Grace & Peace!
I’m sorry, I completely disagree. There is nothing, at all, separate about those two issues, besides how human beings organize things. The question of existence and purpose is one that spans across everything from physics to philosophy.
In one sense, I agree–the deep questions span encompass a number of disciplines and areas. The point I was trying to make, however, is that the fact that women get pregnant is not analogous to the fact that Roman doctrine currently states that only men can be priests. Believing that they are analagous is about as accurate as believing that there is an analogy between a woman undergoing menopause and a man choosing to wear a basball hat. The assertion that an analogy exists is not proof that it does, in fact, exist, no matter how much it may please us if it did.
Why is it that everyone these days thinks that scholarly pursuits is contrary to God’s path? Just because the Church Leaders took on secular authority they shouldn’t have with Galileo, doesn’t mean that studying the rest of Creation is evil. Josemaria Escriva says* “Formerly, when human knowledge–science–was very limited, it seemed quite feasible for a single scholar to defend and vindicate our holy faith. Today, with the extension and the intensity of modern science, the apologists have to divide the work among themselves, if they wish to defend the Church scientifically in all fields. You cannot shirk this responsibility.”*
I would not say that scholarly pursuit is contrary to God’s path. Where do you infer that from what I wrote? I do, however, think that some scholarly pursuits yield results that are uncomfortable to some people. This discomfort can lead those people to further entrench themselves in untenable positions. It is not necessarily God’s will or his path which encourages that entrenchment, however. Galileo is a perfect example of this.
However, the greater question I am asking, and which Claire from DE had a hard time responding to (as a series of “nopes!” however passionately or frequently stated does not construct a particularly cogent or compelling argument) is this: is there a compelling theological basis for the prohibition against women in the priesthood? An assertion that amounts to, “We’ve never done it in the past,” is not compelling, nor is it theology. An assertion based on an absence of evidence is also not compelling, nor is it theology. An assertion that you just can’t is not compelling, nor is it theology. What is the theological basis for the prohibition? If reason is the handmaid of faith, should there not be a compelling theological reason? But no one has supplied one here. There’s lots of emotion, people throwing around words like “abomination” and “sacrilege,” but there’s no reason.
My theory is that the prohibition stems from an ancient understanding of human wholeness as it relates to traditional conceptions of the sexes. A woman is an incomplete man. As we know from old kingship ideas as well as the prohibitions regarding who may be a priest in Leviticus (Lev. 21), deformation, blindness, lameness was a bar to holding such a high office. And women were considered, of course, crippled men, un-whole men. This is why women cannot be priests. Because despite the language of equality espoused from Rome, the practice still reflects an ideology that we all know to be completely false. There is a fundamental disconnect here. BUT–at least this old understanding of the relationship between the sexes supplies more of a theological justification (however distasteful it is to us) for the practice. Ignoring that this is, indeed, at the root of the practice won’t solve anything, won’t convince anyone of anything. It will only serve to gradually erode Rome’s credibility.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
