They continue to claim that they will be Roman Catholic Priests, though the Roman Catholic Church does not ordain, nor recognize any ordained priests.
The Reform Jewish Temple (very Liberal) that is hosting this Ordination is led by a woman.
The group that has organized this is "Woman Priest International" and has a traveling woman Bishop who arranges the services.
The women, both of whom have a long history of faith and working in the church, are not doing this for Women's rights, or fame, or media attention. They each claim to have recieved a call from God to be priests.
Although the name is Woman Priest International, they do work with other people who have also recieved the call, but whom the Roman Catholic Church will not allow to be priests--namely several men who have married, others who are openly gay, and a couple of men who are physically handicapped. According to the local Radion show and article on this, the Catholic Church will not ordain handicapped men for some reason. I have never heard that before and would love some confirmation.
Meanwhile back at the action--ArchBishop Burke, who has threatened ex-communication to one local Church for not closing their doors as they were ordered, and has threatened ex-communicating any Catholic politician that didn't advocate a strict Pro-Life agenda, has not surprisingly threatened to excommunicate these women if they go through with this ceremony.
He has also threated to back out of any more interfaith events if this particular Reform Temple is attending.
The rest of the Jewish community thinks the Reform Temple is nuts, and should stop being such a pain.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
A Jewish synagogue is ordaining Catholic priests?
I don't see how this matters. Clearly none of it is official for either end, and people have been doing crazy things for ages. D'you know can get ordained over the Internet?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
What does it actually mean to be excommunicated by Roman Catholics nowadays?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What does it mean?
1) Pretty good odds of Fire and Brinstone in your not forseeable future, if the Catholics are right.
2) Loose your Bingo priviledges.
3) The return of the Spanish Inquisition, but that's mainly because....
(wait for it....)
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
See, I was actually curious as to what it really means to someone who is hardcore Catholic. The following is assuming that framework:
AFAIK, the Pope recently declared that there is no limbo (in the past, this is where virtuous pagans and unbaptized babies would go), so I guess when you die you either go to Heaven, the remaining levels of Hell, or Purgatory.
Previously in the past (we're talking medieval past), I was under the impression that you're right, excommunication would literally mean you would get sent to Hell after death.
However, I get the impression that today's kinder gentler Catholic would not believe that. So if you're a decent person (let's assume that these women are virtuous in every way, but their ordination), where do you go? Are you stuck in Purgatory forever with no chance of getting to Heaven? Or is it that you're just in a less wonderful part of Heaven?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This "kinder, gentler Catholic" believes that denying the sacraments for political purposes is wrong. Also, that history has often proved right people who have risked excommunication by "pushing the Catholic envelope". And that the Church should be about administering sacraments rather than withholding them. And that, although the sacraments are a vital conduit of God's grace, that God is capable of finding other conduits when necessary.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
This certainly isn't taken from the catechism or anything, but my assumption would be that Excommunication now-a-days would mean that yep you were going to Hell, in that I can only picture someone being excommunicated for something so directly against the "known" fabric of the church that damnation was certain (that being said if the above claims about Burke are accurate I'd have a hard time believing he was really speaking for the Church there...)
It would be interesting though to get an official answer on whether this would guarontee damnation or just increase likelyhood, and/or whether you could theoretically repent and be reinstated into the church.
but it is a tricky situation because the concept was largely a political one and revolved around a very different understanding of the afterlife (as already mentioned here)
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
This 'kinder, gentler Catholic' believes that although these women are basically asking for excommunication by so blatantly ignoring the rules and traditions of the church, that doesn't mean they're going to Hell. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of non-Catholics going to Heaven.
However, I would say that for someone who truly believes in the teachings of the Catholic church, excommunication is punishment in its own right. Being banned from the sacraments and the church at large wouldn't be much fun, although I suppose that since they'll consider themselves priests these women will perform their own sacraments.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As even the Vatican is "perfectly fine" with non-Catholics going to heaven", I would agree.
And Grimace, I don't think that we "guarantee damnation" to anybody.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It does make sense to me that if members clearly have no intention of being part of the organization as it exists that maybe both parties would be better off not being attached to each other.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You would then likely be surprised at the number of people who, once denounced as heretics, are now revered as saints. Catholicism is often improved by dissent.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
That's actually my thought on the matter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You would then likely be surprised at the number of people who, once denounced as heretics, are now revered as saints. Catholicism is often improved by dissent.
This might be true, but it's also the case that lots of dissent would have been terribly destructive and evil had it been adopted.
The fact that some dissent ended up being adopted does not mean that all dissent is good.
quote:AFAIK, the Pope recently declared that there is no limbo (in the past, this is where virtuous pagans and unbaptized babies would go), so I guess when you die you either go to Heaven, the remaining levels of Hell, or Purgatory.
The press reported this very inaccurately. Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church, nor did the Pope's statement on it totally disregard the possibility of its existence.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Whoops :-p I was agreeing with Hugo. If you want to change the Church, there's probably better ways to do it. I don't see how these ladies are justifying that their ordinations are valid within the church in any way.
I'd like to see the church allow women priests, and I'd even more like to see the church allow priests to marry, but is this really the way to do it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You would then likely be surprised at the number of people who, once denounced as heretics, are now revered as saints. Catholicism is often improved by dissent.
This might be true, but it's also the case that lots of dissent would have been terribly destructive and evil had it been adopted.
The fact that some dissent ended up being adopted does not mean that all dissent is good.
Nor are all things that have been considered orthodox good. And without the "good" dissent, we would be missing a lot. Do you think, for example, that we would be better off without John Courtney Murray? Whether a particular dissent is good, I believe that the challenge is healthy and the the good will "rise" to the surface and that we will be better for it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Whether a particular dissent is good, I believe that the challenge is healthy and the the good will "rise" to the surface and that we will be better for it.
While I do believe we will be better for it, I do not believe that all challenge is healthy. Some is destructive and leads other people to commit evil acts.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kate, I would tend to agree that the church does not guarantee damnation, but I was just throwing it out there as a possibility. It's just that with the current take on non-Catholics making it into heaven Excommunication would seem an almost entirely toothless penalty. though presumably Excommunication could be viewed as a sort of anti-reconciliation... the priesthood having the authority to absolve sins wouldn't mean too much of a stretch to the priesthood having the authority to deem a certain sin unforgivable... all that being said, if that is the official stance of the church it would be one I couldn't stand behind.
But I don't see anything out of the ordinary and/or apalling with these women being excommunicated, because in my eyes they are to all intents and purposes leaving the church anyway by their actions... I support the concept they are attempting to promote, but when you go directly against the doctrines of the church, then you are effectively leaving the church (even if it's because it's the only way you think you can change false doctrines).
now after the fact (i.e. 50 years from now if the church has changed its stance on things) I would be all for re-instating these individuals and whatnot, but not currently. you can either accept things as they currently are and work for change from within or you can leave and work for change from without, but pretending to still be within when you're going directly against the rules of the organization just seems silly. if they tried playing the "to all extents and purposes other than this we're Catholics" card I'd be ok with it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
"D'you know can get ordained over the Internet?"
When I worked at a Christian bookstore in Tucson, we sold cases of anointing oil to this guy who called himself "Brother Bob" and ordained priests over the Internet for just $99.99! They really expected us to suck up to this guy because he gave us "such good business" but I guess we were supposed to ignore the fact that he was a huge jerk-off.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Grimace, in 1932 my grandmother was excommunicated for marrying my Lutheran grandfather. They apologized and rescinded the excommunication some 50 years later. I watched my grandmother watch her brothers and sisters participate in communion. It was hardly a toothless punishment. Communion is not about getting where we go when we die; it is about being in communion. And that is important whether or not we are in entire agreement.
Without dissent, gentiles would not have been included into Christianity. Peter and Paul were rather at odds over this.
[ November 09, 2007, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
So how would you use anointing oil when anointing someone over the internet? Put a drop on the computer screen?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No, the anointing oil is what they got for their money. One small bottle and a certificate.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kate, I suppose you're right and I was being a bit too flippant calling it completely toothless, as certainly it would be painful as a truly devout person to be forcibly removed from communion with the church. And especially in a case such as your grandmother (who's "sin" was not really even spiritual in nature according to my take on things) seems to have been unjust.
And I agree that dissent can improve the church in any number of ways (but often times hurts it as well). But that's why I say that particularly in a case like this, these women should accept it for now while continuing to campaign against it...
When you actively and publicly act to undermine/circumvent the organization and chain of command of the organization it's hard to argue that you aren't in fact leaving it. Do they think that by effectively proclaiming themselves to be valid that somehow this will translate into still being in full communion with the rest of the Catholic community? They are leaving their parish to preach elsewhere, they are going directly against pretty much the entirety of the established clergy and are ignoring the will/belief of a large portion of the church's general population (I don't know off-hand if the majority of Catholics would be in support of their move). So frankly, even if they believe they will now have the right to consecrate the Eucharist, and that it will be transubstantiated as in a normal mass, I don't see how they would maintain an illusion of being in full communion with the church.
At the same time realize that this is coming from someone who currently would not feel comfortable recieving communion because I am not 100% in line with the Church's current stance on certain issues. But I think it's important to accept that. If I were to refer to myself at the moment I would have to say "lapsed catholic" or "cradle catholic" or something like that, because to claim to be a member of the church in good standing would be a lie. I'd rather that weren't the case, but until either the church or I change our stances such that they better mesh, it will be the truth.
All that being said, I suppose I am not devout enough for an excommunication to terribly bother me (unless perhaps it was supposed to be a guaranteed statement of damnation) but I also do not live in a time/place where there is any social stigma attached to being disconnected from the church.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I doubt that most Catholics are 100% in line with the Church's current stance on every issue. Some may be. Most priests and nuns that I know are not. Most American Catholics are not in agreement about birth control or divorce, for example. The Vatican is not the Church. It lead the Church, but the sense and the consent of the faithful should be heeded as well. There are faithful men and women who prayerfully and faithfully disagree. I will borrow words from a famous dissenter, John Henry Newman,*
"I think certainly that the Ecclesia docens is more happy when she has such enthusiastic partisans about her as are here represented, than when she cuts off the faithful from the study of her divine doctrines and the sympathy of her divine contemplations, and requires from them a fides implicita in her word, which in the educated classes will terminate in indifference, and in the poorer in superstition."
* from the conclusion of "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine." 1859
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Without dissent, gentiles would not have been included into Christianity. Peter and Paul were rather at odds over this.
There was a lot more to the resolution of that issue than "dissent."
Moreover, nobody was dissenting against an official doctrine of the Church in that one. They disagreed about a point that had not yet been clearly established one way or the other.
Finally, Peter spoke in favor of including gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem. Even before that he acknowledged that Gentiles were included in Christianity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Perhaps I should clarify my intent for my original question. I guess what I'm trying to find out is when the situation that a Catholic does something and is the position of being threatened with excommunication, I fully realise that the "target" may have many interpretations of what that means.
What I'm more interested in is the mindset of a person who is advocating excommunication as a threat (or a target that actually views it as a big threat). This is to get a feel for what is at stake when a situation like this comes up for the people in question. While a "denial of service" attack may potentially be disturbing, I get the sense that the threat is supposed to be more ... substantial.
So looking briefly, kmbboots, your own personal position is perfectly reasonable, I'm not arguing with that, its just that your personal views might be from "too much" of a kindler and gentler soul to gain understanding of these people
So to sum up:
A) A person* that IS advocating excommunication as a threat, what do they think they are threatening with? B) As a target that takes excommunication seriously, but knows they are personally quite reasonably virtuous, what does it mean when you die?
* i.e. hardcore enough to believe that the Church should be in the business of denying sacraments and that excommunication means more than social pressure ... but liberal enough to believe that it would hubris to declare by fiat where someone is going to end up eternally
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
k, so I found this, which seems relatively authoritative...
It seems to indicate, and this lines up with what kate was saying I believe:
Excommunication would mean the complete removal from the community of the church, and the way the article describes it that would mean both spiritual and temporal communion. Basically that you would not be included in any intercessory prayer unless specifically directed towards you from one individual to another, that God's grace would be withdrawn to the extent that it is more present in faithful Catholics than others, that the community would regard you as a stranger and give you no special comfort or consideration...
Now it appears that it does not strictly bar you from heaven so much as it just leaves you in the stead of the non-faithful (or perhaps a bit worse off because you've apparently shown yourself to be guilty of a mortal sin).
