X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:27:56 PDT
From:         Norman Kraft <nkraft@BKHOUSE.CTS.COM>
Subject:      Re: women priests (yet again)
              Ewanco" at Oct 4, 92 4:45 pm

Previously, Eric James Ewanco said:

> As mentioned in the post I made from the Magisterium, there is absolutely no
> historical precedent for women priests, and in fact plenty of condemnation of
> the idea.  Any time the issue came up, it was roundly condemned as impossible,
> heretical.  We cannot reverse ourselves and allow it.

Many, many things have been considered by the Church to be heretical which
have now be taken on as common practice. What is your point here? "Plenty
of condemnation of the idea" [of women priests]?? Like what, Eric, beyond
your obvious dislike of women.

> You point out many times where the church has abandoned certain traditions.
> You are confusing "tradition" with "Tradition."  There are certain changable
> things about what we believe, and certain unchangeable things.

Misogyny, be it from you, St. Paul, or the Church is not a "T"radition,
and has no place in a compassionate church. Just what makes you put
"condemnation" of women priests in the category of "T"radition, and not
the switch from Latin to vernacular? Who makes this distinction? Humans?
Ah, well! Another argument for dumping yet another abhorent human
"t"radition.

> Another more controversial example is married priests.  There is nothing to
> prevent the Vatican from permitting married priests.

There is just about equal support for the exclusion of women from the
clergy as there is for the celebacy of the clergy. In fact, there is much
more support for an unmarried, celebate clergy, derived from certain
interpretations of the direct words of Christ, than there is for the
exclusion of women from the clergy. It may well be that Paul did not like
the idea of women in the Church, but this was certainly part of Paul's
very human side, and a very human tradition. Even in the oft quoted
1 Tim 2:11-15, Paul lets his ideas of ideal women as "completely
submissive", clear misogyny, be supported by selective reading of the
Genesis account of creation. He references the second creation story,
but seems not aware at all of the first, in which "God created man in his
image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created
them" (Gen 1:27). The text does not read "male *then* female he created
them". Paul's reasoning in this matter, and yours, suffer from the
same faulty analysis.

> 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

When, where, and why? How is this declaration any different from so many
others that have gone by the wayside. Have you ever considered that in
the day of each discarded tradition, that many such as you felt that
every one of them was a "T"radition? How is this position any different
than those reactionary elements of the Church?

> and even (supposing) we were wrong (which
> we cannot be, but for the sake of argument)

We cannot? Yet we have been so many times. Those who opposed slavery,
a practice that appears often in scripture with positive reinforcement,
were declared heretical when they took a stand in Latin America. The
Church, for a time, based on scriptural analysis, declared democracy
heretical in it's infancy. Both the tradition of slavery in the Spanish
Church, and the tradition of hierarchial divine-right ruling systems
were considered "T"raditions in their day. Clearly, the Church was
wrong, but changed these misguided ideas. How does the current issue
of women in the clergy differ from the issue of slavery in Latin
America? The arguments were remarkably similar.

> if we were to change it, it would
> totally destroy the fabric of our church and open up to question our most
> sacred beliefs.

Right. I know that if the Church allowed female priests that I would
certainly question everything I've ever been taught about the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit. Come on, Eric, this is patently ridiculous,
and has been proven, in the Episcopal Church, to be false.

The only thing that would be destroyed by the ordination of women is
traditional patriarchial structures in the Church, systematic misogyny,
and backwards, very false human thinking. The Church is not some
boys club, which only allows women to play if they stay in their place.
It is an institution to the greater glory of God, and all of God's
creations, female *and* male. After all, even Jesus himself, in
Mt 15:21-28, could change his mind, and take the gentler course.

Moreover, the whole attitude towards women that is apparent in the
quoted discussions above is quite troubling. Completely apart from the
issue of the ordination of women, we have an absolute responsibility
to treat each and every person, women, men, the "least ones" as we would
treat Jesus himself. This applies to me, to you, to Paul, and everyone
else. All these various discussions of the "suitability of women"
for this task, and that task, are examples of clearly not treating
women, who after all are fellow humans, as we would treat Christ. The
teaching from Mat 25:42-45 -

	"I was hungry and you gave me no food,
	 I was thirsty and you gave me no drink.
	 I was away from home and you gave me no welcome,
	  naked and you gave me no clothing.
	 I was ill and in prison
	  and you did not come to comfort me...

	 I assure you, as often as you neglected to do it to
	 one of these least ones, you neglected to do it to me."

Might easily, in this circumstance, be read as:

	"I hungered to follow my call in this Church,
	  and you gave me no food,
	 I thirsted to follow in the ministry of Christ,
	  and you gave me no drink.
	 I was kept from my place in the Church, my home,
	  and you gave me no welcome,
	 I was naked, without the clothing of my call,
	  and you gave me no clothing.
	 I was troubled, despairing, held in submission and silence,
	  and you did not come to comfort me...

	 I assure you, as often as you neglected to do these
	 things to one of these least ones, you neglected to do it
	 to Christ."

Norm.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Kraft, Senior Partner          INET : nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com
Argus Computing & Multimedia          UUCP : ucsd!crash!bkhouse!nkraft
San Diego, CA                         GENIE: N.KRAFT3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU