The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionCardinal sees 'no theological obstacle' to women priests
by John L Allen Jr on Jun. 27, 2011
Cardinal José da Cruz Policarpo of Lisbon, Portugal, a veteran European prelate at one point considered a contender for the papacy, reportedly has said there’s “no fundamental theological obstacle” to the ordination of women as priests in the Catholic church.
According to the text of an interview with a legal publication in Portugal called Oa, Policarpo said that women’s ordination will happen only “when God wants it,” although not in our lifetimes, and that now is not the time to raise the question.
“Theologically there is no fundamental obstacle,” Policarpo was quoted as saying. “We could say there’s a tradition, because it’s never been done.”
“There’s a fundamental equality among all the members of the church,” the cardinal said. “The problem lies in a strong tradition, which comes from Jesus and from the fact that the churches of the Reformation conceded the priesthood to women.”
Those comments were highlighted over the weekend by “Vatican Insider,” a new on-line news source on the Catholic church operated by the Italian newspaper La Stampa.
Policarpo’s claim that there is no theological bar to women priests would seem to be at odds with various recent Vatican declarations.
In 1994, Pope John Paul II issued the document Ordinatio sacerdotalis reaffirming the ban on women priests. A subsequent clarification released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger asserted that the teaching on “has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium," and therefore belongs to the "deposit of faith."
More recently, Pope Benedict XVI referred to the teaching as “infallible” in a letter informing Australian Bishop William Morris of the Toowoomba diocese that he had been removed from office, in part for raising the question of women’s ordination in a 2006 pastoral letter.
Policarpo also reportedly said that the debate over women’s ordination is to some extent a “false problem,” because the same young women who put the question to him usually demur when he asks if they themselves would be willing to become priests.
Policarpo, 75, has been the Patriarch of Lisbon since 1998. Although he has reached the usual retirement age for bishops, Benedict XVI recently confirmed him in office for another two years.
A former dean of the theology faculty at the Portuguese Catholic University, Policarpo was considered by some a dark-horse candidate for the papacy during the late John Paul years. He is generally seen as a theological and political moderate, and a bridge-builder between the church in Europe and in Latin America.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
The text of the interview with Policarpo, in Portuguese, may be found here.
[John L. Allen, Jr. is NCR senior correspondent.]
It's kind of ridiculous to
It's kind of ridiculous to say that there is no theological reason why we can't have priestesses. I was able to come up with 12 reasons myself. This cardinal's statement on priestesses shows the kind of ignorance which exists in the hierarchy. I think it is safe to say that the Pope will be accepting his resignation!
As to OS & infallibility, how can one have an infallible rule? Infallibility is restricted to matters of faith & morals. Even I concede that infallibility on this issue is debatable but prior to its infallible status this doctrine was what is called "sent certa." This is a theological grade one step below De fide. This means it is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium. Anything in the ordinary magisterium is a matter of faith & morals.
I do accept what Benedict says on the matter. I don't pretend to have more theological knowledge than him. But the bottom line is whether infallible or not, the teaching against the abomination of priestesses is a matter of faith. It is not simply a ruling. The Pope can make a ruling on something like celibacy for priests but theology doesn't rule out the possibility of married priests. JPII made a ruling on priestesses but the theology itself rules it out. He could not have ruled any other way.
The basic theological reason why we can't have priestesses is that when God took on a human nature, it was a male human nature. This was done for a reason; it could not possibly have been any other way, i.e, the choice of a female human nature. From this essential point every other aspect of the differentiation of the human sexes flows.
Paulte, you state: "The basic
Paulte, you state: "The basic theological reason why we can't have priestesses is that when God took on a human nature, it was a male human nature. This was done for a reason; it could not possibly have been any other way, i.e, the choice of a female human nature. From this essential point every other aspect of the differentiation of the human sexes flows."
Do you realize that in attempting to claim that there are two different kinds of human nature -- male and female -- rather than human nature being what makes any person human (the traditional attributes are things like rationality, self-consciousness, creativity, the ability to communicate through language -- all common to both men and women), you would exclude women from the redemption Jesus Christ brought through his saving death and resurrection (since Jesus would not have assumed their "female human nature")?
In philosophical circles, that is what's known as a reductio ad absurdum!
And I am afraid I find such a view much more of an abomination -- to exclude half of your fellow human beings (and probably far more than half of your fellow practicing fellow Catholic Christians, judging from the demographics of the average Sunday Mass) from salvation.
You are trying to distort
You are trying to distort what I'm saying. I'm not saying that there are two different types of human nature. That is your liberal distortion of my erudition!
Clearly when Christ took on a human nature he took on the human nature of all, male & female alike. However, the human nature he took on had male sexuality & not female sexuality. Is that more precise for you? God intended it to be this way & it could not have been otherwise since the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Son.
Paulte, I am not quite sure
Paulte, I am not quite sure how I could "distort" what you are saying by quoting you word for word. I am glad to see you clarify that you believe that in taking a human nature, Jesus took on the human nature of all, male and female (echoing Genesis, where male and female are alike created in the image and likeness of God).
But now it seems as if you don't quite get what "human nature" is -- that which is common to us all, that which makes us human, that which the imago Dei bestows. Because you go on to say, "the human nature he took on had male sexuality and not female sexuality." Well, no, the NATURE had no specific sexuality (as the NATURE is what is common to all the humans Jesus came to save -- nature is at the level of the general, not the individual), though Jesus' body born of Mary did indeed have a male gender.
Later commentators to your original post do a very nice job of discussing how contingent historical factors could have contributed to that divine choice of gender (since if the Word had been made flesh as a Jewish woman of the first century, she would have had little opportunity to give the Word a voice in the prevailing patriarchal cultural and religious context -- which is not the same as God endorsing that patriarchal context, as opposed to seeing it as part of the fallen world in need of redemption). So "what could not have been otherwise" is pretty debatable (as other commentators also clarify quite well). And so what you call "Christ's male human nature" really settles nothing about what is at issue -- what follows for sacramental theology from that "particular particular" about Jesus (his gender), as opposed to other "particulars" (his ethnicity, his age, his occupation) that have been deemed irrelevant (perhaps why the good cardinal sees no "theological reasons" in the case).
And which came first theologically (that is, human grasping at understanding more and more fully the divine mystery) -- the gender of the human Jesus or the Trinitarian understanding of Sonship -- is a different, and much larger question.
If you aspire to erudition, you really should care about being precise.
Peace.
You are the one distorting
You are the one distorting the concept of human nature & frankly just nit-picking besides making ridiculous statements. The most essential part of human nature is the composite of body & soul. The body is an integral part of the human being & the human body has a sexual aspect to it. So when Christ took on a human nature, he took on both a human body & a human soul. His human body had a sexual aspect to it and this was male. Human nature is not something ethereal; it is flesh & blood as well as intellect & will.
Beyond the physical aspects of sexuality there are emotional & psychic aspects to it which run deep into the human personality. The female personality & the male personality are quite different. Therefore a woman could not model Christ in terms of his personality although she could model his virtuous life. Hence a woman could not be an alter-Christus (another Christ) in the fullest sense of the term to include his personality.
a personality which describes
a personality which describes itself as a mother hen wishing to draw her chicks safely beneath her wings . . .
Paulte, the "alter-Christus"
Paulte, the "alter-Christus" argument is a fallacy. No priest functions in this capacity, liturgically or otherwise. He is an "alter-episcopus".
The "alter-Christus" school of theology pertaining to the priesthood is the bunkum and hocum which passes for theology today. The more it is repeated, the more it becomes one of our popular myths to be accepted without question. Just as you have done. Erroneously fed to us as along with the rest of your distorted view of a woman's character, personality, and role in the Church, or lack of it.
The Orthodox, and at one time the western churches, NEVER accepted this concept of "alter-Christus" as a designation of a presbyter. A bishop, yes, but not a presbyter.
Again, we need to rediscover the Patristic Era and learn from it.
So using your argument, since
So using your argument, since Jesus chose to become incarnate by becoming a jewish, middle eastern, male human being, should not then all priests be jewish and middle eastern since those attributes are also a part of who he was as a human person? Ethnicity and Cultural aspects are just as much of a person as sexuality is.
No, sexuality runs deeper
No, sexuality runs deeper into the person than matters of ethnicity & culture per se is pretty irrelevant. For instance a Jewish male & a gentile male have more in common in terms of personhood than a Jewish male & a Jewish female do.
I was puzzled as well how
I was puzzled as well how your quoting word for word frmo paultre served not only as a distortion, but a liberal one, let alone a sampling of erudition.
"That is your liberal distortion of my erudition!"
Paulte, Christ was also
Paulte, Christ was also capable of changing His sex if He wanted to, or if it had been medically possible to do so at the time. So, because He came into the world as a man, a woman cannot succeed Him in sacred ministry?
To believe this is to return to the faith of a child, or someone who doesn't get out and around very much. It is not a faith for adults.
So Christ could have made a
So Christ could have made a magic wand & turned himself into a woman? Is this what you are maintaining? That's a fairy tale! The idea that God can do anything is simply not true. For one thing He cannot sin & gender change is unnatural, immoral & sinful.
You, paulte, ignore (as
You, paulte, ignore (as usual) that at the time that Jesus walked the earth, He could have not been female for one very clear reason: as a woman, Christ would NEVER have been allowed to travel, consort with men (12 at one time!!), preach in the temple, or preach to the crowds anywhere. "She" would have been stoned to death.
This had nothing to do with Christ's nature - divine or human - but how God was to get his teaching across. It was MEN who added the MEN ONLY clauses to everything. Jesus had nothing to do with it!
You see? There are other reasons for things that you never stop and consider. It all has to fit your own limited, archconservative-distorted viewpoint.
Paulte, Christ was also
Paulte, Christ was also capable of changing His sex if He wanted to, or if it had been medically possible to do so at the time. So, because He came into the world as a man, a woman cannot succeed Him in sacred ministry?
To believe this is to return to the faith of a child, or someone who doesn't get out and around very much. It is not a faith for adults.
paulte on Jun. 27, 2011. You
paulte on Jun. 27, 2011.
You stated:
"You are trying to distort what I'm saying. I'm not saying that there are two different types of human nature. That is your liberal distortion of my erudition!
Clearly when Christ took on a human nature he took on the human nature of all, male & female alike. However, the human nature he took on had male sexuality & not female sexuality. Is that more precise for you? God intended it to be this way & it could not have been otherwise since the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Son."
----------------------------------------------
What does that have to do with women not being able to be ordained?
Back in Christ's time----no Jewish rabbi had women disciples. But Jesus did. And we can prove (and the official Church does not deny this), that women were present at the Last Supper. Jesus extolled the entire group to continue "the Meal" in memory of him. There was NO ordination of priests, no consecration of bishops, no coronation of a pope at the Last Supper or at any other time. There was only the example of Jesus and the mandate to service of others given to the disciples.
In the early Christian communities, the Apostles did not exercise any monarchical style of governance. Peter was the first leader of the Jerusalem community. But after he was jailed (and released by the angel), he left Jerusalem and became the leader of the Christian community in Antioch. James (relative of Jesus) was elected by the people to take the leadership role.
In both Paul's and John's communities---the people elected their leaders---both male and female.
Over the centuries, after Constantine, the Church was more concerned about modeling itself after secular authority---rather than following the mandates of Christ.
Little Bear, thanks for your
Little Bear, thanks for your very detailed and solid replies. They are appreciated by many. It saves me from blowing my top at some really distorted, absurd and unreasonable comments.
Little Bear, thanks for your
Little Bear, thanks for your very detailed and solid replies. They are appreciated by many. It saves me from blowing my top at some really distorted, absurd and unreasonable comments.
And while we're talking of
And while we're talking of tradition, Aquinas - though he thought women couldn't be priests - certainly didn't think men and women were ontologically different creatures: they both had rational natures(i.e. were intelligent beings) which was the decisive difference between them and other animals. This is often overlooked in crude caricatures by people who haven't bothered to read him.
Love this comment! Well put.
Love this comment! Well put.
The logic of the theological
The logic of the theological argument leads to the necessary conclusion that since only circumcised men were "ordained" as priests by Jesus, the circumcised male, all priests ordained should be circumcised too. This is ad absurdum, also, but the logic is identical. What tradition says about Jesus and "His priests" as exclusive of any "outsiders" is logically extended to all consequent ordinandi.
The logic of the theological
The logic of the theological argument leads to the necessary conclusion that since only circumcised men were "ordained" as priests by Jesus, the circumcised male, all priests ordained should be circumcised too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many who wouldn't like to stop with just the circumcision of priests, but continue cutting elsewhere and finish the job.
It was one of the respected
It was one of the respected Cappadocian Fathers who made the statement that was not assumed was not redeemed. Your line of argument leads straight into the conclusion that because Jesus was embodied as male and not female leaves a glaring gap in soteriology. The wisdom of Galatians 3:28 is evident, "no more male and female". Incidentally, that is the correct translation. A pity we do not study Patristics a bit better. They were often so much wiser that those now.
The wisdom of Galatians 3:28
The wisdom of Galatians 3:28 is evident, "no more male and female". Incidentally, that is the correct translation. A pity we do not study Patristics a bit better. They were often so much wiser that those now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How right you are. The Patristic writers may, in the end, be our salvation and once again provide the key to institutional reform. I fear, however, the young fogie storm troopers entering Benedict's service today and being formed in our seminaries will simply dismiss anything originating before the Council of Trent as imposing archaeologisms.
and it was the women who
and it was the women who stayed with Jesus from the begining to the end at the foot of the cross, fearlessly, or despite fear, and who were the first at the open tomb
who then are the truest and purest and most devoted and dedicated followers of Jesus?
perhaps it is not within our cowardly manly nature to have such self disinterested commitment
Paulte, your lack of
Paulte, your lack of theological sophistication is both astounding and entertaining!
A BIT STRIDENT AND QUITE A
A BIT STRIDENT AND QUITE A bit lacking in any theological reasoning.
Paulte - how do you know what
Paulte - how do you know what God was thinking?
Too bad for you Paulte that
Too bad for you Paulte that Jesus couldn't have figured out how to get around the fact He had to be born of the blood and body of a woman. Theology doesn't rule out female ordination. Tradition says Gospel revelation rules it out. But then most biblical scholars say the tradition is just that and not necessarily supported by revelation.
Definition of tradition:
Definition of tradition: We've always done things that way.
Well said Colkoch1. If more
Well said Colkoch1.
If more theologians examined the role of Mary in making it possible for The Word to become flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit,
so that there would be a perfect victim (Lamb of God) to be sacrificed
on the altar of the cross
to God the Father
for the salvation of the whole of the human race,
the tradition against the ordination of women
would be shown to be culture-bound.
It is not grounded in a belief in an omnipotent all-loving God.
Quite to the contrary, the
Quite to the contrary, the fact of Jesus's birth shows women's role & it is not to be a priest. If the most perfect woman, Mary, was not called to be an Apostle then no woman would have ever been called to be an Apostle. The historical context of the call of the Apostles is irrelevant to the point of no females. If the most perfect female was not called to this role then no female would ever be called to this role. The point which you bring up to try & contradict me actually proves my point. So there!
Jesus and his disciples did
Jesus and his disciples did not see themselves as "priests", i.e., mediators between God and man in any cultic sacerdotal role. There is no evidence that Jesus ordained the Apostles to "priesthood", and there is no evidence they ordained any of their disciples, in turn, to any kind of "priesthood". On the other hand, every member of a Christian community formed a priestly community by virtue of their baptism, not some kind of "priestly" ordination.
Priestly ordination was a historical development, not at all part of Jesus' ministry or that of his Apostles and their followers.
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010).
But, of course, paulte already knows the above information.
"You can lead a horse to water..."
we may say that through the
we may say that through the transubstantiation the priest incarnates the Blessed Body and Blood. Is this not what Mary does most perfectly and truly in the birth of Jesus?
just asking.
and take a good look at what she, pregnant, has to say about it to Elizabeth in the Magnificat. Pure Liberation Theology!
Should not the priest go forth and do likewise, in this proclamation of Mary? It should be a central part of our Mass, having lost its reading each evening standing at Vespers.
The historical context of the
The historical context of the call of the Apostles is irrelevant to the point of no females. If the most perfect female was not called to this role then no female would ever be called to this role.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using your "historical context" line of thinking Paulte, if no non-caucasian, or gentile was called to be one of Jesus' apostles, NO non-causcasian or gentile can be called? Now think about that.
But Paulte who is to say the
But Paulte who is to say the BVM was not one of the apostles? Who said she didn't share in their work on earth? There is a gap of 18 years in Jesus' life of which we know absolutely nothing other than from what we've heard from pious legends. With Joseph dead, in biblical times, she would have been expected to retire to a life of quietude and not become active in any public way. Something expected of almost all women at the time.
However, isn't Our Lady present for the gift of the Holy Spirit? She is often depicted with the apostles gathered around her death bed. To make a case for NOT ordaining women based upon the BVM's personal experiences is ludicrous. It is a very thin reed to cling to in making your argument.
Mary, the only human parent
Mary, the only human parent of the Christ, not "called" to be an apostle? It seems to me that's a very narrow concept of apostle - and - of called.
"So there" and "my
"So there" and "my erudition"? Paulte, this does not sound like even you used to sound. It sounds like someone much younger and with a different educational background.
Paulte - The Apostles were
Paulte -
The Apostles were not called because they were perfect - far from it in fact;
they were Apostles because they were called and answered the call.
On July 22 we celebrated the
On July 22 we celebrated the feast of Mary of Magdala, who is given the honor in our tradition as the Apostle to the Apostles.
12 reasons. List them,
12 reasons. List them, please.
Oh no, Paulte! Please don't.
Oh no, Paulte! Please don't. I might just die from excess of laughter, if not of boredom.
Do a search on this site for
Do a search on this site for after 2008 using the term "abomination of the priestess" & you will find the 12 reasons in the Akers thread. It should be the first item which shows up.
It is such a tireless job for paulte to try & fulfill the spiritual work of mercy which says, "Instruct the Ignorant"!
My dear Paulte. I knew it! I
My dear Paulte.
I knew it! I knew it! I was right all along! You are a comedian, and everything you write is written while your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek. Well done! In these troubled times, you add to the gaiety of nations.
While admitting to a sense of
While admitting to a sense of humor, I am first & foremost a defender of the faith just like Queen Elizabeth II. It's on her coin!
Then can we hope you will
Then can we hope you will just go away now. Nothing to read here.
I am first & foremost a
I am first & foremost a defender of the faith just like Queen Elizabeth II. It's on her coin!
Ah, so you are also a Protestant? You are so full of surprises.
It is only the corporal works
It is only the corporal works of mercy which are to be practiced by all.
The spiritual works of mercy have caveats attached to who is to practice them and I believe the caveats may just refer to you.
"the abomination of
"the abomination of priestesses"..wow, that sounds SCARY to me! It undermines your claim to be arguing on theological grounds and suggests deep seated cultural anxiety.
The "Abomination of the
The "Abomination of the Priestesses"? Sounds just like something I heard in a sermon by my old Irish-born pastor.
First let's get rid of the
First let's get rid of the use of the word priestess which thou are only using as a negative!
Second---Why do you think God the Father choose that a young woman house the embryo of His Divine Son who then absorbed the DNA of a woman who birthed and nurtured Him?
Third--Jesus wasn't a priest and neither were the apostles. Those who were termed "priests" in the Earl Vurch were raised up by their congregations and included men and women
As usual, paulte, you start
As usual, paulte, you start with your answer. Why would you say that it could not have been any other way than the way it was? There can be more than ONE WAY. GOD's THOUGHTS ARE NOT YOUR THOUGHTS AND GOD'S WAY IS NOT YOUR WAY, remember that one?
Your thinking remains circular, always circling back to what you want.
I don't recall Christ ever
I don't recall Christ ever intimating that one had to be anatomically identical to Him be His disciple. The fact of the matter is that over a life-time in the Catholic Church, we have encountered many priests who never in any way could be construed as "other Christs" save in their anatomy. Their daily behavior was as un-Christian as one could imagine. I am sure many, many could back this up with their own experiences. While untold numbers of women, lay and religious, truly were "persona Christi" to their families, students, parishioners, neighbors, the ill, disabled, and poor in their towns, cities and mission countries. The real test is servant leadership, behavior that brings others to God. Certainly not lordship and dictatorial bombast.
Huh?
Huh?
"The basic theological reason
"The basic theological reason why we can't have priestesses is that when God took on a human nature, it was a male human nature. This was done for a reason; it could not possibly have been any other way, i.e, the choice of a female human nature."
## Doesn't this amount to limiting God, though ? To say that God, as it were, "could not have been" incarnate as a woman, STM to limit the freedom of God to act as He Wills. It is also not clear what difference there is between Divine inability to be incarnate as a woman, & Divine inability to sin.
God's inability to sin is not a lack of ability to act, because sinning is not an ability at all, but a disability; it is a limitation that is harmful for us, & not simply a limitation arising from our status as creatures.
So what makes God "unable" to be incarnate as a woman ? Not something external to God, for that would mean He is constrained by something in His own creation. Nor can the answer be than man is superior to woman, or was worthy that God should be incarnate as a man; for even if the reason for the Incarnation was independent of the Fall, the Incarnation cannot be merited, as it is a wholly supernatural gracious Divine act. So there is no place at all for any male pride or self-conceit either. AFAICS, all we can know is that, what in fact happened is that God was Incarnate as both man & male; but not that He "could not have" acted otherwise. Granted, one is entering the realm of hypothesis...
ISTM your argument proves too much, for God was incarnate as a Jew. That strikes me as rather a good reason for not permitting Gentiles to join the Church; unless, perhaps, as second-class citizens. So, how far is the historically detailed Sacred Humanity of Christ theologically significant - and why ? Why is his being male significant theologically - but not His being Jewish or Galilean or a peasant or of the 1st-century or other details about Him ?
Of all the posts in response
Of all the posts in response to my post, yours is the only one which really deserves a reply.
Why a male & not a female? It's sort of which came first the chicken or the egg?
God is the One who set the design for the human race. So He determined what humans would be like. He is the One who differentiated the sexes. So He had a design in his mind for the role of men & women of the human race He created.
Therefore when He decided in the fullness of time for his Son to take on a human nature the choice of the sex of the human nature was determined by what He decided way back when. His Son was to take on a male human nature or a human nature with a male sexuality to be more precise. And what other sex could his Son take on? Even though the Persons of the Blessed Trinity have no sexuality, in two cases they have roles which model male roles (Father & Son). Also, he was to be born of a woman predestined to this role from all eternity. In this scenario, the male Jesus sets the role for men & the female Mary sets the role for women.
Just as the Father had decided that his Son would take on male human nature, he also decided to choose a special woman who would interact with the Trinity as chosen Daughter of the Father, Spouse of the Spirit & Mother of the Son.
As to the Jewish question, Christ was a Jew because he was one of the Chosen People. But the Chosen People were not to remain exclusively so after the time of Christ. The Chosen-ness went out to the gentiles, so it makes no sense to say that the priests must be Jewish since few Jews followed Christ.
