Reason for all male priesthood

[Skeptic92]

Oh boy, ontology. I’m sorry if I seem exasperated, but I’ve discussed ontology with people before. Here’s how the discussions always go:

Ontology buff: “In this set of objects there are two types, A and B. Objects of types A and B have their own respective essences because they are obviously different. Thus, we must treat them differently.”

Me: “You haven’t actually proven that these objects differ in any way beyond the differences you use to distinguish them in the first place. So by evoking essences you’re just adding an extra level of complexity to otherwise simple reasoning. For example, I could partition this set differently into types C and D, note that they are obviously different, and assert there must be essences involved there as well.”

Ontology buff: “But the characteristics you noted don’t arise from essences.”

Me: “How do you know? I did exactly the same thing you did: I pointed out differences among members of the set, and arbitrarily claimed they must arise from some spooky ‘essences’.”

Ontology buff: “Umm…you have to read such-and-such authors before you are allowed to disagree with me.”

But if you insist on having the argument, I’ll play along. I claim that there is an ontological distinction between the races, just as you’ve done for the sexes. Your turn.

The debate rather seems to be over whether there is something to change at all. To my knowledge, Jesus never explicitly stated there ought to be an all-male priesthood, which is why the issue is so contentious. Catholics appear to be inferring it through different sets of questionable premises.

Okay you assert that there is an Ontological Distinction between the races, let us examine this. First of all, what category does racial distinctions arise from? The substance itself, or one of its properties? The way in which we deduce racial distinctions are based upon ethno-geographic (the colour of their skin and where they are from) conditions; of which are subject to change. The Ethnic conditions are based on the category of quality; which is an accident which is predicated upon the substance, not a substance in its own right. Therefore Ethnic considerations are accidental, and not essential. Geographic considerations are based on the category of place, which again is an accidental category as it adheres in a substance and is a predicate not a subject.

Therefore; to assert a fundamental ontological distinction between the races would be to confuse what is accidental with what is essential. Which is a form of fallacious reasoning.

Let us examine now the distinction between the sexes; let it first be noted that human reproduces sexually. This reveals to us that if there is a real distinction between man and woman it would be found in the activity of the reproductive faculty.

It is known with indubitable certainty, through modern Biology, the means by which humanity procreates. Sexual reproduction requires two contrary, but not contradictory, principles of procreation. These are contrary as they serve towards different ends; sperm has an active potency or power ‘to fertilise an ovum’, whilst an ovum has a passive potency ‘to be fertilised’. A things causal powers is directly related to the substantial form (and therefore its essence, or quiddity) which it has. And, as the ontological causal powers of the sexes are contrary to each other (and evidently separable); what we have, therefore. is a real major distinction between the sexes.

I await your critique.

 

[Oreoracle]

Are there female Buddhas, or female Dalai Lamas?

Not to my knowledge. Why do you suppose that is? Their rationale can’t be anything like yours, since their theology is different. So why do they reach the conclusion that all-male is best?

Okay you assert that there is an Ontological Distinction between the races, let us examine this. First of all, what category does racial distinctions arise from? The substance itself, or one of its properties? The way in which we deduce racial distinctions are based upon ethno-geographic (the colour of their skin and where they are from) conditions; of which are subject to change. The Ethnic conditions are based on the category of quality; which is an accident which is predicated upon the substance, not a substance in its own right. Therefore Ethnic considerations are accidental, and not essential. Geographic considerations are based on the category of place, which again is an accidental category as it adheres in a substance and is a predicate not a subject.

What is accidental or essential depends on how you are partitioning the objects in question. For instance, consider the set of all humans. Both race and sex is accidental to being human. However, being white is essential to being Caucasian, and being female is essential to being a mother. It all depends on the partitioning induced by “humans”, “Caucasians”, “mother”, etc.

So your assertion that there is an ontological distinction between the sexes is only true if you are separating humans based on sex to begin with. If you separate them based on race, then voila, we have an ontological distinction because of that. As I said, this partitioning does not lead to any interesting differences beyond the differences you used to partition the objects to begin with.

Being able to split up a set of objects in different ways does not make someone a profound metaphysician. Most people do it without the fancy vocabulary, and it’s less confusing that way.

Let us examine now the distinction between the sexes; let it first be noted that human reproduces sexually. This reveals to us that if there is a real distinction between man and woman it would be found in the activity of the reproductive faculty.

Let it first be noted that black people absorb sunlight differently than white people due to melanin. This reveals to us that there is a real distinction between blacks and whites in the activity of filtering sunlight.

 

[Skeptic92]

What is accidental or essential depends on how you are partitioning the objects in question. For instance, consider the set of all humans. Both race and sex is accidental to being human. However, being white is essential to being Caucasian, and being female is essential to being a mother. It all depends on the partitioning induced by “humans”, “Caucasians”, “mother”, etc.

So your assertion that there is an ontological distinction between the sexes is only true if you are separating humans based on sex to begin with. If you separate them based on race, then voila, we have an ontological distinction because of that. As I said, this partitioning does not lead to any interesting differences beyond the differences you used to partition the objects to begin with.

Being able to split up a set of objects in different ways does not make someone a profound metaphysician. Most people do it without the fancy vocabulary, and it’s less confusing that way.

Let it first be noted that black people absorb sunlight differently than white people due to melanin. This reveals to us that there is a real distinction between blacks and whites in the activity of filtering sunlight.

“Caucasian” isn’t a substance; “human being” or “rational animal” is the substance. Whether the human being is Caucasian or not is accidental; your critique is a classic non-sequitur.

Second; I noted that human beings reproduce sexually; so that IF there were contrary principles that would form an ontological distinction, we’d know where to look. As the contrary principles are found in the essential power of reproduction, it is directly related to the essence (in the strict sense) of the Being. Your examples are still to do with place & quality; which are accidental features of a substance, and predicated of a substance.

To highlight the difference;

A Man is mortal
A Caucasian is mortal

The first proposition is obviously valid and true; whilst the second not so much. We’d have to suppose that there is something missing from the proposition, as there is no subject only an implied one. To make the logically valid and true the proposition would have to be changed;

A man, who is caucasian, is mortal.

This reveals that “caucasian” is a predicate of a substance within which it adheres. There it is an accident, even if a proper accident that flows from the determinations of its quiddity.

 

[Verbum]

Holy Orders is a sacrament, as is baptism. Is baptizing wilth orange juice valid? Maybe it is , maybe it isn’t. But the practice of the Church has been to baptize with water, and nothing else. The Church would not feel authorized to baptize with orange juice.

In the same way, only men have been ordained. Would the ordination of women be valid? Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn’t. But the practice of the Church, from apostolic times has been to ordain men only. It does not feel authorized to ordain women.

These discussions are futile, because the matter has been settled once and for all by John Paul II in the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

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.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

It does not get any clearer. The pope is invoking his mission as head of the Church and uses the word DEFINITIVELY. Questioning this declaration is tantamount to rebellion against the Church.

Verbum

 

[Oreoracle]

“Caucasian” isn’t a substance

Proof?

As the contrary principles are found in the essential power of reproduction, it is directly related to the essence (in the strict sense) of the Being.

Reproduction isn’t essential in any absolute sense. The universe will not implode if humanity becomes extinct. Yes, reproduction is essential for the survival of our species (though our survival is again not necessary or essential), but then, so is the filtering of sunlight. I concede that it doesn’t sound as grandiose as reproduction, but it’s important to survival.

Your examples are still to do with place & quality; which are accidental features of a substance, and predicated of a substance.

You arbitrarily dictate whether or not something is a quality or substance without proof. This is because you’ve begun with your conclusion already in mind.

A Man is mortal
A Caucasian is mortal

The first proposition is obviously valid and true

Firstly, propositions aren’t valid, arguments are. You haven’t made an argument here. As for truth, it is actually more obvious that Caucasians are mortal than it is that men are. This is because, when deciding whether or not propositions are true (which is not the business of logic, but of science), we must experiment upon the population in question. Caucasians are a smaller, less varied (when it comes to qualities concerning mortality) group than humans overall, so they are easier to experiment upon in theory.

 

[Skeptic92]

Proof?

**Reproduction isn’t essential in any absolute sense. ** The universe will not implode if humanity becomes extinct. Yes, reproduction is essential for the survival of our species (though our survival is again not necessary or essential), but then, so is the filtering of sunlight. I concede that it doesn’t sound as grandiose as reproduction, but it’s important to survival.

You arbitrarily dictate whether or not something is a quality or substance without proof. This is because you’ve begun with your conclusion already in mind.

Firstly, propositions aren’t valid, arguments are. You haven’t made an argument here. As for truth, it is actually more obvious that Caucasians are mortal than it is that men are. This is because, when deciding whether or not propositions are true (which is not the business of logic, but of science),** we must experiment upon the population in question. ** Caucasians are a smaller, less varied (when it comes to qualities concerning mortality) group than humans overall, so they are easier to experiment upon in theory.

As to the first; the reproductive power isn’t essential to our nature? I’m not even sure how that is coherent. Can you defend this, or are you begging the question? I’ve taken the definition of essence as “those causal powers that being has in virtue of the being that it is”, in the case of humanity those of the rational soul (which includes those of the sensitive and vegetative souls) which does indeed include the reproductive power. See Anthony Kenny; Aquinas on Mind, for a modern analytical take on Aristotles & Aquinas’ Psychological Philosophy.

As to the second; No, I am starting from the point of view of the Ontological Categories of Being as found in Aristotles Physics, Metaphysics, & Categories. Aquinas comments on them in his commentaries on the Physics and Metaphysics, and I believe until fairly recently they were known as the “predicables”. So no, my argument is not circular and nor is it question begging.

As to the third; you are presupposing that we only gain knowledge via inductive logic. as inductive logic is itself a product of deductive analysis this view would be self-defeating. We do not have to go and test every single case to see the truth of the proposition, especially when the truth of the proposition can be see clearly from the essence of the thing that is being spoken about. The concept of man include, virtually, his mortality as a property of the substance. Caucasian doesn’t give us the substance, only the ethno-graphical attribute of a substance. Caucasian is a predicate of man, not man a predicate of caucasian

 

[adrift]

Mary Magdalene. Brave and strong. Helps fund Jesus’ travels. Stays with him during the crucifixion. She’s the first one to see a vision of him after death, the first one to proclaim it. And then…she disappears.

She was the first one to see Jesus after His resurrection not a vision but Jesus resurrected.

The gospels were written 40-80-ish years after Jesus died.
Why didn’t anyone add/include what happened to this important woman?

Much of what people talk about re the Apostles is “legend” too, right?
From all the Early Christianity experts and professors I’ve spoken to, all their deaths (except one that is mentioned in the bible i think?) are “legend”…how and where all they died and all those details are not in any documented record, no reliable source.

.

So there were many who were not documented as to what happened to them. Perhaps because in the scheme of things that was not important to the spread of Christianity. It makes a stronger case for a male priesthood.

 

[WilT]

First of all as mentioned earlier, the Jewish priests were of men and men only. Since we as Catholics follow that same tradition handed down by that culture and that by God. Jesus, the high priest chose only men to join in the priesthood. This can be read in some passages in the Gospels. God Chose them personally Christ said to them. Therefore the priestly line continues on today, through men, today and always despite what the radical feminist may want you to think.

 

[seagal]

There is another, I think more compelling, reason why women can not be ordained priests. One of the main functions of the priesthood is to act in persona Cristi, or in the person of Christ, in performing various sacraments, i.e. Reconciliation and the Mass. If the church is the bride of Christ, then the groom must be male, otherwise it’s a lesbian relationship.

Peter Kreeft gave an excellent talk about this issue. I find his reasoning very compelling.