From: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu (Haig Kasab)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: polls and women priests
Date: 18 Nov 92 07:00:23 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Originator: kasab@luther.che.wisc.edu

In article <...> creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>In article <...> URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>>Some like to call it a "Sacred Tradition" and elevate it to the level of
>>a Sacrement. If the Church were to relax its rules on the ordination of
>>women, then the sacrement celibrated by them would indeed be licit. Your
>
>   I never said anything about it being licit or illicit.  I said it
>was invalid.  "Illicit" means it is not permitted; "invalid" in this
>context means it is not _possible_.  The teaching of the Church is
>that ordination of women would be _invalid_.
>
>>"logical conclusions" vanish if we conclude that the "Magisterium" was right
>>in denying women ordination prior to today, and is right, again, in allowing
>>ordination to all "called" persons today. Maybe it's the "logic" that
>
>   Sorry, but this cannot be.  The reason the Magisterium has given is
>that it is _invalid_, i.e. not possible.  It can't be suddenly
>possible now if it has been impossible for 200 years.

    The one flaw in your argument, Steve, is that the Magisterium is
not necessarily as divinely inspired as the Scripture.  Sure, it is based
on the theological basis of the Church, but certainly it has seen some
revision over 1600+ years, right?  So, why is it not open to change now?
The Magisterium was written by Church leaders, and will reflect the
culture in which they were raised.  This culture was probably very
patriarchical, and would of course want to reinforce the fact that women
have no role as leaders in the Church.  So, in this sense, the
Magisterium may reflect the political wishes of the authors, rather than
the Divine Will of God.

    This is not to say that all of the Magisterium is so flawed--it may be
that God is truly as sexist as the Magisterium seems to be in this regard.
One, then, must wonder about other Christian sects that do allow women to
become ordained clergy--who is right?  (Both could be--who of us can fathom
the will of God?)

>   Not that this is the main argument against ordination of women, but
>what if we change your "the first 12 called" to "all those called by
>the incarnate Christ Himself?"
>   Could you please give some reasons, based in Scripture and/or
>Tradition, on why you believe women are able to be, and should be,
>ordained?  The burden of proof is on you.

    Steve, those who challenge the Church's teachings are asking the church
to explain itself and its reasoning that has led to this decision.  IMHO, it
is a weak argument to claim that women should not, cannot, be ordained as
priests, because that's the way we've always done it.  Slavery was the "way
they always did it," and I don't mean the African-American slave trade.
Deuteronomy, for example, sanctions enslaving a captive peoples (Deut.
20:10-15, 21:10-14), yet the Church certainly no longer supports slavery,
does it?  So, if the Church can change its miind on somethingsuch as
slavery, why not on the ordination of women?

    And, just to help those of us out who _don't_ have the Bible memorized
cover-to-cover, would you be so kind as to point out those passages that
support the Church's Traditional views?

-- 
  Haig Kasab                             Arpanet: kasab@cae.wisc.edu
"Even the Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose"  
        _The Merchant of Venice_ I,iii,99
      The NSF and UW--Madison don't speak for me, nor I for them.