From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re:      Re: polls and women priests
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:52:07 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

In article <BxvM1z.65o@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
> In article <921117095309.3fc053f7@beast.cs.hh.ab.com> URSIC@BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
> >The only "assumption" I am making is that the tradition of the all-male
> >priesthood was fine for the people of the Church for the last 2000 years.
> >It is increasingly not becoming fine for the people of the Church, today.
> 
>    Why?
For much the same reason as the new catechism stresses social sin.  As God slowly (from our perspective) sanctifies the world, our understanding of our moral responsibility changes - for example, the abolishment of slavery, the recognition of females and children as humans with dignity not chattels of the male.
> 
> >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.
On what do you base the assumption that it is invalid rather than illicit? Illicit I can readily quote canon law for but broadening that to invalid seems to be a matter of theological dispute not dogma

> 
> >extrapolates,"Well the first 12 called happened to be males, so the next
> >________(fill in big number) called must also be males." What I hear people
> >saying in greater proportion is "Your number's up:-)". -J.J.
> 
>    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?"
Christ, in becoming human, became a specific person at a specific time in a specific historical/cultural milieu.  Just as Yahweh himself had in the patriarchal times demanded blood sacrifice and ruthlessly destroyed enemies because that was how he could manifest himself to people and have them understand, so Christ had to manifest himself in a manner that the Greco-Roman-Jewish cultural of his time could understand. ALL THOSE CALLED BY THE INCARNATE CHRIST HIMSELF WERE PALESTINIAN - THEREFORE ONLY PALESTIN









IANS CAN BE PRIESTS?  Before you laugh remember than Paul and Peter argued over the mission to Gentiles.> 
>    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.
I'm too lazy to find the exact quote but Paul points out that the distinction - Jew/Gentile, master/slave, male/female are done away with and that we are all one body in Christ.
> 
There are some cogent arguments for being cautious on the subject of the ordination of women, but there is no conclusive scriptural or dogmatic prohibition.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic