New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

[merithyn]

I assumed you had come in here to talk about dealing with long periods of celibacy, not to make errors of theology.

The argument you've laid out is basically that there is no core part of Christian belief that would preclude women Priests. That's a theological argument, as such it can't be mixed in with atheist claims like "the guy who wrote the Gospels could have just thrown in a few female apostles." A theological approach does not start from the assumption the gospels are works of fiction the authors could have modified however they wish. Nor does it make sociocultural arguments about the norms of the time and all that.

I do believe that the Catholic Church, like all institutions of power, would have barred women from holding offices or having positions of importance as a matter of course, regardless of what scripture says. But the actual scriptures themselves do make it clear that Christ selected exclusively men to be his apostles, and those apostles selected exclusively men to be their highly regarded followers. The Apostolic succession, and the concept that Priests are continuing this tradition to the present day really precludes any strong theological counterargument. Is it your assertion the Church should draw nothing from the example set by Christ, in selecting twelve male apostles? It is known Jesus had both male and female followers, yet he chose exclusively males to be his Apostles. Was that just a matter of chance?

I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

[merithyn]

I am not saying the Catholic theology can be changed by any means - this is a matter of Catholic core tenets at this point. I am simply saying that it did not HAVE to be that way, and in many cases in Christianity it is in fact not that way. It is the way it is because the Catholic Church made it a matter of core theology at a time when there was no way in hell it could have been any other way due to the sexist nature of society at that time.

Oh, absolutely. However, now it is what it is. It's not going to change.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Who knows?

No one, I'm just saying I think there is a logically consistent theological argument that supports the Church's position. I don't think it's one of the tortuous things like what you get if you go down the Calvinist path of predeterminism or etc where your entire belief system collapses under a heap of logical infinite loops.

I am saying that if 400 years ago the Catholic Church said "Christ only chose male apostles, but that was clearly simply due to the exigencies of the time he existed in, and here are example A, B, and C where Christ made it clear that he valued women just as much as men, so it is certainly the case that women can be priests, even if Christ did not select any to be apostles" then right now you would be arguing how clearly the idea of women in the priesthood is a core tenet of the Catholic faith.

Well, we should differentiate between arguing about what is a core tenet of the faith and the wider theological argument. I don't even view it as an argument that male-only ordination is a core tenet of the Catholic faith, I mean that's basically a matter of fact. It's spelled out in canon law, the catechism, and there have been at least two major (in terms of significance) writings by two separate 20th century Popes that went into detail about why there are to be no female priests. So I don't think there's much of an argument on that point.

The bible is a big book with lots of stuff in it, and can and has been used to justify very different things by different groups for various reasons. And each group trots out their justification that when seen in isolation looks pretty theologically reasonable.

This is definitely true, but the point stands that it's very difficult to show why it shouldn't be considered significant that despite having many women associated with his ministry on Earth Christ selected only a group of men to be his apostles. It isn't as though scripture indicates Jesus had no dealings with women.

If this was such a fundmental Christian tenet, then why is that some Christian religions do in fact allow females in the clergy? Are they not looking to the example of Christ, do they not care what example he set? I suggest if you ask them, they would rather strongly disagree that the fact that Christ only had male apostles makes it clear that only men can be members of the priesthood.

It's not the fundamental Christian belief for sure, but "why is it that some Christian religions.." doesn't truck much with me. Many sects do all kinds of crazy things, there's a whole branch of Christianity that teaches the "priesthood of the believer" which is basically saying your Church follows Christ's teachings but is no proper church at all, and not at all part of the Church Christ himself established through Paul.

I am not saying the Catholic theology can be changed by any means - this is a matter of Catholic core tenets at this point. I am simply saying that it did not HAVE to be that way, and in many cases in Christianity it is in fact not that way. It is the way it is because the Catholic Church made it a matter of core theology at a time when there was no way in hell it could have been any other way due to the sexist nature of society at that time.

I think it had to be that way unless Christ had selected 10 men and 2 women or such.

[Phillip V]

Jesus Christ's choice of men to be his Apostles is "interesting", but it does not seem a strong enough foundation to altogether banish women from the priesthood. He did not specify that being his disciple was a men-only thing and doing so would have been against his very core teachings that hierarchy and "keeping people in their place" was what he was setting out to destroy.

As for celibacy and marriage, Jesus seemed to leave it up to each individual whether they can handle it or not. Not a deal-breaker. 'For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’ (Matthew 19)

[Berkut]

Who knows?

No one, I'm just saying I think there is a logically consistent theological argument that supports the Church's position. I don't think it's one of the tortuous things like what you get if you go down the Calvinist path of predeterminism or etc where your entire belief system collapses under a heap of logical infinite loops.

No argument from me, except to note that while it is A logically consistent argument, it is not the only one on the question.

I am saying that if 400 years ago the Catholic Church said "Christ only chose male apostles, but that was clearly simply due to the exigencies of the time he existed in, and here are example A, B, and C where Christ made it clear that he valued women just as much as men, so it is certainly the case that women can be priests, even if Christ did not select any to be apostles" then right now you would be arguing how clearly the idea of women in the priesthood is a core tenet of the Catholic faith.

Well, we should differentiate between arguing about what is a core tenet of the faith and the wider theological argument. I don't even view it as an argument that male-only ordination is a core tenet of the Catholic faith, I mean that's basically a matter of fact. It's spelled out in canon law, the catechism, and there have been at least two major (in terms of significance) writings by two separate 20th century Popes that went into detail about why there are to be no female priests. So I don't think there's much of an argument on that point.

I don't even think we are arguing that point.

But you rather carefully evaded my point.

Had the Catholic Church made a different argument, such that today female clergy were part of Catholic theology, you would not be here arguing that this is clearly a violation of a core principle of faith. Rather you would be calling those other Christian sects who do not allow female clergy weirdos instead.

The bible is a big book with lots of stuff in it, and can and has been used to justify very different things by different groups for various reasons. And each group trots out their justification that when seen in isolation looks pretty theologically reasonable.

This is definitely true, but the point stands that it's very difficult to show why it shouldn't be considered significant that despite having many women associated with his ministry on Earth Christ selected only a group of men to be his apostles. It isn't as though scripture indicates Jesus had no dealings with women.

He at no point says "Like my apostles, my priests should all be men" or anything that clear. Of course, he never mentions that his church should even have priests, so that is hardly surprising.

You could as well argue that women should not be allowed to even be nuns, since none of his apostles were women.

You could as well argue that they can be priests, but cannot be bishops, because it is bishops that are truly the hierarchical equivalent to apostles. Or maybe it is only Cardinals. Or the Pope.

The Church chose a line, and that line is rather clearly mostly arbitrary, and hence mostly informed by the prevailing socail climate at the time the line was chosen.

If this was such a fundmental Christian tenet, then why is that some Christian religions do in fact allow females in the clergy? Are they not looking to the example of Christ, do they not care what example he set? I suggest if you ask them, they would rather strongly disagree that the fact that Christ only had male apostles makes it clear that only men can be members of the priesthood.

It's not the fundamental Christian belief for sure, but "why is it that some Christian religions.." doesn't truck much with me.

It does not have to truck with you for you to be able to acknowledge that the fact that not all Christian sects agree on the point refutes the claim that this is a core tenet of the faith. Nobody claimed it was THE core tenet. My point is simply that the Churches interpretation, while consistent and theologically reasonable, is not the ONLY consistent and theologically reasonable answer to the question.

You don't have to agree with the conclusion to at least have the intellectual flexibility to see that not everyone agrees with your (and the Churches) view.

Many sects do all kinds of crazy things, there's a whole branch of Christianity that teaches the "priesthood of the believer" which is basically saying your Church follows Christ's teachings but is no proper church at all, and not at all part of the Church Christ himself established through Paul.

So?

That is not the question. And I am not talking about bizarro Christian sects, I am talking about, say, the Anglican Church.

I am not saying the Catholic theology can be changed by any means - this is a matter of Catholic core tenets at this point. I am simply saying that it did not HAVE to be that way, and in many cases in Christianity it is in fact not that way. It is the way it is because the Catholic Church made it a matter of core theology at a time when there was no way in hell it could have been any other way due to the sexist nature of society at that time.

I think it had to be that way unless Christ had selected 10 men and 2 women or such.

Except that clearly is did not "have to be that way" since many Christians reached a different conclusion, and Christ never at any point said priests have to be just like his apostles in any case.

[Berkut]

Jesus Christ's choice of men to be his Apostles is "interesting", but it does not seem a strong enough foundation to altogether banish women from the priesthood.

I think if you model the priesthood on the apostles, then there is a pretty compelling argument there. Of course, deciding that the priesthood should be modeled on the apostles is a choice as well. It is hardly a necessary and obvious conclusion.

He did not specify that being his disciple was a men-only thing and doing so would have been against his very core teachings that hierarchy and "keeping people in their place" was what he was setting out to destroy.

Indeed.

Who was the first to see Christ after the resurrection? Women, right?

Can that not be a "significant" point that must mean something?

Definitely.

Or definitely not. Depending on what you desire to justify.

[Razgovory]

I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

[CountDeMoney]

I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Dead Sea Scrolls, for one.

[Ed Anger]

Women. 

Always trying to horn in on men's affairs.

[CountDeMoney]

"And Ed spaketh unto her, get in thy kitchen to maketh a sammich in His glory, lest thou be smote by His back of hand; and it was done."
Ed 7:19 

[Ed Anger]

Amen

[Razgovory]

I'm pretty sure that there were books left out of the Bible that showed women as having a more active roll in Christ's life.

Which books, left out by who, and when?

Dead Sea Scrolls, for one.

Most of the dead sea scrolls are texts that are in the bible.  I'm not sure any of them would be considered "New Testament" works.

[CountDeMoney]

Most of the dead sea scrolls are texts that are in the bible.  I'm not sure any of them would be considered "New Testament" works.

There are a variety of works within the DSS that are not in the Bible, as they were being written concurrently or prior to many of the texts.

[Razgovory]

Most of the dead sea scrolls are texts that are in the bible.  I'm not sure any of them would be considered "New Testament" works.

There are a variety of works within the DSS that are not in the Bible, as they were being written concurrently or prior to many of the texts.

Yeah, but these are Jewish oriented books.  Some were considered for the Western Bible like the book of Enoch (and is considered cannon in the Ethiopian church), but for the most part they weren't considered for the bible in the first place, and I don't think they have much to do with the topic at hand.  I would like to hear Meri's answer, what with her 20 years of study and all.

[CountDeMoney]

Stop being Razzy, lest you be smote.  In His mercy.