Where do we draw the line?

[GIMJ]

I’m currently in the RCIA and at a recent meeting two of the people were debating the requirements that priests be both male and celibate. This was not a simple matter of trying to understand the Church’s position–one person was arguing that the Church’s position on these issues is illegitimate and corrupt because the bishops are power-seeking and sexist.

To me this seems to be an attack on the authenticity of the Church disguised as an intellectual pursuit for truth. I know that many Catholics struggle to answer these questions in the context of a modern world, but where do we draw the line?

–

Also…as someone who trusts that the Church does not have ulterior motives for maintaining the current structure of the priesthood, how do I respond to these assertions?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I’m currently in the RCIA and at a recent meeting two of the people were debating the requirements that priests be both male and celibate. This was not a simple matter of trying to understand the Church’s position–one person was arguing that the Church’s position on these issues is illegitimate and corrupt because the bishops are power-seeking and sexist.

To me this seems to be an attack on the authenticity of the Church disguised as an intellectual pursuit for truth. I know that many Catholics struggle to answer these questions in the context of a modern world, but where do we draw the line?

Also…as someone who trusts that the Church does not have ulterior motives for maintaining the current structure of the priesthood, how do I respond to these assertions?

Catholics are allowed to debate the virtues of a celibate priesthood. We are not allowed to even discuss the possibility of ordaining women. This is an unusually strict rule, brought in because of the severity and pervasiveness of the feminist heresy.

The Church seeks to expand its membership and the degree of commitment of those members, and so is inherently “power-seeking”, although it has on occasion drawn back from purely political power. The Church also believes that there are important differences between men and women, that women should not hold teaching authority in the Church, and that wives should obey their husbands. Thus she is sexist, though of course she disapproves of pornography, prostitution, polygamy, female circumcision, forced (but not arranged) marriages, sex-based abortions, and other things that degrade women.

 

[mercygate]

I’m currently in the RCIA and at a recent meeting two of the people were debating the requirements that priests be both male and celibate. This was not a simple matter of trying to understand the Church’s position–one person was arguing that the Church’s position on these issues is illegitimate and corrupt because the bishops are power-seeking and sexist.

To me this seems to be an attack on the authenticity of the Church disguised as an intellectual pursuit for truth. I know that many Catholics struggle to answer these questions in the context of a modern world, but where do we draw the line?

–

Also…as someone who trusts that the Church does not have ulterior motives for maintaining the current structure of the priesthood, how do I respond to these assertions?

Who was doing the discussing? The leaders? or the inquirers? An inquirer can say anything he wants. If the leaders are calling thet the churche’s possition illigitimate and corrupt, well, that’s another story.

 

[Contarini]

Catholics are allowed to debate the virtues of a celibate priesthood. We are not allowed to even discuss the possibility of ordaining women. This is an unusually strict rule, brought in because of the severity and pervasiveness of the feminist heresy.

That doesn’t make any sense. The more pervasive the view, the more likely that such a ban will convince people that the Catholic Church can’t defend its position.

Edwin

 

[1ke]

one person was arguing that the Church’s position on these issues is illegitimate and corrupt because the bishops are power-seeking and sexist.

where do we draw the line?

–

Also…as someone who trusts that the Church does not have ulterior motives for maintaining the current structure of the priesthood, how do I respond to these assertions?

Refer to the Apostolic Letter from JPII ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS which closes the “debate” definitively regarding ordination of women.

I suggest you inform this person by giving them a copy of the Apostolic Letter. They need to decide if they accept the Fullness of Truth.

There can be no “debate” on this subject. All Catholics are obliged to believe this doctrine and may not hold an “opinion” contrary to the Church.

Celibacy, OTOH, is discipline not doctrine. There may be a variety of opinions on this, although all Catholics must assent to the Bishops’ authority to legislate celibacy for the Latin Rite.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m currently in the RCIA and at a recent meeting two of the people were debating the requirements that priests be both male and celibate. This was not a simple matter of trying to understand the Church’s position–one person was arguing that the Church’s position on these issues is illegitimate and corrupt because the bishops are power-seeking and sexist.

Maybe they are: one can usefully make such assertions only if there is evidence in support of them. Neither is impossible, but neither can be assumed.​

Why not ask the people who set up the debate their reasons for arranging it ? We are not telepaths - so we aren’t likely to know why the debate was arranged, are we ?

To me this seems to be an attack on the authenticity of the Church disguised as an intellectual pursuit for truth. I know that many Catholics struggle to answer these questions in the context of a modern world, but where do we draw the line?

Why assume the worst motive must be the true one ? Again - ask the people who arranged the debate.​

–

Also…as someone who trusts that the Church does not have ulterior motives for maintaining the current structure of the priesthood, how do I respond to these assertions?

That depends entirely on what the assertions are​

 

[GIMJ]

Who was doing the discussing? The leaders? or the inquirers? An inquirer can say anything he wants. If the leaders are calling thet the churche’s possition illigitimate and corrupt, well, that’s another story.

It was one of the leaders that made the assertions.

Celibacy, OTOH, is discipline not doctrine. There may be a variety of opinions on this, although all Catholics must assent to the Bishops’ authority to legislate celibacy for the Latin Rite.

I pointed that out, actually. The Church used to allow priests to marry, just like anyone else, according to my understanding. Also, I have heard of instances where married Orthodox priests or Anglican clergyman have converted and joined the Catholic priesthood as married men.

I said that this is an issue of policy, whereas the limitation of men to the priesthood was a matter of doctrine.

→ Gottle of Geer, your post might have been more helpful if you had bothered to read mine.

–>1ke, Thanks for the link. That’s very helpful to me.

 

[jmcrae]

Also…as someone who trusts that the Church does not have ulterior motives for maintaining the current structure of the priesthood, how do I respond to these assertions?

1. The Catholic Church does not seek out popular opinion before following the mandate given it by Jesus Christ.
2. As an autonomous organization, the Catholic Church has exactly the same right as every other autonomous organization on earth to decide who can be its members, who can be its leaders, and what the respective rights of each will be. If the XYZ club decides that only people with curly hair may preside over meetings that deal with financial matters, that is its right, and nobody can tell them that they can’t do that. It’s the same with the Catholic Church. We can say “this is how it is,” and we are not obliged to provide an explanation. It could well be completely arbitrary - and so what, if it is?
3. Though the opportunities were there many times, Jesus never ordained any woman, not even His own mother, to the priesthood. If an all male priesthood was good enough for Him, then it’s good enough for us.
4. There may well be excellent reasons for not ordaining women that we are simply not aware of. Because of the fact that Christ may have a better idea of what He is doing through His Church than we do, here on the ground, it is always best simply to do things His way. It’s been working for 2,000 years - why mess with success?

 

[tdgesq]

Also…as someone who trusts that the Church does not have ulterior motives for maintaining the current structure of the priesthood, how do I respond to these assertions?

This is a good question. The answer is that the debate is not about what the motives of the Church are in defining who is eligible for the priesthood and who isn’t. It is whether the arguments supporting a male only priesthood are valid. People generally play the motive card when their arguments are weak on the merits. In fact, arguments as to motive only become effective once you’ve shown that there are no (or precious few) reasons supporting the argument. Only then does it make any sense to start questioning motives.

One way to deal with this is to point out immediately that the question isn’t about what my motives or your motives or the RCC’s motives are on the issue. It’s about who is right and who is wrong on the issue. Let’s talk about the arguments for and against the issue, not the arguments about what somebody’s motives might be for holding for or against the issue.

If that doesn’t work, then question their motives right back. Only do this for a short while. Then point out that whatever our motives might be, it doesn’t affect whether the arguments for and against the issue are valid or not.

Finally, be confident when you face a motive argument. I mean, imo you have every right to slam them on it because it is a diversionary fallacy. They are trying to divert attention from the real issue. You can say things like, “how about you actually give a decent argument for those eligible for the priesthood instead of changing the subject to what the RCC’s ulterior motives might be. Are your arguments so weak on the issue that you have to start questioning people’s motives instead?”

Good luck.

 

[GIMJ]

This is a good question. The answer is that the debate is not about what the motives of the Church are in defining who is eligible for the priesthood and who isn’t. It is whether the arguments supporting a male only priesthood are valid. People generally play the motive card when their arguments are weak on the merits. In fact, arguments as to motive only become effective once you’ve shown that there are no (or precious few) reasons supporting the argument. Only then does it make any sense to start questioning motives.

One way to deal with this is to point out immediately that the question isn’t about what my motives or your motives or the RCC’s motives are on the issue. It’s about who is right and who is wrong on the issue. Let’s talk about the arguments for and against the issue, not the arguments about what somebody’s motives might be for holding for or against the issue.

If that doesn’t work, then question their motives right back. Only do this for a short while. Then point out that whatever our motives might be, it doesn’t affect whether the arguments for and against the issue are valid or not.

Finally, be confident when you face a motive argument. I mean, imo you have every right to slam them on it because it is a diversionary fallacy. They are trying to divert attention from the real issue. You can say things like, “how about you actually give a decent argument for those eligible for the priesthood instead of changing the subject to what the RCC’s ulterior motives might be. Are your arguments so weak on the issue that you have to start questioning people’s motives instead?”

Good luck.

Hey, good answer! Thanks for your response. I hadn’t realized that that is a diversionary tactic, but you’re 100% right.

Now I still want to understand why Christ chose to organize his priesthood the way he did, but until I get a better handle on that, at least I can be satisfied in knowing that for whatever reason he did!

 

[mercygate]

It was one of the leaders that made the assertions.

I pointed that out, actually. The Church used to allow priests to marry, just like anyone else, according to my understanding. Also, I have heard of instances where married Orthodox priests or Anglican clergyman have converted and joined the Catholic priesthood as married men.

I said that this is an issue of policy, whereas the limitation of men to the priesthood was a matter of doctrine.

→ Gottle of Geer, your post might have been more helpful if you had bothered to read mine.

–>1ke, Thanks for the link. That’s very helpful to me.

Yikes! The leaders were spouting this stuff? This needs to be addressed. Holy people would discuss it privately with the person who came out with this before taking it any further. You could try that. Clip the relevant quotes from the Catechism as back up. Ask the person to correct himself publicly to the group and to present the actual TEACHING on this to the class: no rolling eyeballs. No tongue in cheek. No "I HAVE to say this because it’s OFFICIAL teaching buuuuutttt . . . . He should officially apologize. And if he can’t talk the talk, he should resign.

If he does not agree or stonewalls you, ask for a joint meeting with the pastor. Bring a witness (NOT one of the RCIA candidates.) You’re likely to get creamed and get a reputation as a troublemaker. But this teacher’s behavior is unacceptable. People in RCIA have a RIGHT to learn the teaching of the Church in a positive light.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m currently in the RCIA and at a recent meeting two of the people were debating the requirements that priests be both male and celibate. This was not a simple matter of trying to understand the Church’s position–one person was arguing that the Church’s position on these issues is illegitimate and corrupt because the bishops are power-seeking and sexist.

To me this seems to be an attack on the authenticity of the Church disguised as an intellectual pursuit for truth. I know that many Catholics struggle to answer these questions in the context of a modern world, but where do we draw the line?

–

Also…as someone who trusts that the Church does not have ulterior motives for maintaining the current structure of the priesthood, how do I respond to these assertions?

Well the Church has already drawn the line. The issue of womens Ordination is no longer open for discussion or debate. The RCIA leader should have stopped the debate and said that topic is not open for debate, this is the Church teaching, and celibacy is a Latin Church discipline. Next question.

 

[cor]

I believe, that the question of ordination to the diaconate of women is still open even if it be that the question of ordination to the priesthood is “closed.” Apparently some medieval writers were “hesitant” about the matter. There are lots of threads about women deacons. Search for “women deacons” or “deaconess”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Deaconesses_and_Female_Deacons

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I believe, that the question of ordination to the diaconate of women is still open even if it be that the question of ordination to the priesthood is “closed.” Apparently some medieval writers were “hesitant” about the matter. There are lots of threads about women deacons. Search for “women deacons” or “deaconess”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Deaconesses_and_Female_Deacons

That is correct there is still some discussion on the diaconate of women. It’s not closed, however the Church has also spoken on the issue, That it finds that Women were not Ordained to Holy Orders, but in a sense “commissioned” for this ministry.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Coming from the POV of someone who had lots of questions, and suffered a lot of attacks from posters here, I think that the best assumption is that the people involved are acting in good faith unless you have reason to think otherwise. The thing is it’s better that people air issues rather than have any questioning suppressed. People need to work things out for themselves, and the kind of answer that many people here seemed to give me just doesn’t satisfy some people eg
you must have faith
you must just recognize the Church’s authority
if you think like that then you shouldn’t be joining the Church

• in other words put up or shut up

 

[GIMJ]

If he does not agree or stonewalls you, ask for a joint meeting with the pastor.

I don’t think that would do any good. I’ve heard worse things from the priest in private meetings and in his homilies.

Thanks for the advice though!