From: edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing)
Subject: Re: women priests (yet again)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:21:07 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In <YenpTrW_NU009dgppG@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com> Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:



>Another example is abstinence from meat on Fridays.  This was merely a matter
>of discipline and the church was free to change it, and it did.  Changing it
>did not mean that the church was going back on "Tradition" -- the capital T
>meaning articles of faith which cannot change.  Rather, it was merely revoking
>its human tradition.

>Another more controversial example is married priests.  There is nothing to
>prevent the Vatican from permitting married priests.  In fact, it has, most
>notably in Eastern rites, and also in Episcopalian clergy who convert to
>Catholicism. Each the the Church proclaims its view on this, it makes it clear
>that this is a matter of discipline, not of divine revelation.  Women priests,
>however, is different.  It cannot be done.  It's impossible.  The church is NOT
>free to change it, because it is part of Tradition.

Huh.  Funny.  At one time (April 12, 1633) the church began a series of hearings
against a man who stood against something that the Church put its foot down
on.  Precisely, the issue of Heliocentricity and its famous professor Galileo,
were silenced by the Church.  The Church had official teachings that were 
considered sacred regarding Terra being the center of the Universe.  It's
impossible, the Church shouted!  We are the most important in the whole of
Creation, therefore the Universe must be centered around us!  Today, we all
know that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong.

So it could be (I'm not saying it is) with the issue of Women's Ordination
to the Priesthood.  The Church may eventually realize that it is wrong.  The
arguments concerning most of women priesthood in Canon Law is based on 
ritual impurities for sacrafice (carryovers from our Jewish heritage) and
women not owning property.  There are some scriptural references as well.


>So simply because you're receiving communion in the hand now, and reciting the
>responses in English, doesn't mean that anything goes and that everything can
>change.  Indeed what someone pointed out is very true: We _cannot_ under any
>circumstances change our stance on female priests, because we have declared
>it quite unquestionably impossible, and even (supposing) we were wrong (which
>we cannot be, but for the sake of argument), if we were to change it, it would
>totally destroy the fabric of our church and open up to question our most
>sacred beliefs.

Are we just a bit bitter about leaving Trent for Vatican II?  Once again, the
Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways.  If we are called to change, this is
what we should do, not what we bind ourselves to by some Earthly law.  What
good would it be for us to lose the priesthood entirely rather than re-examine
our position to allow women to become priests.  If you don't think there is
a priest shortage, you had better call your Chancery and get the real facts.
I am not saying the Women's Ordination is the answer, but I do think that we
as the People of God ought to be more open to change within our Church and 
within our Parishes.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Jansing                     | "What we call the beginning is often the end
Electrical Engineering Department|  And to make an end is to make a beginning.
University of Louisville         |  The end is where we start from . . ."
                                 |  -- T.S. Eliot, "Four Quartets"
              Internet:  edjans01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:	The opinions expressed here are strictly my own and do not
		necessarily reflect those of the Department of Electrical
		Engineering or any other department within the University
		of Louisville.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic