Posted on 07/14/2002 7:40:50 AM PDT by heyheyhey
Edited on 07/14/2002 11:32:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Catholic Church, that claims to learn from the ages through which it has perdured, will learn in time that policies formed when women were considered inferior cannot survive in our day.
Some claim that the pedophile-priest scandal has nothing to do with the mandatory celibacy rule for Roman Catholic priests. But a majority of Catholics agree that "priestly celibacy increases the chances of sexual abuse"--51 percent in a Dallas Morning News poll and 52 percent in a Canadian News poll. This is a matter of common sense. How can anyone doubt that the abuse of minors would not have spread so far in secret if priests' wives or women priests had been part of the church's structure? Recent articles have noted how many of the whistle-blowers in recent business scandals have been women. They were not bound by the boys' club rules of the past.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Presumably we've evolved to the more enlightened stage where it is debated whether pre-natal Homo sapiens about the size of a pin are "human" or not. Progress?
To be both ex-Jesuit and ex-conservative is quite an achievement. Anyone get the sense this guy has spent a good deal of his life...confused?
Most of you didn't seem to notice that the premise is false. Arguments and conclusions were based on the false premise.
In the Catholic tradition women are not considered inferior. The Blessed Mother is exalted as the most superior of all humans with only God above her. In the Catholic tradition, the birth, baptism and raising of the children within the faith is the role of the woman/mother, and is a position far superior to the breadwinner who seldom sees his kids, or the true priest who is a servant. She who rocks the cradle will rule the world.
Precisely because it is politically incorrect to hold this position of the superior role of the mother, the politically correct must belittle and lie about it. They create an alternate reality to replace it within the church. I personally have nothing against women in the priesthood. I come from a protestant tradition of the priesthood of the believer. But let's recognize the lies on which the other side argues its case.
If we get bogged down in contradicting their arguments and conclusions without questioning their false premise, then we will lose. For we depend on logic. They depend on emotion and feeling to win their argument, not logic.
July 18, 2002
"Scientists identify the spark of life"
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent BRITISH scientists have discovered the gene that provides the spark of life, when an egg is fertilised by a sperm, in research that promises dramatic advances in fertility treatment and stem cell experiments.
A ten-year study has revealed that the gene in sperm triggers the crucial process by which an egg starts dividing to form an embryo, solving a mystery that has confounded medical science for two centuries.
The breakthrough, by researchers at the University of Wales College of Medicine in Cardiff and University College, London, paves the way for improved therapy for infertile couples and treatments that use cloned stem cells to tackle Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-358995,00.html
One modern boast which is a little hard to figure is that little was known of Greek until "the Renaissance." Almost no one studies Greek now and Plato, Aristotle & Co. are spurned as "dead white Western males." That would hardly seem to put the modern university "ahead" of Aquinas. The anti-scholastic reading of Western intellectual history is not exactly proof of genius status.
Um, can you show me where God's will is expressly given to command "celibacy" of priests?
Also,
I don't equate the rites and traditions of the Catholic Church with "God's will." The fact is even the current Pope has acknowledged that this is a tradition that is simply being upheld AS a tradition, not "God's will."
It is the belief of the Catholic Church that Christ established Her upon St. Peter and the other 11 Apostles that He chose, and sent them the Holy Spirit after His Resurrection and Ascension to guide, protect from error, and lead Her in all Truth per the will of His Father until the 'close of the ages'. This protection is therefore guaranteed to the successors of the Apostles who are the bishops of the Catholic Church with the Pope as their head; otherwise known as the 'Magisterium' - a living teaching authority, with the command to transmit His revelation of Truth to the whole world. She is at once the Mystical Body of Christ and His Bride. He is Her head and the Holy Spirit Her soul. How can She not be infallible? Divine revelation has been entrusted to Her in the Word of God, Dei Verbum, which is found in Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture. These two are of one cloth, so to speak; flip sides of the same coin. Holy Scripture can even be considered a subset of Tradition (it was the Magisterium through Tradition which determined the Scriptures). In Her liturgical rites are the mediating actions whereby Christ infuses His Divine life to Her members in the sacraments.
Reading Mr. Wills paper again, I'm struck that he could be talking about the government, or a corporation, or any one of a myriad of organizations, but not the Church. No concept of sacraments, or, well, Divine guidance. No sense of the sacred I guess.
This short catechism may be helpful to you in understanding Catholics (RE: Your exchange with Snuffington - See Post #54) and their attitudes, and the following explanation as well. Other posters might find it interesting since it opens one area where Mr. Wills theoretically had a shot!
Point 1. The Church Herself is willed by God!
Here goes 2... Your use of the term 'tradition' seems to significantly differ from that of Snuffingtons'. Perhaps use of the term 'customs' might be more appropriate. It can be a little technical at times, but not really. So, to your first statement, (this might take some time...)
Being a Catholic of the Byzantine Rite I can surprise you and mention that there are married priests in the Catholic Church. Even in the Latin Rite there are some priest converts, e.g. Anglican, Lutheran, who are ordained in the Catholic Church while married. While celibacy, understood as "forsaking marriage for the Kingdom of heaven", has always been held in high esteem throughout the history of the Catholic Church, it is not "ontologically" necessary for a priest. This differs significantly with the question of women priests. Women can't become priestess' in the Church because it is ,simple to say, impossible (See my Post #17 with link). Is celibacy a Tradition then, or a custom? I answer thusly!
The evangelical vows of chastity (and therefore, celibacy), poverty, and obedience, are indeed part of Sacred Tradition coming directly from the Apostles, particularly the witness of St. John, the "beloved disciple", who remained celibate (and of course Christ's Bride is the Church!). However, they are not essential for the priesthood and extend to other members of the Church. In fact, many lay people in the history of the Church e.g. nuns, sisters, brothers, and others, through discernment of the Holy Spirit freely vow themselves to God under the evangelical counsels. It was only natural (or supernatural!) that from the beginning of the Church that men discerning the priesthood would be at the forefront in making these vows upon ordination. From the earliest times, bishops, who were always celibate, chose men who were celibate for the priesthood with it being the local law for many "dioceses". This discipline has developed into canon law for the Latin Church for some time now, with the laws of the Eastern Church a little more 'lax'. For example, a man not married upon ordination in the Eastern Rites takes this vow, or if becoming a widower remains unmarried.
Don't misunderstand, priestly celibacy is practiced very much so in the Eastern Rites - just not by all priests. All monks and Religious priests are vowed to celibacy, and many, if not most, secular priests freely choose to vow themselves to it as well. A corollary for Latin Rite priests would be that secular priests do not vow poverty, whereas all Religious priests do. Also, please understand that adult men freely discern and choose to be ordained in the Church if the Church, through discernment, find them to be suitable candidates. NO ONE IS HOLDING A GUN TO THEIR HEAD!!! (oh well, here I go again...)
Illbay writes,
In my own religion, we have specific statements from God that it is NOT right to forbid marriage to anyone. I can support your insistence upon your traditions, certainly, but absolutely refuse to let pass the contention that it is "God's will," when I know that it is expressly CONTRARY to His will.
The Catholic Church forbids no one from getting married. Well, on second thought, maybe there are special cases such as an 8 year old boy marrying a 9 year old girl. The two, having not reached puberty, would be incapable of contracting a valid marriage. Impotent people, not to be confused with sterile people, cannot marry. People who have already vowed themselves to another in marriage cannot walk away from that vow to legitimately marry another. Likewise, people who validly and freely vow themselves to God. In what way is this, any of this, "CONTRARY" to His will?
Closing on the topic of celibacy. Should the Latin Rite of the Church change Her discipline? It is for Her only to be led by the Holy Spirit, and at present, the eschatological dimension of the witness of Her priests seems to be sorely needed in a world which knows not God. Following is from Pope John Paul's Letter to Priests for Holy Thursday 1995:
"When Christ stated - as the Evangelist Matthew writes - that man can remain celibate for the Kingdom of God, the Apostles were disturbed (cf. 19:10-12). A little earlier Jesus had declared that marriage is indissoluble, and this truth had caused in them a significant reaction: "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry" (Mt 19:10). As is evident, their reaction went contrary to the notion of fidelity which Jesus had in mind. But the Master makes use even of this lack of understanding, in order to introduce into their narrow and limited way of thinking the perspective of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. He thereby wishes to affirm that marriage has a specific dignity and sacramental holiness, and that nevertheless there exists another path for the Christian: a path which is not a flight from marriage but rather a conscious choice of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven."
Finally, Ilbay writes,
You may believe as you wish, but you cannot demonstrate that this is "God's will," any more than you can prove how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (another traditional preoccupation of Catholic thought).
You took on the Angelic Doctor here and got, shall we say, replied to. I would just point out that sometimes the scholastics, and St. Thomas Aquinas particularly, are accused of "splitting hairs". Well, so what? Did not our Lord Jesus Christ Himself promise "But a hair of your head shall not perish." in the Gospel of St. Luke? What do you consider important if not the Incarnation of the "Logos" of God? The very fact that the Eternal and Infinite God came into "our concrete reality", truly becoming a part of His Creation, and thereby redeeming it - ALL OF IT. Well, then isn't it fitting to study and learn from that same Creation that He uses to mediate His Grace to us. Aquinas DOES dive down from the universal to the particular in a VERY orderly manner, and that is where his genius lies. Our Lord in St. Matthew's Gospel "These things you ought to have done and not to leave those undone." The Angelic Doctor did them both.
Like a fish needs a bicycle!?!!
Oh, and where are those apostles you mention? Not aware that they're still around.
Seems you have some pieces missing.
I'll go ahead and say... In matters of faith and morals (perhaps a missing piece?) - Yes. Except that it's backwards. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, leads the Church to discern and effectuate the Will of God. Certainly the Will of God is anterior to His Church. Both issues taken up by Prof. Wills, of womens' ordination and the vow of celibacy for priests, are in this category. In his article he does not mention God once or attempt a theologically reasoned thesis on these issues.
Words are clever entities, aren't they? Vibrational waves emanating from our throats, striking tympanic membranes, converted to electical signals in the brain and we can communicate the deepest thoughts of our souls. In this case it's striking keyboards... God "spoke" but one Word to us all!
Oh, and where are those apostles you mention? Not aware that they're still around.
They're around. They're very much alive, more so than us, contemplating the Beatific Vision of God! With the possible exception of Judas Iscariot - may there still be hope for his soul!
Of course, in terms of their ministry here on earth related to their office as Apostles - their successors, through the sacrament of Holy Orders, are the bishops in union with the Pope. And that strikes at the problem with Garry Wills article. It is all about the sacrament of Holy Orders, except he fails to mention it. That is simply untenable.
Seems you have some pieces missing.
I suppose it would be called 'Faith'. The short "catechism" was meant to help you and other non-Catholics understand a Catholic perspective concerning the nature of the Church. And therefore obtain an ability to understand how ridiculous Prof. Wills article really is, at least for a Catholic. For all I know you could be a buddhist?
I believe I meant Post #52, not #54
Does this mean Jesus was not a Priest?
Garry, you're an inspiration to Catholics everywhere!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.