From: amanda@INTERCON.COM (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Women's Ordination
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:15:52 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b16

bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
> Gordon: you know it is a common trick for the "other side" to place the
> burden of proof on the established tradition to defend its own
> existence, i.e.: anything goes, there are no rules, so defend the
> existence of the rules I want to do away with...I forget the canonical
> name of that fallacy, but will look it up....

Well, this seems fairly symmetrical, actually.  Each "side" pushes the burden
of proof on the other, and claims the right to decide what assumptions
constitute a valid basis for argument.

This leads to the utterly unenlightening situation of one side saying, "any
claim which contravenes Catholic doctrine is invalid" (i.e., assuming the
converse of that which is to be proven: rejecting the conclusion a priori),
and the other saying "prove that Catholic doctrine is correct."  Neither
argument will have the least effect on the other (as I think we've shown
here), because the assumptions involved have no overlap.

That being said, the past several weeks have greatly improved my own
understanding of the position of the Magisterium.  In fact, some of the
postings giving the details of this position actually make me much more
optimistic, as paradoxical as that may sound, because they make plain that
that position is indeed based on a lot of thought and desire to do the will
of God, rather than smug confidence (which is, I am afraid, often how it
seems from the outside).

I've been thinking about a lot of the discussion that's been thrown about
recently, and I have gained some new insights into my own feelings on the
matter and some of the reasons for them.  I will try to present some of these
insights, in the hope that they will at least help people understand others'
positions.

As I have mentioned before, for me the issue is at a fundamental level one of
authority and infallibility.  The entire Catholic argument rests on the
single claim that the Church cannot be wrong concerning the sacraments (in
this case, holy orders).  Consider the position of someone who does not
accept this claim of infallibility at face value, and is thus faced with
trying to discern, in all faith and honesty, the right course of action.

We are faced with an observed restriction of  the priesthood to men.  Now,
either this restriction was put into place by God or by men.  If it was
mandated by God, then no amount of objection will have any effect, any more
than wishing for rain makes it happen.  On the other hand, if it was mandated
by men, it is a matter of policy and tradition rather than a core of our
faith.  The problem, of course, is how to determine the source.

Scriptural evidence, while present, is at best circumstantial.  The Apostles
were not women, but they were not a great number of other things as well.
Not even the church has any problem with priests who are black, or
Scandinavian, or asian.  The church also maintains that priests must be
celibate, despite there having been married Apostles.  Clearly, simple
induction based on the attributes of the Apostles is insufficient.  Neither
is there any other explicit scriptural evidence of maleness being necessary
for priesthood.  The only explicit scripture passage, in fact, seems to be a
commission of all believers as a priestly people, with Christ being our one
high priest, and other passages which even more explicitly that in Christ
such distinctions as sex, wealth, and so on are irrelevant.  The only
possible conclusion is that scripture in and of itself does not decide the
question.  Some Christians, in fact, do not even see evidence of the formal
priesthood at all.  We must look elsewhere.

The evidence of tradition seems more convincing, but even this ends up being
circumstantial.  Maintenance of the male priesthood seems to consist
principally of continuing not to do things which the Church historically has
not done, rather than of fulfilling an active commission from Christ to
ordain only men.  It seems clear that in all other areas of holy service, the
Church recongnizes that the Holy Spirit calls both men and women to service,
and that both can render such service very effectively.

The evidence from outside the Church is also circumstantial.  The presence of
a prescription against women holding an office or rendering a particular kind
of service is not an isolated occurrence, but a pattern that recurs over and
over throughout the past two thousand years in all area of human endeavor.
And against such a background, the Church actually has a pretty good track
record.

So we are left with some evidence on both sides, but without any unambiguous
deciding factors.  What's left is individual prayer, asking for insight, and
trying to follow the principles laid down by Christ in His teachings.  One of
the principles that He repeats many times is that the way to discern good
from evil is to examine consequences--"by their fruits you shall know them."
This points out a way to get some additional information.  If in fact the
priesthood is restricted by God to men, then any women who seek to exercise
the functions of the priesthood are false priests.  As with any attempt to
assert something that is not true, this must by its nature have evil or even
disastrous circumstances.  On the other hand, if the priesthood is open by
God's will to all people, then such women will be priests in truth as well as
in name, and their works will reflect this truth.

Based on my immediate, personal experience with women who have been ordained
in the Episcopal Church and some Old Catholic churches, as well as others who
have taken on formal ministry in various Protestant denominations, I must say
that I see evidence for the latter conclusion and none for the former.  In
response to the claim that women cannot be priests, the evidence of my own
life presents me with women who, in every way that I know how to test, *are*
priests, just as much as the men they share their vocation with.

We don't get to ask Jesus what he intended and get an unambiguous answer.  We
instead get answers like "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul,
and mind; and love your neighbors as yourselves" or "take up your cross and
follow Me."  And so we do the best we can, hoping that in so doing we further
the will of God more than we hinder it.


Peace,

Amanda Walker
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic