it, I disagree with it. Not that I think that women are not, or should not be, receptive, but because it merely stops there, which is a weak way to describe, in my experience and my own self-concept, authentic femininity.

Really? That is all you took away from the article?

If we turn to Mary, she offers us an amazing example of receptivity and fruitfulness, ultimately
obedience to the will of the Father–just think, her fiat, her yes to the Angel marked the dawn of
redemption! No matter how the Lord is inviting you to live your feminine dignity, know that
your response, your own fiat will contribute in a unique and unrepeatable way to the Glory of the
God and the salvation of souls!

Your description of the sisters was indeed their own fiat in imitation of Mary. That article did not stop at saying that women should only be receptive. The article also says.

These are very radical ideas, especially when one lives in a culture characterized by function and not identity

I am surprised that you would put sisters as role models while rejecting the role model presented in the article of Mary. It wasn’t the function of mother that makes Mary a role model but her saying “yes” to the will of God. It is the function of the sisters that they prayed taught and as you say were active but it wasn’t their identity. Their authentic femininity rested with their fiat to God “Your will be done”.