However, I suppose it is possible that if all the Chosen followed Christ then only members of the Jewish race could have been priests to reward their faithfulness to the Father. I'm just speculating here since Christ's Jewishness was an important factor in his life but his maleness was more so since sexuality runs deep into the personality. Men & women are really very different creatures.
" . . .few Jews followed
" . . .few Jews followed Christ."
can I get a demographic on this, please, paultre, and what instrument you used? Or what you mean by few?
LEt´s see, just for a few examples that come most quickly to mind, how about that feeding of the five thousand, rather a substantial portion of the population at that time? Who was it that had to climb the tree to see him, you know, the rich short guy? When did they remove a roof to get a sick man into Jesus for healing, and why not just use the front door?
FEW, paultre??
could this be your barely concealed antiSemitism at play?
Men & women are really very
Men & women are really very different creatures
Glory be to God; such insight! I am amazed by how much I learn from you, Paulte; that is, of course, when I am not rolling around with laughter.
Paulte wanna cracker? Paute
Paulte wanna cracker? Paute must sit in bird cage all day long to parrot so much sexist idea. Paulte love abomination of Priest-ass theology.
The Word became "flesh" (not
The Word became "flesh" (not male) and dwelt among us -- isn't that what we all learned and recited? I also believe that the term "incarnation" refers to the en-flesh-ment of God (carne) not the en-male-ment of God.
The Word became "flesh" (not
The Word became "flesh" (not male) and dwelt among us -- isn't that what we all learned and recited? I also believe that the term "incarnation" refers to the en-flesh-ment of God (carne) not the en-male-ment of God.
Speaking of "KIND OF"
Speaking of "KIND OF" Ridiculous - you really demonstrated that in your tirade in lieu of comment.
If you think that calling women priestesses is insulting, then I wonder why you would include it in a seemingly theological "argument." You seemed to have missed the very basic reality that the good Cardinal reminds us - ALL ARE EQUAL in the sight of God. Unless, of course, you would posit that your limited vision of the world is greater than God's, I would guess you may have to reconsider your position.
Jesus taking a male form does not mean that priest need male genitalia in order to be effective. As we know all to well, the penis of a priest is not always a gift to the congregation. It is the very limitations of humanity that lead Jesus to take on human form. It may just be that in God's eyes, men demonstrate the limitation and the non-divine better than women.
Your argument seems to rest
Your argument seems to rest upon your use of a perjorative term, designed to turn people off: calling women priestesses (a word reserved for pagan religions) rather than the rightful term priests. Not well-founded in any way and certainly not fair. Become more well versed in the history of the church - read Gary Macy! Such an eye-opener!
"The basic theological reason
"The basic theological reason why we can't have priestesses is that when God took on a human nature, it was a male human nature. This was done for a reason; it could not possibly have been any other way, i.e, the choice of a female human nature. From this essential point every other aspect of the differentiation of the human sexes flows."
You turn the discussion on its head. Differentiation does not flow from the God's choice to become a man---differentiation precedes that choice. God's choice is not restrained as you claim--The Word could have been made Woman if God so wished it. The Word could even have been made Hermaphrodite, if God so wished it. It is a leap in logic to claim that God's choice intended to prefigure an all-male priesthood.
There is no biblical evidence whatsoever to support such a claim. Rather, there is every indication that God's choice was contextually determined, i.e. based on the relative freedom that Jewish males had in Biblical times to preach and teach, versus the cultural constraints on women. God's choice was to maximise the force and spread of God's self-revelation to humanity.
The God that Jesus reveals to us is gender-blind. Jesus' entire life is a testimony to maximally narrow the gender gap. Unlike Jewish males of his day (and much of today's hierarchical church) He takes women seriously; He talks to them, befriends them and forgives them; at every turn He preaches and practices non-sexism. If anything, the fact that a woman, Mary, brings Jesus to the world argues for a female priesthood rather than a male one. (Is the priestly function not precisely that of bringing the flesh and blood of Jesus to the people---just as Mary did?) And do not forget that, in total violation of the entire Jewish culture, God chose women as the first witnesses of the resurrection. Women mediate Jesus to the world, both at His birth and at His resurrection. It is Men who plot his death, judge him, crucify and kill him!
The ultimate symbol of how anti-biblical an all-male priesthood is, comes from the title that the male priests assume for themselves. In total disregard for Jesus' injunction to call no-one your father, the all-male priesthood selects for itself the title of "Father"!!!
God took on HUMAN form first
God took on HUMAN form first and foremost. Sex (male/female)is just one of many traits determined by our genes, like hair color, skin color, height, size of our feet, etc. Attributing only maleness to God is meaningless.
Christology is the study of
Christology is the study of Jesus.
In Paul's writings, he likens Jesus to the Wisdom of God.
Theologically, wisdom is referenced as a feminine nature.
The Church will change when and if the theological understanding is broadened.
But, Jesus broke a few rules in his relationship with women.
Perhaps, it is time for theologians to seriously consider broadening the christological perspective.
they have for decades and
they have for decades and been silenced
no way to get tenured
I don't know that my
I don't know that my statement of a male human nature as opposed to a female human nature necessarily implies two different types of human nature. For the record I agree that there is only one type of human nature & that this is common to both males & females. When Christ took on a human nature, he took on the human nature of all human beings, men & women alike. It's silly of you to try & imply that my statement somehow excludes women from salvation.
It should be noted though that Christ the Person was not really a human being. He was a divine Person with two natures, one divine & one human, united by what is called the hypostatic union. So it is correct to say that he took on a human nature & this nature is common to all humans.
However, it cannot be gotten around that the human nature he took on had a male sexuality. Sexuality is not just a matter of the genital organs & the body configuration. Sexuality runs deep into the human psyche & personality. So the human nature colored by a male sexuality is different from a human nature colored by a female sexuality. Would you not concede that much?
Now as Jesus is the paradigm of male sexuality, Mary would be the paradigm of female sexuality. The two paradigms had different roles to fulfill. The roles are different but complimentary. So God decided that his Son would take on a male type of human nature to be born of Mary who has a female type of human nature.
This is God's design & the rest of humanity proceeds from this design, however imperfectly. The roles are set by God. So those who would be alter Christus need like Christ to be male in order to model him. Women who are called to Mary's role would have to forsake their God-given role in order to mimic a male role in terms of being priests. This in a nutshell is the real reason why women cannot be priestesses & never will be.
Mary would be the paradigm of
Mary would be the paradigm of female sexuality
Really? I don't know too many women who can give birth and remain virgins, without having sexual intercourse with men.
women cannot be priestesses
It really is about time you dropped this insulting and archaic word, 'priestesses'. Times have changed, usage of language has moved on, and just as women who are actors are no longer called actresses, women who are poets are no longer called poetesses, and women who write novels were never called novelistesses, the word priestess is an anachronism. The women who are priests today are referred to as just that, priests, and there are women priests in other Christian denominations, for example, the Church of England, a denomination of which you are, obviously, very fond, as, in another thread, you liken yourself to Queen Elizabeth II, and her title of Defender of the Faith, the faith in question being the faith of the Anglican Communion.
Are we as a catholic people
Are we as a catholic people to accept whatever the the magisterium says blindly without any recompense to the brain(conscience)that GOD gave us? Or do we follow our Brain(conscience)as God intended through the teachings of the CHURCH fathers and theologians. It is a sin against the HOLY SPIRIT to exclude women(half of humanity)Think, Think, think. There many in the laity that think as I and many of my friends THINK!!!!!
Paulte, your last paragraph
Paulte, your last paragraph isn't "ridiculous" but I do find it to be non-sensical. That is, I can't understand your logic at all when you say the "basic theological" reason for no female priests is that God took flesh in a male body. What that said to me is that according to this reasoning if the Portuguese Cardinal (and growing numbers of other theologians, globally)are correct in their prognostications (of both male/female priests), then would it become incumbent to find a way of understanding God taking flesh as sexual hermaphrodite?
Post new comment