So to answer A) it would be the threat of removing any protection and benefit of the community of the church as well as any special treatment by God shown to those of the faithful.
to answer B) it would seem to be the part at the end about unjust excommunication. if you believe yourself to be virtuous and your excommunication unfounded, then presumably it would have no spiritual effect (though the temporal effect of loss of the community would still be present).
now the trouble is the level to which you take excommunication seriously but at the same time think you are not deserving of the punishment. If for example the church believed you to be guilty of a certain sin that you knew you were not, then no problem on your end. However in this kind of case it's probably a lot hairier, as the "sin" is clear and now it's a debate over whether or not it's actually a sin... (and to be honest if you're getting excommunicated it's probably for something you don't think is a sin, or you just don't care...)
so a question for you kate: if we switch around the situation a bit, and remove the hot-button issue of women priests... say this is a couple guys who would normally be allowed to enter the priesthood, but they decide that they won't go through seminary first. Now they find someone, maybe even say a former bishop of the church who was officially stripped of his rank for saying that you shouldn't need to go through seminary before being ordained. Would it be reasonable to bar these men from claiming to be rightfully ordained and doing something (call it excommunication) if they went through with it. Seeing that the church deems this to be a necessary step on the way to becoming a suitable shepherd of it's flock.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag, sure. Peter changed his mind. The established authority of the Church (Peter) had a position, someone (Paul) disagreed and fought him on it. And changed the position of the established authority of the Church. That is dissent. Paul didn't just say, "Peter is the authority so I am going to be a good Catholic and believe him."
Sure it is more complicated, but it is still more complicated. Things aren't just settled because the hierarchy says we aren't going to talk about them.
I think you would like reading Newman's article (if you haven't already). It is on line and isn't very long.
Grimace, I am in no way claiming that these women have been legitimatly ordained. I am saying it is good for the Church to be pushed/prodded/challenged on this issue.
Also, being in communion is not just about social stigma or protections and benefits nad it isn't about what happens when we die. It is difficult to explain but it is about being in a relationship with the Body of Christ and having the most tangible expression of that relationship denied.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:There was a lot more to the resolution of that issue than "dissent."
I would say so! According to the Bible in Acts Ch. 10:9-18, Peter saw a vision that proclaimed the Gentiles clean and worthy of Salvation. And he was a person of authority in the Church so it wasn't just some regular member arguing for a change. If you don't believe in Church authority then you should become a Protestant.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Of course I'm not surprised by a reference to history. I knew it before.
If someone radically disagrees with fundamental tenets of an organization and a resokution is not forthcoming, I don't see the objections to the individual and the organization separating from one another. The ideas are still out there - the dissenters are not silenced. They are simply no longer sanctioned.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You would then likely be surprised at the number of people who, once denounced as heretics, are now revered as saints. Catholicism is often improved by dissent.
And on the other hand, we now have protestants because certain catholics thought they knew better than the pope.
First off, no catholic, who knows their faith, will ever tell someone else if they are going to hell or heaven. Catholics believe that's a judgement call for God, not you or anyone else.
Secondly, excommunication means that you aren't in communion with the church, and are not able to take part in the sacraments.
A politician who is pro-choice and opposed to the church's stance on abortion and other life issues is exactly that, not in communion with the church. And SHOULD be denied the sacraments. For their sake as well as the church's sake. Allowing someone to take part in the sacrament of communion when they are in a state of mortal sin causes them more damage than it does bestow grace, and any other sacrament attempted would not be valid. And any catholic that goes to communion in a state of sin without confession first should keep that in mind as well.
Finally, there's no such thing as a woman priest. Therefore these foolish women are just playing pretend. Only men can be priests. And anyone hoping this will change should stop now. Pope JPII has declared this definitively, and infallibly, over 10 years ago. Which means it is set in stone, cannot be reversed or changed. Period.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Vatican is not the Church. It lead the Church, but the sense and the consent of the faithful should be heeded as well.
Sorry, that's not how God works, that's not how His church works. Jesus doesn't speak of the democracy of heaven, He speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven. A Kingdom has a King, and that King sets the rules. God doesn't offer referendums, and neither does the catholic church.
Furthermore I think that the above usage of this passage is specious.
quote: "I think certainly that the Ecclesia docens is more happy when she has such enthusiastic partisans about her as are here represented, than when she cuts off the faithful from the study of her divine doctrines and the sympathy of her divine contemplations, and requires from them a fides implicita in her word, which in the educated classes will terminate in indifference, and in the poorer in superstition."
The passage talks about not cutting the faithful off from the study of the church's docterine and contemplations. Which is correct. The faithful should study, and endeavor to understand the church's stance on issues. The church doesn't ask to blindly follow just because they say. And it's also why the church releases documents in exacting detail. It is important to understand the teachings of the church, and in doing so come into communion with the teachings.
This quote doesn't give license to the faithful to stand up and demand a referendum on docterine or dogma though.
[ November 10, 2007, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: stihl1 ]
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Finally, there's no such thing as a woman priest. Therefore these foolish women are just playing pretend. Only men can be priests. And anyone hoping this will change should stop now. Pope JPII has declared this definitively, and infallibly, over 10 years ago. Which means it is set in stone, cannot be reversed or changed. Period.
I'm pretty darn sure that he didn't say it ex cathedra.
Please don't be calling people foolish. The issue of women who feel called to the priesthood needs to be taken seriously, and arrogant statements like yours make me want to support these women. Statements like that drive people from the Church.
Women do feel a call to the priesthood. Why this happens and what it should result in are questions that need answers. Answers beyond "Tough. Suck it up." These women and their calling is dismissed out of hand, as if it couldn't possibly be anything other than foolish vainglory. Dismissed by people who do not share their calling or the pain of denial.
I don't agree with the action these women are taking, but I sure as heck think that they need to be taken seriously. They need to be treated as honest, intelligent, and sincere members of the Church (regrettably, the drastic action they are taking may close the door to that last point). Should women be allowed ordination? I'm not sure. But it's high time we took the question seriously.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's a pity that the manner in which this is occurring seems (from the admittedly sparse details available) to be rather flashy and irreverant. The issue of women in the Church is one that could stand some real scrutiny, and this looks like it amounts to thumbing noses at the powers that be; at best, the powers in question will find it irrelevant and meaningless, and at worst, heresy and/or blasphemy.
Ordinations have dropped sharply in recent years, and recent scandals have left many shaken; a female priesthood, even in extremely limited numbers, might be helpful.
Though I admit, from what I hear of the current Pope, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The "King" in the Kingdom of God would be God. Otherwise it would be called the Kingdom of Pope.
Eaquae Legit, you are correct. Infallability has only been invoked once (maybe twice if you retro it a bit) since it was formalized in 1870.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Galileo.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But it's high time we took the question seriously.
Doesn't this imply that it hasn't been taken seriously so far?
I doubt that - I doubt that the idea simply has never occurred to anyone in a position to make it happen.
Posted by Iain (Member # 9899) on :
I do not believe the Church has yet atoned for all its sins of the past. Just look at what they did during the Medieval period.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We have more recent sins.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, sure. Peter changed his mind. The established authority of the Church (Peter) had a position, someone (Paul) disagreed and fought him on it. And changed the position of the established authority of the Church. That is dissent.
Can you source this, please? It's not consistent with my reading of Acts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure. It will take a while as my sources are books, though. To start, read Galatians 2 where Peter is rebuked by Paul.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I do not believe the Church has yet atoned for all its sins of the past. Just look at what they did during the Medieval period.
You'll not find an organization on Earth that has been around as long as the Catholic Church has (or even half or even a quarter as long) without some serious past sins to deal with.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:But it's high time we took the question seriously.
Doesn't this imply that it hasn't been taken seriously so far?
I doubt that - I doubt that the idea simply has never occurred to anyone in a position to make it happen.
There's been a lot written and said about it. Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the letter by the late John Paul II which stihl is probably thinking of, was supposed to end the issue.
Problem is, every discussion of it so far has come from the top down, pretty much as an ultimatum. This is the way it is. Yet I've seen a little too much of the Church's history to be comfortable with that - many of the things people assumed to be "divine law" have changed over the years. No one is listening to the women themselves. There are many women who are loving and loyal daughters of the Church who feel the pain of being denied their vocation. Not just denied, but told that what they feel is wrong and impossible. That the call they hear is not from God. That they are foolish.
I want, at the least, a document that takes their pain seriously. Even if women's ordination still is barred, I'd like the Church to acknowledge that this vocational calling is more than foolishness or disloyalty.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Perhaps the Church believes that it is in fact disloyal foolishness, and that whatever the women are hearing is not the call of God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag, Michael Goulder's book, "St Paul Versus St. Peter: A tale of Two Missions" might be helpful. Even in Galations, we are shown that, sometimes, the leadership (in this case Peter) gets it wrong (even if they know better) and needs to be corrected or at least reminded. Peter didn't always get it right by himself. From the beginnings of the Church, there was discussion, differences of opinion, consensus building, not dictates from one person. Catholicism is collaborative.
Did you get a chance to read the Newman article? I am interested in what you think of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Um, what Tom said.
It is possible to be heard, understood, and still disagreed with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To start, read Galatians 2 where Peter is rebuked by Paul.
That doesn't describe a dispute of doctrine. In the previous passage it is clear that Peter and the other pillars all support the mission to the Gentiles.
quote:From the beginnings of the Church, there was discussion, differences of opinion, consensus building, not dictates from one person. Catholicism is collaborative.
You know what? I've said nothing that contradicts this in this or any other thread.
My single point has been that not all dissent is of the quality of the "dissent" of St. Paul. Some of it is qualitatively different and not beneficial.
I'm not quite sure how examples of good dissent are meant to refute that point, since I've acknowledged the existence of good dissent from the beginning.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh, I didn't think that we were arguing about that. (I didn't really think we were really disagreeing at all.) I'm sorry if the way I phrased things made it seem as if we were.
I agree that not all dissent is beneficial. I would only argue with those, like Occasional and Stihl, who seem to be arguing that dissent is impossible and has never happened and that those who disagree with the Vatican should "just become Protestant".
I don't think that you were arguing that. I thought that you and I were having an interesting discussion about first century theological politics.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's not a synagogue. It's a temple. And the fact that many of the people who belong to it are Jewish doesn't make it a synagogue.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Lisa, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that Temple was the title more reserved than Synagogue within the Jewish faith. What are your criteria for calling a place of worship a synagogue?
and Kate, hopefully the feeling is reciprocal, but I like theological discussions with you because I always get the feeling that for the most part we're agreeing, but still can get in fairly heated debate (a la with Dag and you there) Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: My single point has been that not all dissent is of the quality of the "dissent" of St. Paul. Some of it is qualitatively different and not beneficial.
I'm not quite sure how examples of good dissent are meant to refute that point, since I've acknowledged the existence of good dissent from the beginning.
I'd like to second this. I don't think what these women are doing is "good dissent." I'm not supporting their actions.
However, as much as these women are not very good "Pauls," I think in this case Rome has not been a very good "Peter" either. The Church documents and debates that I've read on this (and I'm not saying there could be others I haven't gotten to) have not engaged the other side to a point where I can feel the debate is mutual. I honestly don't think that they have been heard and understood. It's more along the lines of an ultimatum, shutting down the debate before it can even really be had.
It is possible to be a daughter of the Church, to love her and uphold her and uphold her teachings, and still disagree on an issue. Feeling a call to ordination doesn't make you foolish or disloyal - until you take steps like the women in the original article.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I honestly don't think that they have been heard and understood. It's more along the lines of an ultimatum, shutting down the debate before it can even really be had.
Perhaps the leadership of the Church, again, does not feel that there needs to be a debate...?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They may not. I believe that they are wrong. So do many, many Catholics.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Lisa, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that Temple was the title more reserved than Synagogue within the Jewish faith. What are your criteria for calling a place of worship a synagogue?
and Kate, hopefully the feeling is reciprocal, but I like theological discussions with you because I always get the feeling that for the most part we're agreeing, but still can get in fairly heated debate (a la with Dag and you there)
IIRC, the Reform movement calls their houses of worship "temples" because one of their tenets is that they're not going to rebuild the Temple, ever, and that Judaism can be complete without it. Or something. I'm probably all wrong, but I do know the Reform movement refers to them as "temples."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Lisa, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that Temple was the title more reserved than Synagogue within the Jewish faith. What are your criteria for calling a place of worship a synagogue?
There's only one Temple in Judaism. It's currently not standing in its place on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, because it's being occupied by the Muslim Waqf (with the connivance of the Israeli government). The Reform movement started calling their centers "temples" explicitly to deny the Jewish hopes and dreams of seeing the Temple rebuilt.
As far as my criteria, I'd say at a minimum that they'd have to observe Jewish law. A synagogue is about praying to God. Praying to God while at the same time spurning His commandments is a bad joke at best.
[Edit: or what KQ said.]
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I honestly don't think that they have been heard and understood. It's more along the lines of an ultimatum, shutting down the debate before it can even really be had.
Perhaps the leadership of the Church, again, does not feel that there needs to be a debate...?
There are been many things in the past that the Church did not feel needed debating. Some of those things have changed due to debate being eventually allowed. Some have survived intense debate. If male-only ordination is divine law, it should be able to withstand debate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If male-only ordination is divine law, it should be able to withstand debate.
I'm not sure I understand this. Can we safely assume that divine law can withstand debate? Why?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I can't believe I am siding with TomD. on just about everything he has said here! Wow, amazing!
I must say that the idea of a debate on divine law sounds to me laughable. A divine law exists or it doesn't. There is no argument involved, just the declaration by those who have authority to speak for God to say one way or the other according to a revelation from God who should know the answer without a debate. If you can debate a divine law then it becomes, for me, a de-facto human law.
The only debate I see worthy of contemplation is if it came from God or not by discussing proper modes of revelation and authority. Something that eventually brought the Protestant reformation. It is also a question that forms the basis of my religion even beyond Protestant denominational developments.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional, are you under the impression that the Pope receives divine revelation? More so than the rest of us? That some magic occurs and the Pope gets a special "hotline" or something?
That isn't how it works and if you have any notion of the history of the Catholic Church that would be pretty clear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not sure I understand this. Can we safely assume that divine law can withstand debate? Why?
Heh, that's a very good point. Unless humanity's understanding of a contentious issue became equivalent to God's understanding of that issue, that issue (whatever it may be) will be unable to withstand human debate.
Human debate not necessarily being the alpha and omega of right and wrong, of course. Although it can often be for people.
It's strange to me, though, the way some gender differences are objectionable-such as male-only clergy-and others aren't, such as women growing new human beings.
Social, cultural, and political issues aside, personally I tend to think women are at least equivalent to men in spiritual oomph, and perhaps even superior, insofar as growing new human beings is a spiritual thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If men were physically capable of "growing new human beings" I would have no problem with them doing so. Why do you think (if you do) that women are physically (or emotionally, spiritually whatever) incapable of being clergy?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If men were physically capable of "growing new human beings" I would have no problem with them doing so. Why do you think (if you do) that women are physically (or emotionally, spiritually whatever) incapable of being clergy?
Since there are no physical requirements for being in the clergy (physical labor requirements, that is), I can only assume the reasons for this lack of permission cannot be physical. Emotionally, I believe women to be just as capable of hard decisions and dedication and discipline as men, so I can only assume the problem isn't there either. Spiritually, though...well, that's a different matter.
Clearly, in the established doctrines of our own respective churches-the difference being that I generally respect mine, and for you established doctrines don't mean very much*-there is some spiritual difference between men and women. I don't know what that spiritual difference might be. I'm not God, a prophet, an angel, or someone with special insight into the matter. I do have faith, however, that God says there is. By process of elimination, since the restriction cannot be on a physical or emotional basis, I believe it is a spiritual restriction, based on some unknown requirements or rules that men fulfill and women do not.
It's a personal belief of mine, but I feel that a spiritual restriction is also the ultimate reason behind 'growing new people' gender roles as well.
*This sounds like a shot, and I'd be lying if I said that your approach to being a member of an organized religion is not baffling and often frustrating to me. But it's not meant as a shot. It has simply been my observation that whether or not something is an established doctrine or not has very little to do with how much you respect that doctrine.
---------------------
Incidentally, there will most likely come a time when through the application of science the gender restrictions involved in who can grow babies and who can't will only be a hurdle, not an insurmountable wall. When that time comes, why do you feel men should not give birth to babies, if in fact you do feel that way?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, some established doctrines of Catholicism are absolutely vital to me. Those doctrines are so important to the core of who I am that I can't be anything but Catholic. They are also core doctrines of Catholicism.
All doctrine is not created equal. And not everything that the Pope says is established doctrine. Establishing doctrine does require some consensus. Although God may not offer referenda, contrary to Occasional's opinion, the Church does. "Because I say so" even when pronounced by the Pope, is not sufficient for establishing doctrine.
If men become physically able to bear healthy babies, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:Rakeesh, some established doctrines of Catholicism are absolutely vital to me.
Granted, but what makes them vital to you isn't that they're established doctrines, or am I mistaken?
quote:If men become physically able to bear healthy babies, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Well, men won't just 'become' physically able to bear babies. It would have to involve some major gene-tinkering or serious surgery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Maybe we need to define "established doctrine"? If you mean that if the Catholic Church - not just the Vatican - held as true some central principle that I, after pray, study, consultation, more prayer, could not reconcile with what I deeply bellieve, could I somehow believe contrary to what I believe?
I doubt it. I did not relinquish my ability to reason or my own access to the Holy Spirit when I was received into full communion.
Fortunately, I am not likely to be faced with such a situation. Here is a big part of the reason why: for a teaching to be authoritative,it must be received. It isn't very likely that I am going to be the only Catholic who fails to receive teaching that everybody else gets. It certainly isn't true of, for example, birth control. According to a 1994 poll, 91% of American Catholics my age (and 87% of Catholics over 65) believed that one could be a good Catholic and practice artificial birth control. The vatican's ruling on birth control is not received. If you understand the history of that ruling, it would make sense to you.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think that the reason behind the priesthood being male only is connected to women's ability to make babies. In the Catholic Church, the priesthood is devoting your whole life to the service of God (in the ideal circumstance). A woman cannot have a baby and devote herself fully. The big flaw in my reasoning is that if we assume God does value babies over priests, why do nuns exist?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In a celibate priesthood why would that matter?
There are a lot of different ways for ordained priest to serve.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Occasional, are you under the impression that the Pope receives divine revelation? More so than the rest of us? That some magic occurs and the Pope gets a special "hotline" or something?
I am not a Catholic. That is a question for members of that faith to answer. I am answering from my own religious beliefs. In fact, I would have to say that:
quote:That isn't how it works and if you have any notion of the history of the Catholic Church that would be pretty clear.
. . . is one of the reasons I am not Catholic . . . or Protestant for that matter. I believe in Prophets with a capital "P" who have at least the possibility of a direct line to God. Discussion on an issue is important, but ultimately coming to a decision by argumentation is to me humans taking the place of God. As a matter of fact, the Catholic belief in authority is one of the reasons I respect Catholics, but recently the "liberalizing" of the faith has made me think it is becoming its own version of Protestantism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Fortunately, I am not likely to be faced with such a situation. Here is a big part of the reason why: for a teaching to be authoritative,it must be received. It isn't very likely that I am going to be the only Catholic who fails to receive teaching that everybody else gets. It certainly isn't true of, for example, birth control. According to a 1994 poll, 91% of American Catholics my age (and 87% of Catholics over 65) believed that one could be a good Catholic and practice artificial birth control. The vatican's ruling on birth control is not received. If you understand the history of that ruling, it would make sense to you.
Let me say 'official doctrines', then. It just seems to me that for you*, there's an awful lot of useless and superfluous infrastructure and governing authority around. Specifically, any infrastructure and authority that disagrees with the point of view you have.
Now, you can suggest that I don't understand that, but the fact of the matter is that I do understand that. It's what I said earlier, in fact, with a slight word change from "established" to "official". Some people are willing to accept an official doctrine they don't understand or agree with and live by it, because it is official and they trust those officials involved.
You are clearly not such a person is all that I'm saying. To you**, whether a doctrine is official or not is almost irrelevant.
*You meaning you specifically, kmbboots. I cannot recall a time I ever saw you post, "I disagree with such and such official Church doctrine, but I will live by it anyway for thus and so reasons." Thus the official clergy of the Catholic Church is, by and large, irrelevant to you insofar as they disagree with you.
**I would not normally speak so freely about the religious notions of another person, but you've spoken in depth about these issues many times in the past.
------------------
And just to cover all the bases: I don't doubt you're a well-meaning person, working to maintain the best and most honest relationship with God that you can. It's just that your approach to the hierarchy in a church that is run and led and organized around that hierarchy is frustrating. I would liken it to being a Boy Scout, and saying, "To hell with merit badges and scoutmasters." No pun intended.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional, do you know the history of the Protestant Reformation? What Martin Luther was protesting?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Establishing doctrine does require some consensus.
Why?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, I'm not sure what your are asking. Could you narrow down the question? Or are you just interjecting random, "why religion anyway?" kind of stuff? That would be okay, but it may (again) widen this discussion past usefulness. At least for me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think he's asking, "Why does establishing doctrine require consensus?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
History, tradition, the same reason that democracies are better than dictatorships, that we are all part of the Body of Christ, that we are reasoning human beings, that God reaches out to all of us...
I'm still not sure where to begin answering this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Tradition' outside of church tradition doesn't seem to have much merit to this particular question, to me anyway.
Now, from a purely pragmatic point of view...you're right. Actually establishing a doctrine within an organization does require consensus to be that organization's doctrine. I was not aware religious was such a pragmatic exercise, though.
quote:...that we are all part of the Body of Christ, that we are reasoning human beings, that God reaches out to all of us...
When did God start-or stop-reaching out toeveryone, then? Was it in the Catholic Church's past, when the commonly accepted doctrine was one of hierarchy? Or is it now, when apparently God reaches out more completely to the leity than it does to the clergy...insofar as the latter disagrees with the former?
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
I think the confusion here is between the actual will of God and the teachings of the church. Like someone said earlier, heaven is not a democracy--what God says is what goes. However, the church has been wrong about His will before, and once enough people realized it, practices have changed. One thing that comes to mind is indulgences.
Birth control, for example. I've been to classes about why the church bans birth control and I've read a bit on my own, and the reasoning sounds very weak to me. It honestly sounds like the Church decided they didn't like birth control for fear it would encourage promiscuity, and developed the theology backward from that point. This is one reason why the teaching is so widely ignored in the US (and probably also why the Pope has softened the ruling for cases where aids is a risk). I would say this is a case where the will of God is not actually being expressed by the Church, and the teaching should be changed.
I said earlier that I would be fine with the Church deciding to allow women to be priests, but after thinking about it for awhile, I'm not so sure. I think that women and men have differences that go beyond biology; that there are spiritual differences as well. I know that one of the reasons for the 'men only' rule is that if the Church is the bride of Christ, priests take the symbolic role of the bridegroom. Maybe a woman would not be able to fill this role.
I think this question should be opened to debate, because there could be many interesting arguments made for and against it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that God has ever stopped reaching out to everyone. Remember though, that the Catholic Church was very heavily influenced by the culture in which it formed. That culture was one where governance was generally by monarchy or even empire, where the average person was not considered fit to rule themselves, where most people were illiterate, uneducated peasants accustomed to obeying their lords without question.
Eowyn-sama, you might be interested in reading a book called, "Turning Point". It is the story of one of the very few women who were on the Papal Birth Control Commission. A commission that, despite largely comprised of celibate men and later including bishops and cardinals, overwhelming recommended that the Church reexamine its position on birth control - in 1966.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
That does sound interesting, but a quick amazon search shows all kinds of books by that title, who was the author?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here are a couple of links. It is by Robert McClory.
edited to fix links. I hope.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:History, tradition, the same reason that democracies are better than dictatorships...
But none of these things are Catholic doctrine. You seem to be divorcing the practices of the church from the will of God completely here -- and as I understand it, that's incompatible with Catholic teachings on the subject.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What Catholic teaching, Tom? By history and tradition, I am referring to the history and tradition of the Church.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The Church has stated what is necessary for a doctrine to be ex cathedra or otherwise binding. None of those statements include consensus among the laity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Church has several different types of infallible teaching. "Revealed deposit of faith" does not mean just to the Pope.
Why don't you tell me what you think is necessary for doctrine to be declared infallible. Are you talking specifically of papal infallibility and do you understand the history of that idea? Are you referring to the infallibility of councils? Are you referring to the ordinary, universal magisterium? Are you referring to submission or to assent? Pre-vatican II opininion or post? Or to what is sometimes referred to as "creeping infallibility" that we are experiencing?
That way I won't have to waste a lot of time trying to explain a complicated concept to someone who is just playing devil's advocate in the first place.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think, kmboots, what people are asking is if you believe in the authority of the Catholic Church or not. If you do, what do you mean by that belief other than rhetorical as a member of said organization?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I do believe in the authority of thr Catholic Church. I don't believe that authority resides soley in the Pope.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I do believe in the authority of thr Catholic Church. I don't believe that authority resides soley in the Pope.
'Solely'? Not to nitpick, but it seems to me that you don't believe any authority resides in the Pope, beyond the Pope being an individual Catholic, that is. Obviously you haven't given a 'Kmbboots religious autobiography' or anything, but I can't remember the last time I heard you discuss a Catholic concern in which your decision was swayed by the Pope's authority.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: I think the confusion here is between the actual will of God and the teachings of the church. Like someone said earlier, heaven is not a democracy--what God says is what goes. However, the church has been wrong about His will before, and once enough people realized it, practices have changed. One thing that comes to mind is indulgences.
Birth control, for example. I've been to classes about why the church bans birth control and I've read a bit on my own, and the reasoning sounds very weak to me. It honestly sounds like the Church decided they didn't like birth control for fear it would encourage promiscuity, and developed the theology backward from that point. This is one reason why the teaching is so widely ignored in the US (and probably also why the Pope has softened the ruling for cases where aids is a risk). I would say this is a case where the will of God is not actually being expressed by the Church, and the teaching should be changed.
That is what I've been trying to get at (although I understand and respect the birth control thing, complicated as it will eventually make my life). If the Church is not representing the will of God (divine law), then we are obligated to work to change it. How can we be sure that we are abiding by divine law if we refuse to even consider that it might be different than current teaching? I haven't seen very much honest consideration of the arguments in favour of female priests to think that the Church has fulfilled its mission.
I don't want a Church that bends to the world's opinion. I don't want a Church of entitlement (I am owed priesthood!). I do want a Church that does everything it can, examines every issue, rigorously seeking out the will of God. If I felt at all that this had happened with the issue of female priests, I would accede to it. Reluctantly, perhaps, but I would.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: I said earlier that I would be fine with the Church deciding to allow women to be priests, but after thinking about it for awhile, I'm not so sure. I think that women and men have differences that go beyond biology; that there are spiritual differences as well. I know that one of the reasons for the 'men only' rule is that if the Church is the bride of Christ, priests take the symbolic role of the bridegroom. Maybe a woman would not be able to fill this role.
I think this question should be opened to debate, because there could be many interesting arguments made for and against it.
I find the spiritual differences an intriguing facet to this. While it could go one way, the way you presented, it could be seen from a different angle. What if those spiritual differences make it difficult to see the persona Christi in a man? What of those who become so alienated from the Church because they cannot relate to a male representation of God, and/or cannot find a female representation? I've often heard this regarding victims of rape or abuse - a "father" God is entirely alien. Not to mention that there are feminine representations of God in the Bible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I don't generally argue about issues where there isn't any particular disagreement. I am quite enthusiastic about many of the Church's social teachings. And many of those teachings have influenced my beliefs and my actions.
I do think, though, that this idea of "top down" Catholicism (when we view the Vatican rather than Christ as the top) is a dangerous aspect of a hierarchical institution. There has been a great deal of "push back" to the reforms made at the Second Vatican Council and this is a matter of concern for me.
And it is no secret that the current Pope and his predessor lost a lot of my trust with the way they handled the problem of sexual abuse among priests. They protected (or tried to) protect the hierarchy and their own power rather than protecting the Church. Believing that the power structure of an organization is the organization is a common failing of leadership. We are not exempt from that failing and I think it is one of things that is most likely to lead us astray in the present day as it has in the past.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I don't generally argue about issues where there isn't any particular disagreement. I am quite enthusiastic about many of the Church's social teachings. And many of those teachings have influenced my beliefs and my actions.
Well, that could certainly lead to my possibly mistaken impression. It happens in a community like this (well, in a community like this for me-I tend to focus more on contentious threads).
Which of the Church's social teachings would you not have adhered to had it been for the Church's stance on that subject? Or, if there are many, which to you is the most striking example? Or, if there are none, which is the most striking example to you of a Church stance that has had a big impact on your own personal social and political practices and beliefs?
Edit: This is getting quite personal, so I zero perspiration if you'd rather back off or keep it generalized.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I expanded my answer above.
To answer this question, the Church's stance on social justice, my duty to the poor, my opinion on the death penalty (for a few examples) have all shifted due to Catholic teaching. (I used to vote Republican!) Moreover, Church teaching has deepened and clarified my understanding of many issues where my thinking had been in the right direction but unformed and strengthened my ability to act according to God's will.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Interesting! Although I should note (although it's not the stereotype, with good reason) that voting Republican does not preclude favoring social justice, sense of duty to the poor, and most especially opposition to the death penalty.
Just to be clear, you're saying that those things are examples for you of where you used to believe one thing, and then when you became Catholic (or a more active Catholic-I can't recall if you were born to it or are a convert), you eventually held beliefs in opposition to your old ones? I'm just not sure because of what you go on to say, about being formed and strengthened, rather than being dissuaded entirely.
Social justice (in which I personally include 'duty to the poor') and the death penalty have both been issues for which religion has partially or completely changed my mind. It's funny when mentioned in this discussion, but for me it was originally a Catholic perspective which changed my beliefs on the death penalty. Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kate, the problem I have with your recent statements about the hierarchy is that, as mentioned by others, you seem to have NO regard for it. I completely understand and agree when you say things like the fact that Christ is the head of the Church moreso than the Pope, but it seems like the papacy and the priesthood don't deserve any greater respect/consideration than anyone else amongst the faithful... which in my mind has always been one of the strong points of Catholicism... we're not a religion that solely relies on the scripture, but also on our history/tradition of learned and spiritual individuals who have helped us grow in our understanding of scripture, and God's role in our lives...
Frankly, though I don't always agree with the man in the position, because he is in fact a man, I think the Pope (and to a lesser extent the rest of the hierarchy) IS spiritually more in tune with God than the average person. Else why would he have been chosen through prayerful consideration by the College of Cardinals etc etc... Now I freely admit that there is the potential for corruption and that not every pope or priest or bishop has really been called (look to the middle ages for plenty of bad examples) but I have to think that there is something to it all.
And even if none of our hierarchy is really more spiritually strong than I or others at least they are in positions to better develop that spirituality. I mean, perhaps Father Tom starts at the same place that I do, but when he has the opportunity to pray and study and actively seek God for 50 times longer and harder than I do there's gotta be something there.
I mean, I'm a fairly intelligent person but if I have a legal question I'm gonna rely more on the lawyers and judges than I am on my own intuition. Even though I recognize that they may have gotten things wrong along the way...
Certainly there have been mistakes, and there continue to be, and trying to cover up those mistakes is generally reprehensible, but is there no value to having leaders of the flock?
Perhaps I and others are misinterpreting your views on the matter, but that's what I've been getting (indirectly) out of this.
I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that the hierarchy is perfect or always gets God's will right, but it does seem like you're saying that they don't have any better idea than any of the rest of us...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that social justice is a bigger concept that just duty to the poor. I agree that voting Republican does not preclude social justice - it just makes it harder to find politicians who are likely to enact legislation aimed at social justice.
My beliefs about things were in the process of changing as I was in the process of learning more about and converting to Catholicism. It was a symbiotic process - I really can't say how much my changing beliefs informed by decision to convert or how much my decision to convert informed my beliefs. Those things happened in conjunction.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
My understanding of why women can't be priests in Catholicism is that a priest must stand in the person of Christ while celebrating Mass; and that when Jesus said that the Church is the bride of Christ he wasn't just using a metaphor but saying that the relationship of husband to wife is a microcosm of the relationship of Christ to the Church---i.e., that the husband is the primary giver of love in a marriage, and that the wife is the primary receiver of it, and that the husband must be prepared to lay down his life for his wife but not vice versa. Thus since a woman does not represent Christ in dealings with other people, she cannot represent Christ at Mass.
I know I'm not explaining this well, and I find it pretty repugnant, but I think this is Catholicism's general theology on the issue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think that social justice is a bigger concept that just duty to the poor. I agree that voting Republican does not preclude social justice - it just makes it harder to find politicians who are likely to enact legislation aimed at social justice.
I agree with the latter and note with regards to the former that I said, "...include 'duty to the poor'." Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exactly.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I doubt there's a Republican in the party who'd have a problem with the Old Testament's teachings on helping the poor. Go over your fields once and let the poor come behind you to pick up the gleanings. It's actually the Republican viewpoint in a nutshell. (Excluding most big corporate CEOs of course.)
Edit to add: If people have different views of what duty to the poor means, it's possible to meet one standard while failing another. If I elect a Republican and he lowers the interest rate on student loans or offers tax breaks to small businesses who institute profit sharing for part-time employees, I think he's doing a great job. Even if he cut funds to welfare. Different standard, different goal.
[ November 12, 2007, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: AvidReader ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I did not do a very good job of explaining Catholic teaching on social justice. I also want to make clear that I do not by any means think that Catholicism has a corner on this. In fact in some areas of social justice, we are quite backwards and far behind our sisters and brothers. This is particulary true in areas that have anything at all to do with sex or gender.
It is difficult to articulate where I sense the difference. I think that one area is the idea of corporate or communal salvation. You can't be Catholic without being part of a community. If we all aren't making it, none of us are. There is less of a "pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps" idea. For example, the Catholic Church* has articulated specific support for unions, worker's rights, and wages that are determined by the dignity and worth of the worker rather than the market value of the work.
This is not so much charity but an understanding that we are all contributing to and all owners in whatever is achieved.
Again, this may not be unique to Catholicism. It was something I had not personally hear explained this way before understanding it from Catholic social teaching.
*see correction below
[ November 12, 2007, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I doubt there's a Republican in the party who'd have a problem with the Old Testament's teachings on helping the poor. Go over your fields once and let the poor come behind you to pick up the gleanings.
That is not anywhere near the extent of the Hebrew scriptures's teachings on how to treat the poor.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For example, the Catholic Church has articulated specific support for unions, worker's rights, and wages that are determined by the dignity and worth of the worker rather than the market value of the work.
You seem to be using an inconsistent definition of "the Catholic Church" when it comes to pronouncements about specific social policies as a means of implementing Catholic teachings on social justice compared to pronouncements about other types of teachings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
True. Bad habit. These teachings seem less in contention and less controversial - more received - than, for example birth control or divorce, but you are right.
Popes, councils, and many and various groups of bishops and lay organizations have articulated the social justice teachings I mentioned but it is inconsistant of me to label that as the whole Church.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So you're saying that the Catholic Church is as officially a supporter of unionization as it is opposed to female clergy?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Unionization involves a lot more than paying a wage that acknowledges the dignity of the worker. That's how unions present themselves, but they are a service business as surely as a bank is. I am interested to know whether the Church actually supports Unions or would encourage employers to provide livable wages.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I've read that unions are often major stockholders in the corporations their employees work for.
That's teh smart.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think you mean their members - the employees are employed by the companies. Just sayin'.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It depends on the criteria you are using. It isn't really easily quantifiable. The policy on unions is certainly "younger" only a bit over 100 years old.
Pooka, does this help?
quote: The Church fully supports the right of workers to form unions or other associations to secure their rights to fair wages and working conditions. This is a specific application of the more general right to associate. In the words of Pope John Paul II, "The experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are an indispensable element of social life, especially in modern industrial societies." Economic Justice for All #104 Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy, U. S. Catholic Bishops, 1986
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Sure, thanks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It makes sense if you look at the history of unions and their relationship to waves of immigrants from Catholic countries and the exploitation of those workers.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I think you mean their members - the employees are employed by the companies. Just sayin'."
Heaven only knows why you thought that needed clarifying. Were you being funny?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Just an update on the actual story that started this all.
The women went through with the ceremony and by Monday 99% of the press were considering it a closed story.
Then Arch Bishop Burke demanded that the women present themselves to a Tribunal of faith.
Instead of letting this story die, and the movement slowly starve for want of attention, it seems the ArchBishop is giving his foes just what they want, another round of publicity, all in order that he can flex his liturgical muscles and punish the wrongdoers.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
So it sounds like he's proceeding with his threat to excommunicate. I'd think less of him if he didn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Instead of letting this story die, and the movement slowly starve for want of attention, it seems the ArchBishop is giving his foes just what they want, another round of publicity, all in order that he can flex his liturgical muscles and punish the wrongdoers.
Gee, someone might think he cares more about something other than what would be most expedient in the press.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "I think you mean their members - the employees are employed by the companies. Just sayin'."
Heaven only knows why you thought that needed clarifying. Were you being funny?
No, just a tad hyperliteral. But it if made you laugh, that's okay too.
Unions do seem to be exeriencing a resurgence in immigrant labor.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)