[soc.religion.christian] ambitious women may approach the altar now ...

henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl colossal Henning) (05/08/91)

David H. Wagner writes:

>cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:

>> Well, maybe the Lord doesn't contradict Himself but that doesn't mean
>> the Bible is always totally consistent. 

>I can understand how you might believe that, but I believe that the Bible
>is verbally inspired by God.  That means it says what God wants it to say,
>albeit in the words of a number of different human authors.  So Paul's
>words, for me, are God's Words.  Otherwise we have to start picking and
>choosing what is God's Word, and while some think they can do that, I 
>don't.

It seems to me that you must still make comparable distinctions
from among mutually non-corobborative scriptural texts, but that
you place this decision-making process at a different level.

What I mean is, either you decide that THESE are probably god's
words, but THOSE may not be, quite; or, they're ALL god's words,
but -- gee -- what do you suppose he REALLY meant by THIS, which
doesn't seem quite to jive with THAT?  In coordinating scriptural
texts from different contexts, for example, people can become so
concerned with NOT QUESTIONING the "divinity" of a text, that they
learn to impute to a "difficult" text a consonant "reading" which
is NOT what the text SAYS -- such as, an earlier post to which I
recently responded, where "judge not, lest ye be judged" became
"interpreted away" to ACTUALLY "meaning", "do unto others as you
would have them do unto you."

>> Pauls' teaching here is quite
>> different to the teaching of Jesus about women, the Old Testament teaching,
>> and whats more its is also different to other things that Paul says.
>> (assuming, of course, that we take it at face value.)

>You might explain to us what Jesus taught about women that was incompatible
>with Paul's teachings.  I don't find Jesus setting up women as teachers of men
>or choosing them as apostles.  At the wedding at Cana he quite distinctly
>put his mother in her place.

Did you mean that last sentence to be quite as chauvinistic as it
seems (to me, at least)?

>> What about the place were Paul says that in Christ there is neither 
>> Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. 

>Our moderator has already answered this one (which always comes up):  men and
>women have equal status before God, they have equal value, and are equally 
>saved by Christ.  This does not mean that their God-pleasing roles cannot
>be different.  Paul also wrote, "We have different gifts, according to the
>grace given us..."

BUT -- the text to which you're responding makes a strong case
for equality between the sexes; the text you bring up does not
specifically address the issue of sex.  Your text provides for
a tolerant multiplicity, but does NOT even SUGGEST sexual hierarchy.

>Our Council of (District) Presidents has decided that church-related
>organizations may choose to allow women to vote, so long as the organization
>upholds the Scriptural principle of male headship and female submission
>(1 Cor 14:34, 1 Tim 2:11). Frankly, I think they stepped on a pretty 
>slippery banana peel on that one, but the basic idea is this:

>Scripture teaches various things, just one of which is that women should 
>be 'in submission' and should not 'exercise authority over men'.  This is
>based on the facts of the creation story (as interpreted by Paul).  The basic
>principle, based upon God's creation, is eternal ...

But what if that creation story is not entirely (strictly speaking)
historical?  What if it's allegorical?  What if it's just a yarn?
Your "eternal principle ... based on the facts of ... God's creation",
which stems from Paul's interpretation, could be very shaky indeed.

>The clearest application one can make of this principle is that a wife
>should submit to her husband: 'wives, submit to your husbands, as to 
>the Lord,... husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church, etc.'

To what man should a woman who is not a wife submit herself?
Or doesn't this metaphor strike you as particularly grounded
in the notion that a woman is socially insignificant, except
insofar as she's attached to a man?  Is the servant-master
relationship traditionally asserted for a wife and husband
REALLY the logical and eternal reflection of the relationship
between man and christ?

In a sense, perhaps, traditional Mormonism was braver and bolder,
in holding (no doubt as an application of this text) that a woman
COULD NOT BE SAVED, unless she was wedded to a "righteous" man.

Just how many unmarried women could function in Paul's society?
In colonial Salem, was it mere coincidence that the women accused
of witchery were generally unmarried or widowed women, in possession
of farms or estates which certain of their neighbors felt "ought"
to be in the hands of men?  Do you suppose that it is mere accident
that most people accused of witchcraft are women, or does one write
this off as mere social malcontentment with god's ordained order?

In the late 20th century, to just what extent does a woman have to be
married in order to be taken seriously, or to feel secure?

>Secondly, it is very clear from 1 Tim 2:12 that a woman should not exercise
>autority over a man as a man's master-teacher.  The best translation of
>this notion to modern practice is the pastor of a church.

There is less in divine will about refusing to allow women in the
pulpits, as there is of intersexual insecurity on the part of men
in institutionalizing the lie that women aren't suitable/intelligent
enough/wise enough/up to the responsibility, to teach (gasp) men.

It is not merely a matter of "submitting to divine will as
[unambiguously 'provided'] in scripture.  It is a matter
of selective (and biased) interpretation.

"Oh ... look here, Lucy, says here you gotta submit to me;  ain't
life grand?  BabaLOOOO" -- oh, yeah, men have the awesome responsibility of
loving women as christ loved the church.  And men shrink from that
power, don't they?

So who loves the unmarried women?

kph
-- 
    "The study of crime begins with the knowledge of oneself.  All that you
     despise, all that you loathe, all that you reject, all that you condemn
     and seek to convert by punishment springs from you."  -- Henry Miller

ferwerda@clt.enet.dec.com (Paul Ferwerda) (05/10/91)

|> But what if that creation story is not entirely (strictly speaking)
|> historical?  What if it's allegorical?  What if it's just a yarn?
|> Your "eternal principle ... based on the facts of ... God's creation",
|> which stems from Paul's interpretation, could be very shaky indeed.
|> 

I think that one's view of Scripture is fundamental to where one gives the
"benefit of the doubt" on things that are hard to understand. Someone who
believes that all Scripture is God breathed is going to attempt to give
priority to what Scripture seems to say if Scripture seems to be saying
something with which scocietal norms disagree.

I'm thinking hard about this whole issue of women and authority,etc.

I was thinking about slavery the other day and the fact that we all acknowledge
it to be wrong, and yet the Bible doesn't condemn it outright. It seems to
be more concerned with the way that people are living out their relationship
to God than with questions of power in relationships.  What if slavery is less
important to God than the master and slave's relationship to Him and does
that have any implications to the right of women to assume all roles in
the church?

Based on my limited experience, I see women as being equal with men before
God, as being equally talented and gifted whether in preaching or counseling
or any of the other things that typically are involved in the role of someone
exercising authority in the church.  My experience indicates that some women
are fully capable of exercising authority and doing it as well if not better
then some men.  My view of Scripture says that just because my experience says
one thing, I better not interpret away Paul's statements just because they
done't jive with my experience. My current conclusion is that in God's
eyes it must be possible to have different roles and still be equal before
him.

I'm also uncomfortable about "demanding" my rights before God, whether it is
right to do something in particular or perform a certain role.  As I see
it, as Christians we have no "rights" whatsoever.  I don't have a "right"
to be ordained, even if I feel called, or I'm a great preacher.  Any role
I perform in the body of Christ is at Christ's pleasure and his pleasure
may run counter to my common sense.  My Dad was a missionary who was killed
when he was 28. By all accounts the work was very successful and people
were coming to know the Lord.  My common sense tells me that it was a waste
for God to take him and it made no sense. My faith in God tells me that he
is in control and he works things to his good purposes. I guess the upshot
of this is that I'm uncomfortable with anyone demanding that they be
allowed to perform a particular role in the church, especially if the demand
could be seen as running counter to some explicit Biblical instruction.



---
Paul		EASYNET=> loptsn::ferwerda
Gordon		UUCP=> decwrl!clt.enet.dec.com!ferwerda
Loptson		DARPA Internet=> ferwerda%clt.enet.dec.com        
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 881 2221



			

jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (05/10/91)

In article <May.8.03.52.15.1991.10547@athos.rutgers.edu> henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl colossal Henning) writes:

   There is less in divine will about refusing to allow women in the
   pulpits, as there is of intersexual insecurity on the part of men
   in institutionalizing the lie that women aren't suitable/intelligent
   enough/wise enough/up to the responsibility, to teach (gasp) men.

Leaving aside the Scriptural arguments, here are a couple things that
indicate the respective roles of men and women to me as a Catholic:

- The Catholic hierarchy is all male, by Divine will.  Women cannot be
validly ordained, and cannot exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

- God became Incarnate as a man.

I think role reversal is a big problem in the West at the moment.  In
fact, I think there are few things that are causing more problems in
families at the moment than bossy women and submissive men.

math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (05/11/91)

In article <May.8.03.52.15.1991.10547@athos.rutgers.edu>, henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl colossal Henning) writes:
> David H. Wagner writes:
 
>>I can understand how you might believe that, but I believe that the Bible
>>is verbally inspired by God.  That means it says what God wants it to say,
>>albeit in the words of a number of different human authors.  So Paul's
>>words, for me, are God's Words.  Otherwise we have to start picking and
>>choosing what is God's Word, and while some think they can do that, I 
>>don't.
> 
> It seems to me that you must still make comparable distinctions
> from among mutually non-corobborative scriptural texts, but that
> you place this decision-making process at a different level.
>
You could say that I made my choice when I decided to accept the Bible
as verbally inspired.  I suppose I could summarize this decision by
saying that I personally found the Bible highly consistent, true, and
good.  I cannot constrain you to the same belief but I might ask you
to give it a try.
 
>>You might explain to us what Jesus taught about women that was incompatible
>>with Paul's teachings.  I don't find Jesus setting up women as teachers of men
>>or choosing them as apostles.  At the wedding at Cana he quite distinctly
>>put his mother in her place.
> 
> Did you mean that last sentence to be quite as chauvinistic as it
> seems (to me, at least)?

This is what he said:
"Dear woman, why do you involve me?"  Jesus replied, "My time is not yet come."
--John 2:4

  Jesus' mother had come to him, apparently asking him to do something using
his power as the Son of God, to do something about the lack of wine.  
Jesus gently, but quite distinctly, tells her that it is not for her to order
his ministry about; he is not at her beck and call to perform miracles 
where she may think they are needed.  He calls her 'dear woman' rather than
'mother' to indicate that she should not expect special treatment from him
simply because he is her son.  Yet he still loves her as a son and complies
with her request.  This is all I mean by 'quite distinctly putting her in her
place.'
 
>>> What about the place were Paul says that in Christ there is neither 
>>> Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. 
> 
>>Our moderator has already answered this one (which always comes up):  men and
>>women have equal status before God, they have equal value, and are equally 
>>saved by Christ.  This does not mean that their God-pleasing roles cannot
>>be different.  Paul also wrote, "We have different gifts, according to the
>>grace given us..."
> 
> BUT -- the text to which you're responding makes a strong case
> for equality between the sexes; the text you bring up does not
> specifically address the issue of sex.  Your text provides for
> a tolerant multiplicity, but does NOT even SUGGEST sexual hierarchy.

That comes from other verses, which I presumed (perhaps in error) that
my readers were familiar with.  Notably 1 Cor 11:3-16, 1 Cor 14: 33-35, 
1 Tim 2:11-15, 1 Peter 3: 1-7, Ephesians 5: 22-33, and others that I might
find with a little more work.
  
> But what if that creation story is not entirely (strictly speaking)
> historical?  What if it's allegorical?  What if it's just a yarn?
> Your "eternal principle ... based on the facts of ... God's creation",
> which stems from Paul's interpretation, could be very shaky indeed.

Well, there I think we simply have two different religions. 
>>The clearest application one can make of this principle is that a wife
>>should submit to her husband: 'wives, submit to your husbands, as to 
>>the Lord,... husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church, etc.'
 
> To what man should a woman who is not a wife submit herself?
> Or doesn't this metaphor strike you as particularly grounded
> in the notion that a woman is socially insignificant, except
> insofar as she's attached to a man?  Is the servant-master
> relationship traditionally asserted for a wife and husband
> REALLY the logical and eternal reflection of the relationship
> between man and christ?

The church is frequently pictured in Scripture as the Bride of Christ.
Paul in his letter to the Ephesians applies this image in reverse.

The question you ask regarding unmarried women is interesting, but I'm not
sure it is a helpful one.  I had said that it was clear from Scripture that
a wife should submit to her husband.  I made no direct application to single
women.  I certainly would not suggest that a single woman submit to a
man who is not her husband in the same way that a wife is to submit to
her husband.  The marriage relationship is a very special and unique 
relationship.  It is a 'one flesh' relationship where 'they are no longer
two but one.'  Scripture indicates clearly that the head of that unit, the 
family, is the husband.  

Paul indicates clearly in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is well for men and women
to remain unmarried in order to devote their full attention to the Lord, 
and the work of His kingdom.  Those who cannot control their sexual desires, 
however, should get married.  He clearly indicates that either the married
or single conditions are equally valid and acceptable before God.  We are
after all, justified before God by grace alone, through faith, and not
on account of our marriage or lack thereof.

> Just how many unmarried women could function in Paul's society?
> In colonial Salem, was it mere coincidence that the women accused
> of witchery were generally unmarried or widowed women, in possession
> of farms or estates which certain of their neighbors felt "ought"
> to be in the hands of men?  Do you suppose that it is mere accident
> that most people accused of witchcraft are women, or does one write
> this off as mere social malcontentment with god's ordained order?

The Puritans who settled in Massachusetts were definitely not a part of the
Lutheran heritage that I have adopted, and I don't feel obliged to defend them.
 
> In the late 20th century, to just what extent does a woman have to be
> married in order to be taken seriously, or to feel secure?

The real question is, to what extent does a woman have to have a job and
make a lot of money to be taken seriously, or considered successful?  Who
speaks up for the stay-at-home mothers?  And how can we possibly hire 
people to do all the work that mothers used to do?

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran

Have a blessed Mother's Day!
(oops! don't forget! Today is Ascenscion Day!)

My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by
The University of Houston.

gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (05/13/91)

Paul Ferwerda writes:
----------------------------------------
I'm also uncomfortable about "demanding" my rights before God, whether
it is right to do something in particular or perform a certain role.
As I see it, as Christians we have no "rights" whatsoever.  I don't
have a "right" to be ordained, even if I feel called, or I'm a great
preacher.
----------------------------------------

I think this is a good point.  I remember talking with a friend of
mine who is a Presbyterian minister, and he was telling me about the
caucuses in the Presbyterian denomination.  I remember thinking that
there didn't seem that much difference between the Presbyterian
denomination and the Democratic party.  It occurred to me that it
would have been interesting if the caucuses consisted mostly of people
who were not members of the particular group whose interests they were
advocating -- the xxx caucus consisting mostly of people from group
yyy, which would have been more along the lines of the bible.

I don't intend to condemn the Presbyterian denomination in particular;
it just seems that in these kinds of things Christians often don't
look much different from ``the world.''

As a possibly amusing sidelight, during the time I was going to New
College, Berkeley, a woman started a discussion group on Biblical
Feminism.  One of my roommates thought it was kind of strange that
there should be such a thing as Biblical Feminism; he said something
to the effect that people would think Biblical Masculinism was
ridiculous.  This was an unfortunate thing to say with us having time
on our hands.  The result was that a few days later a poster appeared
on the bulletin board at New College.  It contained a picture of a
body-builder posing, and was an advertisement for a seminar on
Biblical Masculinism.  It contained several verses along the lines of
``The glory of young men is their strength,'' ``Do not give your
strength to women,'' ``Saul killed his thousands, David his tens of
thousands,'' and so on.  The main speaker was to be Jack Tatum of the
Oakland Raiders.  It had a long sign-up sheet, with the names of
various celebrities on it.

The response of the woman leading the discussion on Biblical Feminism
was to post an addendum to her notice saying, ``Seminar on Biblical
Feminism; Biblical Masculinists also welcome as long as they don't
lift weights in the livingroom.  Spittoons will be provided.''
--
-Fred Gilham          gilham@csl.sri.com 

[People in your college seem to have a better sense of humor than
many I've run into.

It's probably inevitable that churches take on many of the same
characteristics as other human organizations.  It's made up of humans,
after all.  In both Presbyterian and Methodist churches I've been
involved with there seems to be a feeling that the church needs to use
the best organizational techniques.  This is not confined to "liberal"
churches, I don't think, though what I see of more conservative ones
is primarily their marketing strategies.  (This is presumably because
I'm on the outside.)  My own church gets caught up from time to time
in the "planning process".  Each of our commissions is supposed to
have "measurable goals and objectives", and do formal evaluations.
I've found it interesting at times when I was simultaenously doing
staff evaluations at Rutgers and at church.  It gets to be hard to
tell when I'm at church.  I've come very close to asking my Rutgers
staff to join me in the Lord's Prayer at the end of staff meetings.

Describing these things can make for good fun, but it's not
necessarily bad to want to place our best organizational skills in the
service of the church.  I do wonder from time to time whether there
should be distinct principles for managing churches.  One group that
clearly has a distinctive theory is the Friends, with their principle
of concensus.  However that doesn't necessarily get rid of the problem
of knowing when you are at church.  When I was a student at Haverford
College, the College tried to run many of its organizations along
Quaker lines.  I understand that trying to run a faculty meeting where
a single person's objection can block action is a unique experience.

About the caucuses again: Many people within the PCUSA see the
existence of a diversity of groups who care passionately about the
direction of the church as a strength.  The question becomes whether
we can have differences while still maintaining Christian communion
among people with differing opinions.  It seems to me that the
difference between church caucuses and political parties should be the
perception of caucuses as being still part of one Body and joining
with the rest of the church in the praise of God.  In fact managing
disagreement within the church has recently become a problem for many
groups at both ends of the spectrum.  The PCUSA is currently agonizing
over what official status the special interest groups should have.
(Currently there is some organizational recognition by the
denomination.)  But conservative groups such as the Southern Baptists
and Lutherans seem to be nearly tearing themselves apart over attempts
to regain doctrinal purity.

--clh]

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/13/91)

In article <May.10.03.22.51.1991.6704@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes:
>Leaving aside the Scriptural arguments, here are a couple things that
>indicate the respective roles of men and women to me as a Catholic:

>- The Catholic hierarchy is all male, by Divine will.  Women cannot be
>validly ordained, and cannot exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

>- God became Incarnate as a man.

True, but he could only be incarnate as one sex.  If Jesus had been
born a woman, do you think that we might reasonably assume that men were
unfit to be ordained?

If Jesus felt that a woman (or women) were fit to be the first to
receive the Good News of his resurrection, and felt that they were fit
to carry that Good News to tell men when he first rose from the grave,
why would he feel them unfit to carry that same Good News to men today?


					Tom Blake
					SUNY-Binghamton

oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (05/13/91)

Re: Joseph H Buehler


In article <May.10.03.22.51.1991.6704@athos.rutgers.edu>,
 jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes, in response
 to Karl Henning:

>>   There is less in divine will about refusing to allow women in the
>>   pulpits, as there is of intersexual insecurity on the part of men
>>   in institutionalizing the lie that women aren't suitable/intelligent
>>   enough/wise enough/up to the responsibility, to teach (gasp) men.

>Leaving aside the Scriptural arguments, here are a couple things that
>indicate the respective roles of men and women to me as a Catholic:


  Hi, Joe!

    (I must say, I'm not terribly fond of the subject line of this
 thread; it implies that it is somehow "ambitious" of people to desire
 to be priests, which is an *absolute* antithesis to the true purpose
 of the priesthood... gender being completely irrelevant to the issue.)

    I understand that the below points are your personal views, and not your
 attempt at reciting Vatican opinion; nevertheless, I must take strong
 exception to several points that you make:

>- The Catholic hierarchy is all male, by Divine will.  Women cannot be
>validly ordained, and cannot exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

  The second sentence is true, up to a point, while the first is untrue.
 Women cannot be validly ordained, that's true... AT PRESENT. It is not
 Catholic moral teaching that inhibits women from being ordained, but
 rather it is procedural doctrine of the Church as institution; that
 is, the prohibition against female clergy is a procedural tradition
 that is NOT infallible moral teaching, and is capable of being reversed
 by the Pope at a moment's notice. Moreover, it would be unjustified to
 say that clerical patriarchy is Divine Will; it is long-standing
 tradition, true, but certainly not from any "inherent inferiority"
 of women in clerical roles! This would directly contradict the letter
 and the spirit of the Vatican II writings, which explicitly condemn
 all shades of gender discrimination. I'm inclined to think that the
 Pope is aware of the maturity of the earthly Church, and that at this
 stage, the Church simply isn't ready to COPE with women priests; to
 force the issue might well force the Church into another major
 schism, which, needless to say, would be disastrous. I personally
 feel that the lifting of the gender restriction on clergy is simply
 a matter of time. 

>- God became Incarnate as a man.

  True. But, not meaning to be disrespectful, *so what?* I can easily
 see that God, wishing His Messiah to be taken SERIOUSLY by the
 socially immature, male-dominated society, would decline to incarnate
 the Messiah as woman. But this serves as no basis whatsoever for
 asserting that men are somehow "more intrinsically holy" than women.
 Had the society of yesteryear been more understanding of the intrinsic
 worth of ALL humans, gender notwithstanding, God might well have become
 incarnate as woman. Point to ponder.

>I think role reversal is a big problem in the West at the moment.  In
>fact, I think there are few things that are causing more problems in
>families at the moment than bossy women and submissive men.

   In my experience, the instances of where individual women
 impose their wills on men to the point of causing true suffering
 are quite rare. History, on the other hand, points to thousands of
 years of oppression of the female population by the male. Now, this
 is NOT to say that women are entitled to equal "abusive time"; I
 am NOT a supporter of "affirmative action", as such. But I *do* wish
 to assert that ALL humans have a solemn moral obligation to respect
 the rights of others as if those rights were their own.



   Take care!

   Sincerely,     Brian Coughlin
                  oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu

henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl Stephanie Henning) (05/13/91)

David H. Wagner writes:

>Karl colossal Henning writes:

>> But what if that creation story is not entirely (strictly speaking)
>> historical?  What if it's allegorical?  What if it's just a yarn?
>> Your "eternal principle ... based on the facts of ... God's creation",
>> which stems from Paul's interpretation, could be very shaky indeed.

>Well, there I think we simply have two different religions. 

Two different viewpoints, I should say rather; minor nit, except
that some people erroneously assert that, for example, the lack
of religion somehow comprises a species of religion.

Also, would you therefore maintain that the xianity as other
subscribers to this newsgroup practice it, who maintain a
different viewpoint, are therefore practicing a different
religion?

>The question you ask regarding unmarried women is interesting, but I'm not
>sure it is a helpful one.

Well, when I ask a question in order to further discussion, I
can't say that whether a question is "helpful" or not figures
much into the equation.

>I had said that it was clear from Scripture that a wife should
>submit to her husband.  I made no direct application to single women.

No indeed, but this biblical institutionalization (woof, what a
/word/ :-) of sexual inequality is used to assert a sort of
social order -- a sort of fractal notion of, wives are inferior
to their husbands in the home, therefore the husbands are the
ones who have the authority to treat with the community, &c.
Well, what about women who don't have a husband to whom they
are biblically obliged to submit?

Mrs Amphitheatre thinks (for example) that her daughter ought
to be allowed into a woodworking class in school, and that her
son ought to be allowed into a home economics class -- if the
two children happen to want to do these peculiarly sexually
non-stereotyped things.  Now, Mr Amphitheatre things that
sexual stereotype is a good thing, perhaps -- at any rate,
he disagrees with his wife ... and since Mr Amphitheatre is
lord over the Mrs, it is his opinion which Mrs Amphitheatre
raises at the PTA meeting.

Let's say Miss Biopsy has a daughter;  let's say the child's
father died in an unusual and unexpected military police
action in Iraq before having the opportunity to make Miss
Biopsy an "honest woman", and that there is no opportunity
for Miss Biopsy the mother to submit herself to what the
bible would indicate is "the proper authority".  At the
PTA meeting, Miss Biopsy expresses her opinion that girls
ought to be allowed into the woodworking class.  Let's
say the PTA meeting adjourns without having resolved the
question.

Over the course of the next few months, Miss Biopsy and
Mr Chortle become immensely fond of one another, and
decide for a number of quaintly anachronistic reasons
to "tie the knot".  Miss Biopsy decides to keep her
maiden name, but chooses to go by Mrs Biopsy, even
though traditional form of address is "Mrs [husband's
name here]" -- Mr Chortle has no problem with this,
and accords his new bride full biblical sanction for
the deviant nomenclature.

However, Mr Chortle can't abide girls working with
lathes and vises, at any price ... and Mrs Biopsy
is made to understand that she must recant her
former position, and stop petitioning the PTA on
the matter of her duaghter taking woodworking.
Mr Chortle stops short of absolutely requiring
his wife to address the PTA specifically /against/
her former position, but she realizes that her
biblical place is to forswear what she thinks is
right, because her husband bears the divine stamp of
wisdom and authority.

Is this what /should/ happen, according to the biblical
model?  Doesn't this do violence to Mrs Biopsy's personal
integrity?

The resemblance of the above people to any characters
living, dead, or freeze-dried is purely coincidental.

>I certainly would not suggest that a single woman submit to a
>man who is not her husband in the same way that a wife is to submit to
>her husband.  The marriage relationship is a very special and unique 
>relationship.  It is a 'one flesh' relationship where 'they are no longer
>two but one.'  Scripture indicates clearly that the head of that unit, the 
>family, is the husband.  

Any relationship (including marriage) is the interaction of two
individuals.  Where honest differences of opinion arise between
those two individuals, it is mere caprice to give preference
to the male of the species -- and the lamest of reasons to offer
"that's what god says".  

>> Just how many unmarried women could function in Paul's society?
>> In colonial Salem, was it mere coincidence that the women accused
>> of witchery were generally unmarried or widowed women, in possession
>> of farms or estates which certain of their neighbors felt "ought"
>> to be in the hands of men?  Do you suppose that it is mere accident
>> that most people accused of witchcraft are women, or does one write
>> this off as mere social malcontentment with god's ordained order?

>The Puritans who settled in Massachusetts were definitely not a part of the
>Lutheran heritage that I have adopted, and I don't feel obliged to defend them.

I wasn't asking you to defend the historical example,
particularly; I'm a little disappointed that you elected not
to consider my question, simply because they weren't "your
folks".  Does your response imply that your fellow xians
who are, say, Roman Catholic are obliged to defend
any possible mistakes to which their "heritage" may
have been susceptible historically?

>> In the late 20th century, to just what extent does a woman have to be
>> married in order to be taken seriously, or to feel secure?

>The real question is, to what extent does a woman have to have a job and
>make a lot of money to be taken seriously, or considered successful?  Who
>speaks up for the stay-at-home mothers?  And how can we possibly hire 
>people to do all the work that mothers used to do?

Part of my purpose in exploring this question, has been to
try to point out patriarchal sexual biases which many
people seem to swallow whole with the bible.

Who speaks up for the husbands who can't find work
with wages sufficient to support a family?

Who speaks up for the women who /want/ to work,
because they have talents and ambitions beyond
(or in addition to) serving as mere breeders?

Who speaks up for the stay-at-home fathers?

Who speaks up for the people who choose to
re-examine the family unit outside of
traditional religious viewpoint?

Who speaks up for the people who do not
fit into the traditional mold of one-woman-
serving-as-helpmeet-to-one-man?

For the people who want to live within the
biblical model of marriage ... well, why
shouldn't they be allowed to?

Not everyone should be made to;  and the
people who choose otherwise should not be
accused of wilful neglect of god's clear
and unambiguous revelation amen.

kph
-- 
    "The study of crime begins with the knowledge of oneself.  All that you
     despise, all that you loathe, all that you reject, all that you condemn
     and seek to convert by punishment springs from you."  -- Henry Miller

math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (05/17/91)

 
> If Jesus felt that a woman (or women) were fit to be the first to
> receive the Good News of his resurrection, and felt that they were fit
> to carry that Good News to tell men when he first rose from the grave,
> why would he feel them unfit to carry that same Good News to men today?

You are speaking of evangelism.  Women exercise the gift of evangelism
all the time; that does not make them pastors.  I think 1 Peter 3 is 
particularly relevant here; Peter says:

"Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands, so that, if any of them
do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior
of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives."

So a woman can carry the Good News to people without violating the principle
of male headship; but Paul says clearly in 1 Tim 2:11-15 that in church
they should learn in quietness and full submission, and they may not
be a master-teacher in authority over a man.  This, as I have said before,
means they may not serve as a man's pastor.

I don't think women must always try to win over unbelievers 'without words.'
That wouldn't make much sense.  But they do need to be submissive to their
own husbands.

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran

My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by 
The University of Houston.

jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (05/17/91)

In article <May.13.02.35.03.1991.12594@athos.rutgers.edu> oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:

   >- The Catholic hierarchy is all male, by Divine will.  Women cannot be
   >validly ordained, and cannot exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

	 The second sentence is true, up to a point, while the first is untrue.
	Women cannot be validly ordained, that's true... AT PRESENT. It is not
	Catholic moral teaching that inhibits women from being ordained, but
	rather it is procedural doctrine of the Church as institution; that
	is, the prohibition against female clergy is a procedural tradition
	that is NOT infallible moral teaching, and is capable of being reversed
	by the Pope at a moment's notice.

I beg to differ.  I think it *is* Catholic doctrine that prevents women
from being validly ordained.

It is true that there is no exercise of the extraordinary infallible
magisterium on the subject of women's ordination.  This does not mean
that the Pope can reverse the present custom at a moment's notice,
however.  There is also ordinary infallibility to be considered.  It is
a fact that women have *never* been allowed to be ordained in the
Roman Catholic Church.  This is of moment in Catholic theology.  Whether
it can be changed depends on why the traditional practice is what it is.

I frankly do not think there are any Catholics present who are competent
to defend the idea that women should be ordained.  To deal adequately
with the issue requires training far above and beyond anything that a
layman is likely to possess, at the very least.

A precise understanding of the traditional theology on the subject would
be required.  This would involve a doctoral level study of the history
of the theological sources.  Why did the predecessors of the current
hierarchy not ordain women through so many centuries?  The reasons have
to be completely understood.  If the reason(s) are such that they are
unaffected by time (as I believe they are), then women cannot be
ordained in the 20th C any more than they could be in the 19th.

I think that the present agitation for women's ordination springs from a
number of motives.  One of them is a profound confusion over the
different roles intended by God for men and women.

   >- God became Incarnate as a man.

	 True. But, not meaning to be disrespectful, *so what?* I can easily
	see that God, wishing His Messiah to be taken SERIOUSLY by the
	socially immature, male-dominated society, would decline to incarnate
	the Messiah as woman. But this serves as no basis whatsoever for
	asserting that men are somehow "more intrinsically holy" than women.
	Had the society of yesteryear been more understanding of the intrinsic
	worth of ALL humans, gender notwithstanding, God might well have become
	incarnate as woman. Point to ponder.

Holiness doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand.  The Mother
of God is admitted by all Catholics to be the most holy of all
creatures, beyond even the angels.  Yet she could never be a priest.
This is a question of office, not holiness.

The question is more one of the male psyche vs. the female, and the
Divine will for order in human society.  There is a *reason* that God
the Father is God the *Father*.  It isn't simply that society is
male-dominated: that would be to make the proper names for the persons
of the Trinity depend on the whims of men, certainly not something I
think appropriate to Catholic theology.

gt6321c@prism.gatech.edu (gt6321c CRIMM,LANCE CARY) (05/18/91)

>Based on my limited experience, I see women as being equal with men before
>God, as being equally talented and gifted whether in preaching or counseling
>...  My view of Scripture says that just because my experience says
>one thing, I better not interpret away Paul's statements just because they
>done't jive with my experience. My current conclusion is that in God's
>eyes it must be possible to have different roles and still be equal before
>him.
>
>I'm also uncomfortable about "demanding" my rights before God, whether it is
>right to do something in particular or perform a certain role.  As I see
>it, as Christians we have no "rights" whatsoever.  I don't have a "right"
>to be ordained, even if I feel called, or I'm a great preacher.  Any role
>---
>Paul Gordon Loptson Ferwerda

Here, we must consider the vast differences between what you call
talent and God-given gifts. Talents are given to both christians and
non- christians at the conception of each individual whether female or
male.  However, one of the 25 chief spiritual gifts are given by the
Holy Spirit the moment a person accepts Jesus Christ as his or her
Savior realizing that they are ultimately doomed for Hell if it was
not for the grace and mercy of our eternal Father who sent His only
Son to save each one of us.  Jesus was the only human to walk the
earth with all of the spiritual gifts. Now, here comes the part where
most people will confuse themselves by trying to put their own
interpretation into what the Holy Bible says through men and women
such as Paul, Ruth, David etc... who all were divinely inspired by the
Holy Spirit. Specifically, in 1 Corinthians 14 and other chapters ( as
well as many other books of the Bible) we are told how to exercise
these gifts whatever they may be. Take a look at 1 Cor. 14:34 where
God instrtucts us to "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for
they are permitted not to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the
law also says." (Other references include Gen. 3:16 and 1 Tim. 2:11).
Now before you take this verse out of its context, examine the
chapter, and furthermore the entire Bible, as a whole.  This is
particularly defining our roles as christian men and women in Public
Worship. Notice different roles of men and women, not that one is any
better than the other, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28)
Therefore, yes it is not correct in God's eyes for women to exercise
the authority of an ordained minister. Many churches do not uphold
this(PCUSA to name only one of the many), but then again these
churches are investigating whether homosexual's have a right to be
mewmbers of a church and EVEN serve as ministers. Woooooo, this
Anti-Christ theology surely will have a vivid affect on the majority
of both non-christians and christians.
 Dear friends, be sure to never insert your own desired interpretations of 
 the Bible, but only listen to what God is saying and commanding in the
 Word He has graciously given to us.       In Peace, Lance



-- 
CRIMM,LANCE CARY
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6321c
Internet: gt6321c@prism.gatech.edu

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/19/91)

In article <May.17.02.39.27.1991.27893@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes:
>So a woman can carry the Good News to people without violating the principle
>of male headship; but Paul says clearly in 1 Tim 2:11-15 that in church
>they should learn in quietness and full submission, and they may not
>be a master-teacher in authority over a man.  This, as I have said before,
>means they may not serve as a man's pastor.

I Corinthians 11:4-6
  ... 4 So a man who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship
with his head covered disgraces Christ.  5 And any woman who prays or
proclaims God's message in public worship with nothing on her head
disgraces her husband; there is no difference between her and a woman
whose head has been shaved.  6 If the woman does not cover her head, she
might as well cut her hair.  And since it is a shameful thing for a
woman to shave her head or cut her hair, she should cover her head. ...

					(TEV)

Paul goes on like this for some time.  Women should have long hair, and
keep their heads covered.  Men should have short hair, and not have them
covered.  It's the natural order of things.

It's tempting to ask if you are in favor of enforcing these rules.  (I
for instance have long hair.  I know many Christian women who do not
wear their hair long, and they don't wear hats in church.)  But that's
not really my point here.

Check out verse 5 again.  Paul doesn't say that it is bad for a woman to
proclaim God's message in public worship.  He only says that she mustn't
do it with her head uncovered, or with her hair cut (which amounts to
the same thing in his eyes.)

There is quite a difference between keeping silence, and proclaiming
God's message in public worship!  We seem to have quite a conflict
between the letter written to Timothy and the letter written to the
church at Corinth.  But wait!

I Corinthians 14:29-35

...Two or three who are given God's message should speak, while the
others are to judge what they say.  30 But if someone sitting in the
meeting receives a message from God, the one who is speaking should
stop.  31 All of you may proclaim God's message, one by one, so that
everyone will learn and be encouraged.  32 The gift of proclaiming God's
message should be under the speaker's control, 33 because God does not
want us to be in disorder but in harmony and peace.
  As in all the churches of God's people, 34 the women should keep quiet
in the meetings, They are not allowed to speak; as the Jewish Law says,
they must not be in charge.  35 If they want to find out about
something, they should ask their husbands at home.  It is a disgraceful
thing for a woman to speak in a church meeting.		(TEV)

Well now what!  Now even I Corinthians seems inconsistant with itself!
But isn't it interesting that Paul makes reference to the Jewish law for
support?  Back in Chapter 7 we find...

I Corinthians 7:18,19

...18 If a circumcised man has accepted God's call, he should not try to
remove the marks of circumcision; if an uncircumcised man has accepted
God's call, he should not get circumcised.  19 For whether or not a man
is circumcised means nothing; what matters is to obey God's
commandments. ...

Wow!  So, the laws governing circumcision are out, but the laws
governing the conduct of women are sometimes in, and sometimes out.
What's wrong with this guy!?

Well, now it's time to examine the structure of the letter.  The church
at Corinth is having some difficulties.  They've asked Paul a bunch of
questions.  He's doing his level best to field them.  To answer them, he
draws from Jewish law, from his own feelings, from the teachings of
Christ.  Paul admits in his letter to the Romans that he is not perfect,
he's having trouble.

Which one of us in Paul's position would do better?  How many of you
have faced a Jr. High Sunday School class (or CCD class or whatever)?
Paul's ongoing theme is to strive for unity in the church, unity through
order and love.

					Tom Blake
					SUNY-Binghamton

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/19/91)

In article <May.17.02.51.54.1991.28071@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes:
>It is true that there is no exercise of the extraordinary infallible
>magisterium on the subject of women's ordination.  This does not mean
>that the Pope can reverse the present custom at a moment's notice,
>however.  There is also ordinary infallibility to be considered.  It is
>a fact that women have *never* been allowed to be ordained in the
>Roman Catholic Church.  This is of moment in Catholic theology.  Whether
>it can be changed depends on why the traditional practice is what it is.

The RCC (relatively) recently changed long standing tradition to allow
the person leading the Mass to speak in the language of the
participants.  Perhaps they may change long standing tradition to allow
the person saying the Mass to be of the same sex as the majority of the
participants.

>I frankly do not think there are any Catholics present who are competent
>to defend the idea that women should be ordained.  To deal adequately
>with the issue requires training far above and beyond anything that a
>layman is likely to possess, at the very least.

I Corinthians 1:19-20
... 19 The Scripture says,
	"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
	 and set aside the understanding of the scholars."
20 So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the
skillful debaters of the world?  God has shown that this world's wisdom
is foolishness!

					Tom Blake
					SUNY-Binghamton

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/22/91)

You have helped me to answer a personaly question I have been dealing
with recently, but I would like to point something out about your last
message.  The translation you used used the phrase "proclaim God's
message in public" for "prophecy."  These two are not synonymous.
(What does TEV stand for by the way.)  The gift of prophecy is a
specific gift to the church.  It is listed with the gifts in I
Corinthians 12.  I will have to get back to you on what the Greek word
is, but it means to foretell.  By substituting this phrase, the
translators have obscured the meaning and context.  Women are
permitted to prophecy, and pray publically (I Corinthians 11, Acts
2:17 "your daughters shall prophecy.)  But they are not allowed to
yell questions to their husbands in the front row (I Corinthians 14, I
would assume this was the problem.  As in Jewish synagogues, men and
women probably sat separately..)  Women are not allowed to hold the
position of teacher or similar authoritative position in the church.
(I Timothy 2.)  What do you think?

[Depends upon what you think "prophecy" means.  TEV is the Today's
English Version, also known as Good News Bible.  They tend to replace
words with phrases when the word alone would be misleading to the
normal English-speaking reader.  In modern English, prophecy tends to
mean prediction.  In fact OT prophets proclaimed a message that God
had revealed to them, which sometimes involved predictions, but
prediction was by no means their sole or even major function.
According to my usual reference source (the abridged Kittel), the
Greek word used in the NT has a range from proclamation to prediction.
The exact meaning is typically decided by context.  It normally
implies having received some sort of revelation from God and
proclaiming it.  The translation "proclaim God's message in public"
seems consistent with this.  --clh]

conan@lipton.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (05/23/91)

In article <May.17.02.51.54.1991.28071@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes:

>I frankly do not think there are any Catholics present who are competent
>to defend the idea that women should be ordained.  To deal adequately
>with the issue requires training far above and beyond anything that a
>layman is likely to possess, at the very least.

Ignoring the actual discussion in progress, I find this to be an amazingly
presumptuous statement.  There are many extraordinarily talented lay 
theologians--to the best of my understanding, theological knowledge is
not one of the charisms of ordinatiion.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO

henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl tranquillity Henning) (05/23/91)

	It seems that my subject-line proved a source of some
confusion.  I did not intend to suggest that women want to
serve as priests out of mere ambition, or that women having
such a calling are therefore ambitious.

	It is my feeling that, if ministry is what a woman
feels she ought to do, let her do it.

	I meant the subject-line wrily, as women in the
past didn't get much of anywhere unless they were attached
to the right men.

	No permanent harm done, I trust.

kph

-- 
    "The study of crime begins with the knowledge of oneself.  All that you
     despise, all that you loathe, all that you reject, all that you condemn
     and seek to convert by punishment springs from you."  -- Henry Miller

math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (Wagner, David H.) (05/23/91)

In article <May.18.22.47.44.1991.14057@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes...
> 
>I Corinthians 11:4-6
>  ... 4 So a man who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship
>with his head covered disgraces Christ.  5 And any woman who prays or
>proclaims God's message in public worship with nothing on her head
>disgraces her husband; there is no difference between her and a woman
>whose head has been shaved....

>Paul goes on like this for some time.  Women should have long hair, and
>keep their heads covered.  Men should have short hair, and not have them
>covered.  It's the natural order of things.
> 
>It's tempting to ask if you are in favor of enforcing these rules.  (I
>for instance have long hair.  I know many Christian women who do not
>wear their hair long, and they don't wear hats in church.)  But that's
>not really my point here.

To the best of my knowledge, Paul in 1 Cor 11 was using a biblical 
principle - male headship and female submission - to uphold a local
custom - head coverings.  A woman in that place and time with no head
covering and/or shaved hair was considered a prostitute.  Paul was telling
the women to dress respectably.  It is strange that he used a biblical
principle of male headship and female submission to make his point.
Perhaps he simpy meant that since the custom gave expression to the
principle in a valid way, it ought to be upheld.  

In my church it is popular to translate v. 16 as:  "If anyone wants to be
contentious about this, we have no *such* practice/custom--nor do the
churches of God."  This makes clear that he was talking about a local custom
and not a practice binding on the church for all time.

>Check out verse 5 again.  Paul doesn't say that it is bad for a woman to
>proclaim God's message in public worship.  He only says that she mustn't
>do it with her head uncovered, or with her hair cut (which amounts to
>the same thing in his eyes.)
> 
>There is quite a difference between keeping silence, and proclaiming
>God's message in public worship!  We seem to have quite a conflict
>between the letter written to Timothy and the letter written to the
>church at Corinth.  But wait!

I admit this is a bit of a problem.


>I Corinthians 14:29-35
> 
>....Two or three who are given God's message should speak, while the
>others are to judge what they say.  30 But if someone sitting in the
>meeting receives a message from God, the one who is speaking should
>stop.  31 All of you may proclaim God's message, one by one, so that
>everyone will learn and be encouraged.  32 The gift of proclaiming God's
>message should be under the speaker's control, 33 because God does not
>want us to be in disorder but in harmony and peace.
>  As in all the churches of God's people, 34 the women should keep quiet
>in the meetings, They are not allowed to speak; as the Jewish Law says,
>they must not be in charge.  35 If they want to find out about
>something, they should ask their husbands at home.  It is a disgraceful
>thing for a woman to speak in a church meeting.		(TEV)
> 
>Well now what!  Now even I Corinthians seems inconsistant with itself!
>But isn't it interesting that Paul makes reference to the Jewish law for
>support?  Back in Chapter 7 we find...

The word 'Jewish' is a translator's interpolation, and a bad one. Paul simply
says 'as the Law says'.  Now this might refer to the Law of Moses, the code
given at Sinai.  However this law contains no such injunction.  That is
actually part of the problem in understanding the text.  But in Jewish 
usage 'the Law' frequently referred to all of the books of Moses, Genesis
through Deuteronomy.  Thus Jesus would refer to 'the Law and the Prophets'.
I think we can use 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to help us understand what part of
'the Law' Paul referred to.  In Timothy Paul referred to the creation and 
fall: "For Amam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one 
deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."
Evidently this is also 'the Law' that Paul had in mind in 1 Cor 14.

There is another problem in that Paul's injunction appears to be a 
complete ban on speaking.  Yet elsewhere women are commanded to pray,
and, as you have pointed out, Paul speaks of them prophesying.  The 
best resolution that I know of is that this ban on speaking has a context
given in the previous verses--that of 'orderly worship'.  So he seems to
be saying 

1.  They should recognize the order of creation, the headship of men, and
    of 'their own men' -- which is usually translated 'husbands', but could
    also mean fathers, uncles, etc.

2.  They would dishonor this headship if by rising to speak to the assembled
    church, they would force a man to sit down (v. 30).

Does this make sense?  Beats me!  But I am convinced at least that the 
ban on speaking applies to *public* speaking before the assembled church,
and not to praying, singing hymns, etc.

In the letter to Timothy, however, he is speaking principally about teaching,
and authoritative teaching of men, at that.  I conclude from this that 
a woman should not serve as a man's pastor.

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran

My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by
The University of Houston.

jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (05/26/91)

In article <May.18.22.53.21.1991.14144@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:

   >It is true that there is no exercise of the extraordinary infallible
   >magisterium on the subject of women's ordination.  This does not mean
   >that the Pope can reverse the present custom at a moment's notice,
   >however.  There is also ordinary infallibility to be considered.  It is
   >a fact that women have *never* been allowed to be ordained in the
   >Roman Catholic Church.  This is of moment in Catholic theology.  Whether
   >it can be changed depends on why the traditional practice is what it is.

   The RCC (relatively) recently changed long standing tradition to allow
   the person leading the Mass to speak in the language of the
   participants.  Perhaps they may change long standing tradition to allow
   the person saying the Mass to be of the same sex as the majority of the
   participants.

This is the sort of thing I was commenting on in the next paragraph.

The Mass of the early Church was originally in the vernacular.  There's
no Divine command that I'm aware of that requires the liturgy to be in a
dead language.

On the other hand, women have *never* been ordained to the priesthood.

See the difference?

   >I frankly do not think there are any Catholics present who are competent
   >to defend the idea that women should be ordained.  To deal adequately
   >with the issue requires training far above and beyond anything that a
   >layman is likely to possess, at the very least.

   I Corinthians 1:19-20
   ... 19 The Scripture says,
	   "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
		and set aside the understanding of the scholars."
   20 So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the
   skillful debaters of the world?  God has shown that this world's wisdom
   is foolishness!

2 Peter 3:15-16:  And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation;
as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to
you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in
which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and
unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptires, to their own
destruction.

oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (05/27/91)

Re: David H. Wagner


In article <May.17.02.39.27.1991.27893@athos.rutgers.edu>,
 math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes, in response to [someone]:

>> If Jesus felt that a woman (or women) were fit to be the first to
>> receive the Good News of his resurrection, and felt that they were fit
>> to carry that Good News to tell men when he first rose from the grave,
>> why would he feel them unfit to carry that same Good News to men today?

>You are speaking of evangelism.  Women exercise the gift of evangelism
>all the time; that does not make them pastors. [...]
>I don't think women must always try to win over unbelievers 'without words.'
>That wouldn't make much sense.  But they do need to be submissive to their
>own husbands.

   Hi, David!

     One of the main topic of debate is, in fact, whether the
 Scripture quotations in question (i.e. the ones you cite about
 woman submission to man) is proper to the 1st century or not.
 Paul also exhorts slaves to obey their human masters with the
 same reverence that they owe Christ, in the very next chapter
 (Ephesians 6:5-9), but I doubt very much if you, sir, would
 advocate the return of slavery for the sole purpose of fulfilling
 this Scriptural command. No, there are obviously MANY instances of
 where Paul was emphasizing SOCIAL law of the time... and NOT
 Spiritual law (i.e. many of Paul's exhortations were directed
 specifically at a 1st century society). The question is: is the
 issue of "women submitting to men" one of those 1st century edicts
 that is no longer applicable in our day and age? I say yes.

----
   Take care!

   Sincerely,     Brian Coughlin
                  oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu

oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (05/27/91)

Re: Joseph H. Buehler


In article <May.17.02.51.54.1991.28071@athos.rutgers.edu>,
 jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes, in response
 to my response to [someone]:

>>> The Catholic hierarchy is all male, by Divine will.  Women cannot be
>>>validly ordained, and cannot exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

>>  The second sentence is true, up to a point, while the first is untrue.
>> Women cannot be validly ordained, that's true... AT PRESENT. It is not
>> Catholic moral teaching that inhibits women from being ordained, but
>> rather it is procedural doctrine of the Church as institution; that
>> is, the prohibition against female clergy is a procedural tradition
>> that is NOT infallible moral teaching, and is capable of being reversed
>> by the Pope at a moment's notice.

>It is true that there is no exercise of the extraordinary infallible
>magisterium on the subject of women's ordination.  This does not mean
>that the Pope can reverse the present custom at a moment's notice,
>however.

   Hi, Joe!

    I must insert, here: I was exaggerating a bit for the sake of
 poignancy, in that statement. Certainly the Pope cannot change
 world policy in an hour; I was merely emphasizing the fact that
 the Pope has "sovreign authority" over the moral teachings of the
 Church, and is answerable to no human for his decisions in such
 matters. The Pope may indeed change non-infallible custom as he
 sees fit... with or without the approval of the College of Bishops.

> There is also ordinary infallibility to be considered.  It is
>a fact that women have *never* been allowed to be ordained in the
>Roman Catholic Church.  This is of moment in Catholic theology.  Whether
>it can be changed depends on why the traditional practice is what it is.

  First of all, "ordinary infallibility" is a vague concept, at best.
 No one is quite certain WHAT falls into that category... hence, the
 formalization of the "statement Ex Cathedra" doctrine; no one would
 have NEEDED such a doctrine, had there been no doubt as to what was
 infallible and what was not.
  Consider: how many of the teachings of the Council of Trent are
 infallible? Even assuming that ALL of them are... how are we [fallible]
 humans to interpret those infallible teachings without error? Is the
 Trent-ian teaching of "God is indeed provable from natural science"
 infallible? If so, in what way?
  You see the problem, I hope. The idea of "ordinary infallibility",
 in addition to being too vague to be of any practical use in this
 matter, is too convenient, in the sense that one can grab any random
 Catholic teaching of the present or past and throw it under that
 category.
  Consider further: blacks were not allowed into the Catholic
 priesthood until the last two or three centuries. Was that an
 infallible practice? After all, it lasted almost as long as the
 ban against women priests has (i.e. 1700 years compared to 1900);
 you may be unjustly assuming that, merely because you happened to
 be born AFTER the introduction of black priests and BEFORE the
 introduction of women priests, that that's the way it SHOULD be.
 Doubtlessly, many a young person thought the same about black priests
 in the 1500's (i.e. "Blacks simply aren't allowed to be priests, by
 unchangeable command of the Church). Would that make them right?
 I say no.

>I frankly do not think there are any Catholics present who are competent
>to defend the idea that women should be ordained.  To deal adequately
>with the issue requires training far above and beyond anything that a
>layman is likely to possess, at the very least.

  Other post-ers have commented nicely on this statement. I'd like to
 add that, should your statement be true (which I'm inclined to
 disagree with), then there would not be any Catholic present who are
 competent to defend the idea that women SHOULDN'T be ordained!

>A precise understanding of the traditional theology on the subject would
>be required.  This would involve a doctoral level study of the history
>of the theological sources.

  Forgive me, but your "cutoff" line of "Ph.D = competence in the
 topic" strikes me as somewhat arbitrary. Certainly, someone with
 a doctorite will have much expertise in such a topic, (given that
 that was part of their field of study), but that in no way proves
 that those with Master's degrees, Bachelor's degrees, and lower
 cannot have the same, or greater, insight into the problem.
  
> Why did the predecessors of the current
>hierarchy not ordain women through so many centuries?  The reasons have
>to be completely understood.  If the reason(s) are such that they are
>unaffected by time (as I believe they are), then women cannot be
>ordained in the 20th C any more than they could be in the 19th.

  And if the reason(s) are merely a social/cultural bias that
 was prevalent in ancient times (as I believe they are), then
 women could easily be ordained in the 20th century... and, moreover,
 SHOULD be.

>I think that the present agitation for women's ordination springs from a
>number of motives.  One of them is a profound confusion over the
>different roles intended by God for men and women.

  This also introduces a few questions:

  - What *IS* God's intended role for woman?
  - Would any differences between women's and men's roles affect
     their worthiness for the priesthood?
  - Is God's role for men and women the same today as it was
     2000 years ago? It's only modern misunderstanding of philosophy
     that insists that God's purposes for humans cannot change with
     time. If God wishes a species to develop, then develop it shall.

>Holiness doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand.  The Mother
>of God is admitted by all Catholics to be the most holy of all
>creatures, beyond even the angels.  Yet she could never be a priest.
>This is a question of office, not holiness.

   The idea of "Could Mary have been a priest" is misplaced, in my
 opinion. It's akin to asking, "Could I have been one of the
 12 apostles, had I lived in 1st century Judea?" Mary had a specific
 role to play, and it didn't involve the modern Catholic definition
 of "ordained priest". The question is: do the roles of modern women
 involve being Catholic priests? I say yes.

>The question is more one of the male psyche vs. the female, and the
>Divine will for order in human society.  There is a *reason* that God
>the Father is God the *Father*.  It isn't simply that society is
>male-dominated: that would be to make the proper names for the persons
>of the Trinity depend on the whims of men, certainly not something I
>think appropriate to Catholic theology.

   Forgive me again, but your argument is rather thin. Consider:
 God sent the Messiah to Earth in a male-dominated era, and in a
 male-dominated culture. In order for God's Messiah to be taken
 seriously by such a culture, it could well have been the case that
 a male Messiah was chosen [for that reason]. Likewise, had
 Jesus talked about "God the Mother", it would have contradicted
 centuries upon centuries of Jewish thought (bad idea, if one
 wishes to gain acceptance).
   In that sense, the titles of "God the Father" and "God the Son"
 could well have been dependent upon the opinions of men: the men
 of 1st century Judea.


----
   Take care!

   Sincerely,     Brian Coughlin
                  oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/28/91)

In article <May.26.23.09.44.1991.24552@athos.rutgers.edu> oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:
> (Ephesians 6:5-9), but I doubt very much if you, sir, would
> advocate the return of slavery for the sole purpose of fulfilling
> this Scriptural command. 
). The question is: is the
> issue of "women submitting to men" one of those 1st century edicts
> that is no longer applicable in our day and age? I say yes.
>

The commands for slaves to obey their masters in no way mandates a
return to slavery.  As a matter of fact, Paul says in I Corinthians 7,
that if it is possible for a slave to be free, he should take
advantage of it.  The command is to slaves.  If there are no slaves,
then it does not apply to anyone.  Especially since we are exhorted to
be free if it is possible.  But are their wives today?  yes.  There
are.  So the command still applies.  The command to for the wife to
obey the husband is based on God's own spoken words in Genesis.

If there were slaves today, then they would have to obey their
masters.  There are wives today, why should they not obey their
husbands.  Why did the apostles not revers God's order of authority in
families in which both husband and wige are Christians?  If this was
just to keep from conflicting with society, why was it not only
commanded to wives with unbelieving husbands, to win them over?  It
was given to Christian wives with Christian husbands as well.

Let me ask you this?  Does the husband have to love his wife as Christ
loved the church, or was that only for the time?  Paul makes an
analogy between the relationship between the husband and wife, and
Christia and the church.  Does the church not have to obey Christ any
more?  Link.

bralick@fangorn.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (05/30/91)

In article <May.26.23.12.22.1991.24580@athos.rutgers.edu> oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:
| Re: Joseph H. Buehler
|  ...
|  the Pope has "sovreign authority" over the moral teachings of the
|  Church, and is answerable to no human for his decisions in such
|  matters...
| 
| > There is also ordinary infallibility to be considered.  It is
| >a fact that women have *never* been allowed to be ordained in the
| >Roman Catholic Church.  This is of moment in Catholic theology.  Whether
| >it can be changed depends on why the traditional practice is what it is.
| 
|   First of all, "ordinary infallibility" is a vague concept, at best.
|  No one is quite certain WHAT falls into that category... hence, the
|  formalization of the "statement Ex Cathedra" doctrine; no one would
|  have NEEDED such a doctrine, had there been no doubt as to what was
|  infallible and what was not.

We Catholics are obliged to follow the ordinary teachings of the Church
in the areas of morality and doctrine (as if they were infallible).  For 
example, Humanae Vitae provided clear moral guidance on the use of 
contraceptives and abortion, but it wasn't promulgated "ex cathedra."  
Moral teachings are not pronounced "ex cathedra," but that doesn't mean 
that it becomes a matter of personal taste.  Remember, "Roma locuta, causa 
finita.  And that doesn't only obtain when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

|   Consider: how many of the teachings of the Council of Trent are
|  infallible? Even assuming that ALL of them are... how are we [fallible]
|  humans to interpret those infallible teachings without error?

I wouldn't use the word "infallible" here, rather I would say that the
teachings of Trent like those of Vatican I, Vatican II, Nicea, etc. are 
all authoritative.  So, the short answer to your question is that we 
fallible humans can rely on the authoritative teachings of the Church.

|  ...
|   Consider further: blacks were not allowed into the Catholic
|  priesthood until the last two or three centuries.

That's odd, I had always thaought that St. Augustine was black.  Wasn't 
he from North Africa?

| ...
| > Why did the predecessors of the current
| >hierarchy not ordain women through so many centuries?  The reasons have
| >to be completely understood.  If the reason(s) are such that they are
| >unaffected by time (as I believe they are), then women cannot be
| >ordained in the 20th C any more than they could be in the 19th.
| 
|   And if the reason(s) are merely a social/cultural bias that
|  was prevalent in ancient times (as I believe they are), then
|  women could easily be ordained in the 20th century... and, moreover,
|  SHOULD be.

Needless to say it is unimportant what _we_ think (or what the theologians
(especially the current crop of them (!)) think, for that matter), since 
the Church is not and will never be a democratic institution.  Anyway, I
believe that there are very few bishops who advocate women's ordination.    
Like it or not, the Catholic Church has to consider more than the political 
sensibilities of North European and North American liberals.  So even if 
it is a human (rather than divine) tradition, the Church would have to
be willing to endure another major schism as well as putting off any 
hope of reunifying with the Eastern Orthodox churches for a long time to 
come.

| ...
|  God sent the Messiah to Earth in a male-dominated era, and in a
|  male-dominated culture. In order for God's Messiah to be taken
|  seriously by such a culture, it could well have been the case that
|  a male Messiah was chosen [for that reason]. Likewise, had
|  Jesus talked about "God the Mother", it would have contradicted
|  centuries upon centuries of Jewish thought (bad idea, if one
|  wishes to gain acceptance).
|    In that sense, the titles of "God the Father" and "God the Son"
|  could well have been dependent upon the opinions of men: the men
|  of 1st century Judea.

This whole line of argument has always struck me as rather secularized,
viz. it smacks of the idea that man created God in his image rather than
the other way around.  The idea that God almighty would have to conform
Himself to the social structure of His creatures evidences a failure
of appreciation for the concept of omnipotence.

Perhaps a more appropriate view is that due to the nature of God and
the nature of created mankind, the Messiah would necessarily be a male 
and thus society would necessarily be male-dominated at the time and
place He was to arrive.  Succinctly, perhaps the male domination of the 
culture was intended to serve God's interest, not man's.


Best regards,

--
Will  bralick@cs.psu.edu                 with disclaimer;  use disclaimer; 

Not to seem aposiopetic, but

vancleef@nas.nasa.gov (Robert E. Van Cleef) (06/02/91)

In article <May.18.22.53.21.1991.14144@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:
|> In article <May.17.02.51.54.1991.28071@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes:
|> >It is true that there is no exercise of the extraordinary infallible
|> >magisterium on the subject of women's ordination.  This does not mean
|> >that the Pope can reverse the present custom at a moment's notice,
|> >however.  There is also ordinary infallibility to be considered.  It is
|> >a fact that women have *never* been allowed to be ordained in the
|> >Roman Catholic Church.  This is of moment in Catholic theology.  Whether
|> >it can be changed depends on why the traditional practice is what it is.
|> 
|>

The Roman Catholic Church can be full of surprises;

I was present on Pentacost Sunday, in 1975, at the closing liturgy of the 
International Conference on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. The mass was
celebrated by the Pope.

	1) He was greeted by a congregation singing in tongues
		- no known previous occurance
	2) Individuals approached the microphones during the 
	   prayer and praise portions of the service to deliver
	   messages in tongues and to deliver prophecys
		- no known previous occurance
	3) Some of the speakers were women
		- no known previous occurance (of any woman presenting 
		  anything)
	4) The Pope delivered a homily recognizing the occurances
	   as acceptable and valid reflections on the Catholic faith
	   and asked those present to return to their homelands to
	   continue their work of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church may *never* have allowed women to be ordained, but
could that be because the women never asked? 

Hypothesis: Maybe the sainted women of old were content to play the role
asked them by their society, and the saintly women of today are simply 
trying to fulfill the role today's society is asking them to play. 

I don't know. Do you?

-- 
Bob Van Cleef 			vancleef@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center	(415) 604-4366
---
Perception is reality...

MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (06/02/91)

Brian,  You say Blacks were not allowed into the Catholic priesthood until
the last two or three centuries.  That is contrary to fact.  The early Church
spread across North Africa and south at least as far as Ethiopia.  Many
bishops and theologians, such as St. Augustine of Hippo, one of the most
influential theologians in the history of the Church, were from North Africa,
as were several popes.  The most famous was St. Victor I (189-199) who is
best known for asserting the authority of the Bishop of Rome over the Bishops
of Asia Minor in the Easter Question.  After Muslims conquered North Africa
and after the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches went into Monophysitism the
question did not have much practical significance until Europeans started
visiting sub-Saharan Africa.

You say further that God sent the Messiah to Earth in a male-dominated
area and in a male-dominated culture.  God chose the Jews.  If He had
wanted to choose a matriarchal society for the birth of the Messiah, He
could have done so.  He probably would have had to create such a society,
because so far as I know there is little if any solid evidence that there
has ever been a truly matriarchal society, but He could have done that if
He had wanted to.

More to the point, the Church very quickly expanded beyond her Jewish
base to encompass many Gentiles.  Priestesses were not at all uncommon in
pagan religions of the area.  If Christians, who had ceased to observe large
parts of the Jewish ritual law, had ordained priestesses, the pagan converts
would have seen nothing unusual about it.

Incidentally, you ask, "Is the Trent-ian teaching of 'God is indeed provable
from natural science' infallible?"  Where did the Council of Trent teach
that?  It seems highly improbable, both because the Council of Trent had
more important matters to concern it--reforming the Church and countering
the new doctrines of Protestantism--and because natural science was not
a major part of society at that time.  Perhaps you are thinking of the First
Vatican Council's definition that the existence of God can be known by unaided
human reason (NOT by natural science).

Marty Helgesen

math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) (06/02/91)

In article <May.26.23.09.44.1991.24552@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:

>
>     One of the main topic of debate is, in fact, whether the
> Scripture quotations in question (i.e. the ones you cite about
> woman submission to man) is proper to the 1st century or not.
> Paul also exhorts slaves to obey their human masters with the
> same reverence that they owe Christ, in the very next chapter
> (Ephesians 6:5-9), but I doubt very much if you, sir, would
> advocate the return of slavery for the sole purpose of fulfilling
> this Scriptural command. No, there are obviously MANY instances of
> where Paul was emphasizing SOCIAL law of the time... and NOT
> Spiritual law (i.e. many of Paul's exhortations were directed
> specifically at a 1st century society). The question is: is the
> issue of "women submitting to men" one of those 1st century edicts
> that is no longer applicable in our day and age? I say yes.

One reason for believing that Paul's instructions. regarding the submission
of women in marriage and in the church, apply to us today, is that he bases
his reasoning on the circumstances of the creation and fall.  In only one
case that I know of, 1 Cor 11, he uses 'the order of creation' to uphold
a local custom, the covering of women's heads.

The slavery issue is a bit of a straw man.  No, I don't advocate or like 
slavery.   It is not clear to me, however, that if we had slavery, that
it would be more God-pleasing for me to expend my energies trying to
abolish it rather than spreading the gospel. Given a vote for or against
slavery, I would certainly vote against it (I hope!)
But Paul's choice in this matter is clear.  He preached the gospel, and I 
think one of the beneficial side effects is that we don't practice slavery 
any more.

Paul's (and Peter's) instruction that slaves should submit to their masters, 
however still has application to us today.  Christians should submit to their 
employers.  Being a good employee is a form of Christian witness, much as
a good and faithful slave was a good witness for Christ in Paul's day.

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran

My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by
The University of Houston.

emev02@castle.ed.ac.uk (H Oral) (06/02/91)

In article <May.26.23.09.44.1991.24552@athos.rutgers.edu> oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:
>Re: David H. Wagner
>In article <May.17.02.39.27.1991.27893@athos.rutgers.edu>,
> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes, in response to [someone]:
>>...
>> But they do need to be submissive to their own husbands.
>
>   Hi, David!
>
> The question is: is the issue of "women submitting to men" one of those 
>1st century edicts that is no longer applicable in our day and age? I say yes.
>
>----
>   Take care!
>
>   Sincerely,     Brian Coughlin
>                  oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu

Hi everone;

I am not a christian, however as a muslim I should enjoin to the right.
Therefore I support David that woman should be submissive to their
husbands.

Islam clearly says that man and woman are equal in their account to
One God.  Their good deeds from their actions are given indiscriminitely.
However Islam meaning peace assigns man to be the leader and the
responsible person in the family structure.  Ofcourse this is in family
structure.  In the same way, if there were two gods, there would be a chaos,
if there were two leaders there will be a chaos in the family.  

Islam brings the tauheed, "oneness" with it, where all human race regardless
of their colour, tongue and land worship only ONE GOD.  All prophets come
to preach this ONE RELIGION.  And our return will be to ONE GOD at the end.

As long as man and woman are aware of this fact, who leader is would not make
much difference anyway.  But when ignorance comes in, then it should be a
big deal who the leader is.  If One God has ordained that Man is the leader
of the family, then we should accept it as we accept that we will return to him.

If anyone would like to see that God always has chosen men as leaders,
look at the Prophets of One God...  They are all men including Adam,
Noah, Jesus, Muhammad (peace be upon them).

If anyone would like to see who are the honoured ones after the Prophets,
look at the virgin Mary, or the first one who accepted the divine call of
her husband, Khatijah, Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him)'s wife.


Your muslim brother
Hamid

[This posting raises some policy issues.  I've consistently rejected
postings that are simply attempts to present the Moslem or Bahai
religion, as well as Christian postings that would lead to discussions
whose primary subject is Islam.  On the other hand, we have had
postings giving Jewish perspectives on issues under discussion (not to
mention agnostic and atheist), so it seems to me that occasional
postings from a Moslem perspective are OK, as long as they are not of
such a nature as to lead the discussion off into a discussion of
Islam.  If I get a strong response from our readers that this violates
the charter of the group, I'll reconsider.  --clh]

oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (06/03/91)

Re: Paul Hudson Jr.


In article <May.27.18.16.10.1991.9940@athos.rutgers.edu>,
 hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes, in
 response to my article:

>> (Ephesians 6:5-9), but I doubt very much if you, sir, would
>> advocate the return of slavery for the sole purpose of fulfilling
>> this Scriptural command. 
>). The question is: is the
>> issue of "women submitting to men" one of those 1st century edicts
>> that is no longer applicable in our day and age? I say yes.

>The commands for slaves to obey their masters in no way mandates a
>return to slavery.  As a matter of fact, Paul says in I Corinthians 7,
>that if it is possible for a slave to be free, he should take
>advantage of it.  The command is to slaves.  If there are no slaves,
>then it does not apply to anyone.  Especially since we are exhorted to
>be free if it is possible.  But are their wives today?  yes.  There
>are.  So the command still applies.  The command to for the wife to
>obey the husband is based on God's own spoken words in Genesis.

  Dear Paul,


   I'm afraid you've glossed over some very critical points.

   In your explanation (i.e. the Scripture passage is not a call
 for the return of slavery, but supplies edicts for the [now vacant]
 set of all existing slaves), you make a dangerous implication:
 you seem to be suggesting that slavery is not only less than despicable,
 but that you think slavery to be tolerable. That is, you don't
 seem to have any problem with the idea of slavery, and you
 seem to be ambivalent as to whether it exists or not (i.e. if
 slaves exist, they should follow these laws; if not, then no).
 Nowhere in your argument is there any indication of the heinousness
 of slavery.

   Look at it this way: if something is an abomination (or a sin, crime,
 or whatever) in the eyes of God, then there should be no means by
 which a Christian community can either support that something, or
 allow it to continue uninterrupted. In your explanation, there would
 be no provision for REMOVING slavery, once it started (for whatever
 reason). Does this sound like a good scenario, to you? I hope not.

>If there were slaves today, then they would have to obey their
>masters.

   Forgive me, but... wouldn't this obedience preclude any attempts
 at attaining freedom (1 Cor 7)? If a slavemaster is unwilling to free
 a slave, then the slave is obligated (ref: Ephesians 6:5-9) to REMAIN
 a slave. Wherein is the POSSIBILITY for "taking advantage of opportunities
 for freedom" there? It is quite clear that this would be a problem,
 today, SHOULD (God forbid!) slavery return; there would be Scriptural
 basis for the MAINTENANCE of slavery, once established... and then
 what are we to do with the idea of holding slaves being a sin and a
 crime? No... we cannot allow ourselves to conveniently take advantage
 of the absence of slaves, and use that fact in such an argument.
 The price to be paid would be far worse than any benefits.

> There are wives today, why should they not obey their
>husbands?

  Obedience implies domination. I'd prefer "cooperation". It is
 axiomatic (in the Catholic Church, anyway) that women are equal
 with respect to all basic, fundamental rights (with, in my opinion,
 one noted exception; follow the other thread for info on that!) to
 men. Thus, one may not dominate the other without committing sin.
 Thus, there is no provision for allowing obedience to anyone
 save God. Of course, one could use "obedience" in a looser sense,
 somewhat in the style of "faithful" or "loyal"; in that instance,
 I'd argue that wife SHOULD be obedient to husband... *AND* that
 husband should be obedient to wife!

>Let me ask you this?  Does the husband have to love his wife as Christ
>loved the church, or was that only for the time?  Paul makes an
>analogy between the relationship between the husband and wife, and
>Christia and the church.  Does the church not have to obey Christ any
>more?

  Certainly, we have to obey Christ. But remember the audience that
 Paul was writing to; Paul wanted to get the notion of "be lovingly
 obedient to Jesus!" to the people of the time, and the analogy of
 "wife submits to husband" was a good analogy for 1st century
 minds to grasp. This would *not* be the case today; in the 20th
 century, Paul would have had to come up with some other way of
 emphasizing the need for complete, worshipful obedience to Christ.
 It is only ONE side of Paul's analogy... the part about wives and
 husbands... that has changed with time. The other part about
 obedience to God CERTAINLY hasn't changed. For you to assume that
 obedience to God should waver just because of changing gender
 relations (i.e. for the sake of keeping Paul's analogy valid)
 would be unwarranted; thus, your argument doesn't apply.
  There is a danger, I think, in being too fond of a literal
 interpretation of Scripture. I *do* cherish Paul's analogy as
 being a quaint, inspired plea for worshipful obedience... but
 I don't see any need at all of "straining" our consciences to
 accomodate that out-of-date 1st century analogy. The analogy is
 precious BECAUSE it's contained in a beautiful, sacred Book, and
 because it was obviously written in a spirit of utmost piety. Its
 lack of applicability in 1991 does not diminish this preciousness.

----
   Take care!

   Sincerely,     Brian Coughlin
                  oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu

oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (06/03/91)

Re: Will Bralick


In article <May.30.00.17.10.1991.15205@athos.rutgers.edu>,
 bralick@fangorn.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes,
 in response to my response to Joe Buehler:

>>>  There is also ordinary infallibility to be considered.  It is
>>> a fact that women have *never* been allowed to be ordained in the
>>> Roman Catholic Church.  This is of moment in Catholic theology.  Whether
>>> it can be changed depends on why the traditional practice is what it is.

>>   First of all, "ordinary infallibility" is a vague concept, at best.
>>  No one is quite certain WHAT falls into that category... hence, the
>>  formalization of the "statement Ex Cathedra" doctrine; no one would
>>  have NEEDED such a doctrine, had there been no doubt as to what was
>>  infallible and what was not.

>We Catholics are obliged to follow the ordinary teachings of the Church
>in the areas of morality and doctrine (as if they were infallible).

  Hi, Will!

    I must admit, I'm in an awkward position, here. Almost everything
 that you've written in your response is acceptable to me, and does
 indeed jibe with my understood (AND implemented!) practice of
 the Catholic faith. However, please understand that I was debating
 with Joe over *philosophical* items. This implies two things:

  1) Since I wasn't debating you, my arguments weren't tailored to
 cope with your particular slant of questioning; thus, my article
 may have seemed unnaturally secular in nature, to you.

  2) Joe and I debate philosophy, NOT actual practice of faith. He
 and I can debate this issue until we both turn blue, and it will
 not imply, in the SLIGHTEST, our attitudes toward actual religious
 life and practice of the Cathoic faith. I, for example, am completely
 loyal to the Pope and the total Catholic Magisterium, despite the
 fact that I fail to grasp the reasons for some Church doctrines.
 I cannot stress this enough, and I beg you to understand that. Despite
 all my debating, I do *NOT* approve of anyone going against the
 Church's current doctrines, and would consider such actions as
 non-Catholic, if not outright sinful. In such context, please understand
 that I would never urge others to disobey the Pope's wishes in this
 matter [of women priests].

> For example, Humanae Vitae provided clear moral guidance on the use of
>contraceptives and abortion, but it wasn't promulgated "ex cathedra."  
>Moral teachings are not pronounced "ex cathedra," but that doesn't mean 
>that it becomes a matter of personal taste.  Remember, "Roma locuta, causa 
>finita.  And that doesn't only obtain when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

  That's quite true; again, I was NEVER advocating disobedience to
 the Pope. What Joe and I were debating was the POSSIBILITY that the
 Vatican could change the policy of having an all-male clergy,
 with that topic eventually spilling over into the langent topics
 of "are women worthy of priesthood", "should women be submissive
 to men", and so forth.

>>   Consider: how many of the teachings of the Council of Trent are
>>  infallible? Even assuming that ALL of them are... how are we [fallible]
>>  humans to interpret those infallible teachings without error?

>I wouldn't use the word "infallible" here, rather I would say that the
>teachings of Trent like those of Vatican I, Vatican II, Nicea, etc. are 
>all authoritative.  So, the short answer to your question is that we 
>fallible humans can rely on the authoritative teachings of the Church.

  True. Again, Joe and I were debating the philosophy of the issue,
 not the practice. Though the idea of discussing Catholic teaching
 in a semi-secular, philosophical forum might strike you as somewhat
 offensive, please understand that this is for discussion's sake only.

>>   Consider further: blacks were not allowed into the Catholic
>>  priesthood until the last two or three centuries.

>That's odd, I had always thaought that St. Augustine was black.  Wasn't
>he from North Africa?

   If he was, this is the first I'll have heard of it. I can't
 answer your question for certain, but I've never seen Augustine
 portrayed as black; even in our chapel, the stain-glass caricature
 of Augustine is clearly caucasian... and just a few windows down
 is an obviously negro representation of St. Martin de Porres.
 It would strike me as odd that the window-makers would "whiten"
 one and not the other.
    On that subject, I have been made aware that my statement was
 not strictly true... I do apologize for that. However, I *am*
 certain of the fact that there was a span of well over 1000 years
 where blacks were strongly discouraged to enter the clergy, and
 WERE forbidden to do so in the United States until recently.
 I'll dig up references to this as soon as I have some spare time.

>Needless to say it is unimportant what _we_ think (or what the theologians
>(especially the current crop of them (!)) think, for that matter), since 
>the Church is not and will never be a democratic institution.  Anyway, I
>believe that there are very few bishops who advocate women's ordination.    
>Like it or not, the Catholic Church has to consider more than the political 
>sensibilities of North European and North American liberals.  So even if 
>it is a human (rather than divine) tradition, the Church would have to
>be willing to endure another major schism as well as putting off any 
>hope of reunifying with the Eastern Orthodox churches for a long time to 
>come.

  That, sir, is a key point. In my private searching for rationales
 of the "male clergy" practice, the ONLY rationale that I could
 discover is the idea of the Church being unready for such a dramatic
 change (i.e. such a change might WELL produce a schism of appalling
 magnitude). But once again, the discussion that you responded to
 was NOT one of actual practice; it was dealing with the raw
 philosophical and moral implications of an all-male clergy.
  As to whether I "like it or not", I agree that my opinions should
 not be viewed as equal to Vatican pronouncements. Nevertheless...
 in this controlled forum, where I've made it QUITE clear that I
 am only *discussing* the idea of women priests and NOT advocating
 Catholic rebellion... I have every right to express my opinions as
 I see fit... liberal, conservative, or otherwise.
  (I suspect that you don't have an argument with that; I mentioned
 the above for the sake of anyone who might be following this
 thread.)

>>  God sent the Messiah to Earth in a male-dominated era, and in a
>>  male-dominated culture. In order for God's Messiah to be taken
>>  seriously by such a culture, it could well have been the case that
>>  a male Messiah was chosen [for that reason]. Likewise, had
>>  Jesus talked about "God the Mother", it would have contradicted
>>  centuries upon centuries of Jewish thought (bad idea, if one
>>  wishes to gain acceptance).
>>    In that sense, the titles of "God the Father" and "God the Son"
>>  could well have been dependent upon the opinions of men: the men
>>  of 1st century Judea.

>This whole line of argument has always struck me as rather secularized,
>viz. it smacks of the idea that man created God in his image rather than
>the other way around.  The idea that God almighty would have to conform
>Himself to the social structure of His creatures evidences a failure
>of appreciation for the concept of omnipotence.

  I must strongly disagree. Rather, I believe that it is a
 *misunderstanding* of the concept of omnipotence that drives
 people to such conclusions. One example is the idea of "why
 didn't God create us with the ability to resist all temptation
 with ease? He had the power to do so!" Another is, "Why does God
 allow tragedies such as earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, and disease
 to kill millions of INNOCENT people? If He's all-powerful, can't
 He think of a way of carrying out His plan without all this
 innocent suffering?" (I remind you that the Catholic Church does
 *indeed* believe that innocent suffering exists; it does NOT take
 the fundamentalist position of, "Well, if they suffer, they deserve
 it!")
  To ask such questions is to misunderstand omnipotence , IMHO.
 As Job was taught, it is not our right to ask why God does what
 He does, and HOW God does what He does. Perhaps God simply doesn't
 wish to violate His own natural laws, or perhaps He doesn't wish
 to interfere with the natural progress of humanity. This view
 would easily allow for the idea of God's "fitting" the Messiah's
 gender to best suit the opinions of the time, in additions to
 allowing breathing room for the concept of an "omnibenevolent God
 who still allows innocent suffering".

>Perhaps a more appropriate view is that due to the nature of God and
>the nature of created mankind, the Messiah would necessarily be a male 
>and thus society would necessarily be male-dominated at the time and
>place He was to arrive.  Succinctly, perhaps the male domination of the 
>culture was intended to serve God's interest, not man's.

  This strikes me as a dangerously elitist way of thinking, in addition
 to being *terribly* "convenient" for Catholic males to think. Moreover,
 the Second Vatican Council wrote, in "CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD":

  "But forms of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal
 rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions,
 language or religion, must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible
 with God's design. It is regrettable that these basic personal
 rights are not yet respected everywhere, as is the case with women
 who are denied the chance freely to choose a husband, or a state of
 life, or have access to the same educational and cultural benefits
 as are available to men."
                       (Church in the Modern World, 29)

  Others have argued to me that this section may not apply to
 the specific issue of women priests; I'm in the midst of debating
 that now. But I *do* wish to stress that your proposed idea
 of "God wills that man dominate woman" DIRECTLY contradicts
 this passage. In addition, you'll find that virtually NO
 bishops, priests, or other Catholic authorities would agree with
 your hypothesis that "male domination serves God's interests".
 You are more or less alone in that view (that is, if you truly
 believe it; my apologies if you meant it in an ironic way).


  I hope this clarifies my position, a bit.

----
   Take care!

   Sincerely,     Brian Coughlin
                  oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu

oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (06/04/91)

Re: Marty Helgesen


In article <Jun.2.01.14.03.1991.16190@athos.rutgers.edu>
 MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet writes, in response to my article:

>Brian,  You say Blacks were not allowed into the Catholic priesthood until
>the last two or three centuries.  That is contrary to fact.

  Hi, Marty!

    Your reply isn't the only response that I've gotten to this
 effect; a short while ago, I admitted that my mistake was in
 error... I shall do so again, to make matters clear.
    I was *indeed* incorrect in stating that blacks were not
 allowed as Catholic priests until the last 3 centuries (though,
 by the way, I *am* less than convinced about Augustine, who
 has been portrayed as white in every representation that I've
 ever seen, and about the others; a North African origin does
 not necessarily imply black skin--nevertheless, your point is
 well made). However, I must insist that my statement was not
 terribly far removed from fact. Black priests seem to be a trend
 that died out before the middle ages, and *stayed* "dead" until
 the last 3 centuries or so. This leaves an immense block of time
 to account for.
    My point, originally directed at the assertion that "God simply
 isn't calling women to the priesthood", is that one could easily
 make the same claim about blacks; 500 years ago, one could easily
 have said, "Oh, well... it seems that God has *stopped* calling
 blacks to the priesthood for some mysterious, divine reason!"
 I doubt that such a statement would gain much credence today...
 which is all the more reason that I find the parallel assertion
 about women priests distressing.

>You say further that God sent the Messiah to Earth in a male-dominated
>area and in a male-dominated culture.  God chose the Jews.  If He had
>wanted to choose a matriarchal society for the birth of the Messiah, He
>could have done so.  He probably would have had to create such a society,
>because so far as I know there is little if any solid evidence that there
>has ever been a truly matriarchal society, but He could have done that if
>He had wanted to.

   I must caution you, sir, against such statements as "God could
 have done [X] had He wanted to." One could also say that God could
 have created a world that was as challenging and fulfilling to
 humans as THIS one is... but WITHOUT the tragic deaths of innocent
 people (due to storms, floods, earthquakes, et cet.). In addition to
 our failure to comprehend omnipotence (i.e. Can God create a married
 bachelor?), one is under no obligation to think that God WANTS to
 do everything that He's *capable* of doing.
   As a Catholic (I assume... forgive me if I'm mistaken!), you
 know that the Church respects the view that humanity did indeed
 evolve from lower forms of life (there are several good books and
 articles by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on that subject). Likewise,
 the Church respects the view that humans developed socially,
 psychologically, and spiritually over a long period of time; thus,
 the Church also respects the idea that humanity was, 2000 years ago,
 significantly less socially mature (relatively speaking) than people
 of today are (and that God, for whatever reason, did NOT interfere
 with this process in any abrupt way). Given this, it becomes easier
 to accept the idea of God's "choosing" the gender of the Messiah
 to fit society, rather than radically altering society to fit a
 prearranged gender of the Messiah.
   Another explanation, though not one I enjoy, is the idea that
 the gender of the Messiah was completely random... that there was
 a probability (p) of the Messiah being male, and probability (1-p)
 of the Messiah being female.

>More to the point, the Church very quickly expanded beyond her Jewish
>base to encompass many Gentiles.  Priestesses were not at all uncommon in
>pagan religions of the area.  If Christians, who had ceased to observe large
>parts of the Jewish ritual law, had ordained priestesses, the pagan converts
>would have seen nothing unusual about it.

   I fear that this is an overgeneralization. The mere fact that
 pagan priestesses existed (and I'm skeptical of the claim that they
 were "not at all uncommon"; does this mean that they were common?)
 in some pagan sects says *nothing* of the Gentile "community" as a
 collective whole. For instance, the Romans (a significant addition,
 as of 324 A.D., with the confirmed conversion of Constantine) were
 certainly not ones to allow priestesses in the formal capacity that
 Catholic priests act in today (i.e. as social spiritual leaders of
 worship, counsel, et cet.). Likewise with the Greeks (the area
 which was the focus of most of Paul's letters, by the way), the
 Phoenicans, the Babylonians, the Syrians, the Goths, the
 Egyptians, and many more. Actually, the only nations that I've heard
 of that clearly used priestesses were Egypt, Carthage, and
 perhaps Ethiopia. So in that sense, the "pagan converts" that WERE
 in the early Church were not the ones that you speak of; even among
 these, the attitude was predominantly patriarchal.
   In response to your other comments, early Christians did NOT, in
 general, forsake a great deal of Jewish ritual law... and
 certainly did not forsake the deeper traditions of Judaism
 such as Patriarchy, celebration of Passoverm and so on. Only
 the "picayune" social rules of etiquette were forsaken, along
 with discrepancies that were not official Mosaic law to begin
 with (such as the practice of calling one's contribution to one's
 parents KORBAN (dedicated to God), thus "releasing" one from the
 obligation of supporting one's parents).

>Incidentally, you ask, "Is the Trent-ian teaching of 'God is indeed provable
>from natural science' infallible?"  Where did the Council of Trent teach
>that? [...] Perhaps you are thinking of the First
>Vatican Council's definition that the existence of God can be known by unaided
>human reason (NOT by natural science).

  Yes and no. Yes, I did indeed mean to say "Vatican I". No, the
 first Vatican Council did indeed insist that God was knowable
 THROUGH NATURE. More specifically, (not a direct quote) "Man's
 reason can establish the certain truth of monotheism by proving
 it from nature." (in refutation of Immanuel Kant, Louis Bautain,
 and Louis de Bonald)

  My apologies for the goof-ups and misunderstandings.

----
   Take care!

   Sincerely,     Brian Coughlin
                  oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu

tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) (06/04/91)

B Distribution: Organization: Pegasus, Honolulu Keywords: The essence
of this article seems to suggest that because the O.T. was written
from a masculine point of view that man created God in his own image.
What is rather more the case is that the revelation of God thru man at
that time was written down in the argot of the era, i.e. a male
dominated society.  So the written scripture comes to us in a
masculine tone.  Had it been written in Greece a century earlier, the
tone might well have been feminine, and we would now be dealing with
God the Mother and trying with our inclusive language to remove
references to women from the liturgy.
	God is neither male nor female, and is both male and female
simultaneously.  That is how male and female were created in the image
of God.

oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (06/04/91)

Re: David H. Wagner


In article <Jun.2.02.12.58.1991.16737@athos.rutgers.edu>,
 math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes, in response
 to my article:

>>     One of the main topic of debate is, in fact, whether the
>> Scripture quotations in question (i.e. the ones you cite about
>> woman submission to man) is proper to the 1st century or not.

>One reason for believing that Paul's instructions. regarding the submission
>of women in marriage and in the church, apply to us today, is that he bases
>his reasoning on the circumstances of the creation and fall.  In only one
>case that I know of, 1 Cor 11, he uses 'the order of creation' to uphold
>a local custom, the covering of women's heads.

  Hi, David!

    I begin to understand why we're running 'round and 'round with
 this topic; you are more literal in your interpretation of Scripture
 than I am. Please understand: as a Catholic (and in my own private
 view), I do not take the Creation account of Genesis literally. I
 *can't* take it literally, as there are too many glaring contradictions
 present in that Book. In that manner, I do not necessarily believe
 that the manifestation of original sin was brought about by the
 literal plucking of an apple off of a tree, nor do I put credence
 in the idea that since woman "was the first to fall", she ought to
 be subservient to man (nor does the Vatican put credence in the
 idea of woman submission).

>The slavery issue is a bit of a straw man.  No, I don't advocate or like
>slavery.   It is not clear to me, however, that if we had slavery, that
>it would be more God-pleasing for me to expend my energies trying to
>abolish it rather than spreading the gospel.

  ?!?  Forgive me, but I've rarely read anything more startling on
 the .net!!

  If one is to follow Jesus, one must IMPLEMENT the Gospel in one's
 life, IN ADDITION TO spreading that Gospel. This is made abundantly
 clear in almost *every* book of the Christian New Testament:

  "'You Pharisees! You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but
  within you are filled with rapaciousness and evil. Fools! Did
  not he who made the outside make the inside, too? [...] Woe to
  you Pharisees! You pay tithes on mint and rue and all the garden
  plants, while neglecting justice and the love of God. These are
  the things you should practice, without omitting the others.'"

                                               (Luke 11:39-42)

  "My brothers, what good is it to profess faith without practicing
  it? Such faith has no power to save one, has it? [...] Do you
  want proof, you ignoramus, that without works faith is idle? [...]
  Be assured, then, that faith without works is as dead as a body
  without breath."

                                               (James 2:14-26)

  "If I speak with human tongues and angelic as well, but do not
  have love, I am a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal. If I have the
  gift of prophesy and, with full knowledge, comprehend all
  mysteries, if I have faith enough to move mountains, but have
  not love, I am nothing."

                                               (1 Corinthians 13:1-2)

> Given a vote for or against
>slavery, I would certainly vote against it (I hope!)
>But Paul's choice in this matter is clear.  He preached the gospel, and I 
>think one of the beneficial side effects is that we don't practice slavery 
>any more.

  It is doubtful that the removal of slavery was due to any actions of
 Paul... especially since Paul *didn't* condemn slavery outright (but
 instead gave guidelines for slaves, implying to readers that he did not
 disapprove of the practice enough to wish it abolished). Rather,
 the writings of Paul may have *discouraged* the abolition of slavery,
 as, doubtlessly, ignorant people quoted Paul in their defense of
 slavery (when asked to reconcile slavery with Christianity).

>Paul's (and Peter's) instruction that slaves should submit to their masters,
>however still has application to us today.  Christians should submit to their 
>employers.  Being a good employee is a form of Christian witness, much as
>a good and faithful slave was a good witness for Christ in Paul's day.

  Pardon, but this is a mighty leap from a small idea. There is a
 tremendous difference between slaves and employees that you are
 downplaying, here... namely, that the slaves do not have the OPTION
 to refuse service with impunity; employees, while risking loss of
 pay, have every opportunity to pick up and leave when they wish.
 To say that both slave and employee can be good followers of Christ
 is utterly beside the point. Mugging victims can also be good witnesses
 to Christ by enduring their pain with forgiveness and faith, but this
 in no way lessens the tragedy of being a mugging victim. Likewise
 with being a slave; the fact that one can persevere in such straits
 does not make slavery any less abhorrent.

----
   Take care!

   Sincerely,     Brian Coughlin
                  oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu

bralick@fimbrethil.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (06/05/91)

In article <Jun.3.02.03.05.1991.3081@athos.rutgers.edu> oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:
| Re: Will Bralick
| 
| In article <May.30.00.17.10.1991.15205@athos.rutgers.edu>,
|  bralick@fangorn.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes,
|  in response to my response to Joe Buehler:

Mr. Coughlin's caveats accepted and understood, but deleted to conserve 
bandwidth...

| >... So even if 
| >it is a human (rather than divine) tradition, the Church would have to
| >be willing to endure another major schism as well as putting off any 
| >hope of reunifying with the Eastern Orthodox churches for a long time to 
| >come.
| 
|   That, sir, is a key point.

It is important, but not key.

|  In my private searching for rationales
|  of the "male clergy" practice, the ONLY rationale that I could
|  discover is the idea of the Church being unready for such a dramatic
|  change (i.e. such a change might WELL produce a schism of appalling
|  magnitude). But once again, the discussion that you responded to
|  was NOT one of actual practice; it was dealing with the raw
|  philosophical and moral implications of an all-male clergy.

I think that there is profound disagreement among theologians and 
between certain (pro-women's-ordination) theologians and most bishops
(some few bishops have called for women's ordination, e.g. I think that
the bishop of Albany supports it) not about whether women _should_ be 
ordained, but whether they _can_ be ordained.  I am given to understand 
that the question is whether the sacrament would "take" if administered 
to a woman, not whether it is a good idea.

In short, the "philosophical and moral implications of an all-male clergy"
are not really important until the question of validity is resolved.  If 
the sacrament is invalid if administered to a woman, then the implications 
are irrelevant.  If the sacrament is valid, then the implications _are_ 
relevant.

| >>  ...
| >>    In that sense, the titles of "God the Father" and "God the Son"
| >>  could well have been dependent upon the opinions of men: the men
| >>  of 1st century Judea.
| 
| >This whole line of argument has always struck me as rather secularized,
| >viz. it smacks of the idea that man created God in his image rather than
| >the other way around.  The idea that God almighty would have to conform
| >Himself to the social structure of His creatures evidences a failure
| >of appreciation for the concept of omnipotence.
| 
|   I must strongly disagree. Rather, I believe that it is a
|  *misunderstanding* of the concept of omnipotence that drives
|  people to such conclusions. One example is the idea of "why
|  didn't God create us with the ability to resist all temptation
|  with ease? He had the power to do so!" Another is, "Why does God
|  allow tragedies such as earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, and disease
|  to kill millions of INNOCENT people?

Some would say that none of us are INNOCENT.  This also seems to 
suggest that death is the worst thing.  It isn't.  Whether one dies 
from any of the above natural disasters or disease or automobile 
accidents doesn't change the fact that we all, from the most holy 
to the most sinful, will eventually shuffle off this mortal coil.  
The truly important question then is, "what is the state of each 
person's soul at their death?"  The answer to this question might 
very well be dependent upon which way that person turns under the
pressure of different spiritual challenges:  unearned suffering,
unearned wealth, etc.

|  If He's all-powerful, can't
|  He think of a way of carrying out His plan without all this
|  innocent suffering?" (I remind you that the Catholic Church does
|  *indeed* believe that innocent suffering exists; it does NOT take
|  the fundamentalist position of, "Well, if they suffer, they deserve
|  it!")

But it isn't impossible that there may well be a purpose behind that 
"innocent suffering."  Even apparent arbitrariness can be purposive
when God engages in it.  I merely suggest that to look at a sacrament
that has never been administered to women in the 2000 year history of
the Church and attribute it to mere cultural bias ignores the equally 
valid point that arguing _for_ women's ordination may just as easily 
(if not moreso) be percieved as merely a cultural phenomenon of _our_ 
times.  It is a fallacy (at least) to think that just because something 
is more _modern_ then it is necessarily better.

|   To ask such questions is to misunderstand omnipotence , IMHO.

Which were different from what I suggested, anyway.

|  As Job was taught, it is not our right to ask why God does what
|  He does, and HOW God does what He does.

Of course, those who argue that the masculinity of the Messiah and the 
reason He chose only male apostles was due to the ambient culture are 
also doing precisely that.  They attempt to answer the question in such 
a fashion that it serves the conclusion that they wish to reach, viz. 
that things are different now; now we can be more _modern_ and _progressive_ 
and admit women to the priesthood.  I do not think that this question is 
closed, but I expect that the Church will spend the greater part of the 
next couple hundred years attempting to discern whether this is a sacred 
or human tradition.

|  Perhaps God simply doesn't
|  wish to violate His own natural laws, or perhaps He doesn't wish
|  to interfere with the natural progress of humanity.

So do you presume that the "natural progress of humanity" begins with 
"male domination?"  ;-)  Or do you suggest that "male domination" is
derivable from the "natural law?"  :-)

| >Perhaps a more appropriate view is that due to the nature of God and
| >the nature of created mankind, the Messiah would necessarily be a male 
| >and thus society would necessarily be male-dominated at the time and
| >place He was to arrive.  Succinctly, perhaps the male domination of the 
| >culture was intended to serve God's interest, not man's.
	   ~~~
|   This strikes me as a dangerously elitist way of thinking,

Why?  I don't see the purpose of such invective.  I am suggesting a 
possible alternative which, even though it seems to be   

|  ... *terribly* "convenient" for Catholic males to think.

doesn't make it wrong.  I admit that it is speculative, but it covers the
facts at least as well as the alternative.

|  Moreover,
|  the Second Vatican Council wrote, in "CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD":
| 
|   "But forms of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal
|  rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions,
|  language or religion, must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible
|  with God's design. It is regrettable that these basic personal
|  rights are not yet respected everywhere, as is the case with women
|  who are denied the chance freely to choose a husband, or a state of
|  life, or have access to the same educational and cultural benefits
|  as are available to men."
|                        (Church in the Modern World, 29)
| 
|   Others have argued to me that this section may not apply to
|  the specific issue of women priests; I'm in the midst of debating
|  that now.

Of _course_ it doesn't apply to women priests.  The Dogmatic Constitution
on the Faith repeatedly refers to the ordination of men to the diaconate,
priesthood, and bishoprics.  It doesn't use gender neutral terms at all.
In the case where the general discussion concerns "cultural benefits"
in a _pastoral_ document is contrasted with a specific discussion of the 
ordination of men in a _dogmatic_ document, I think that a reasonable
interpretation is that Gaudium et Spes was referring to nonecclessial
institutions.

Another point to consider, is that the above covers _rights_, and it
seems to me that women have just as much _right_ to be a priest as
men have, i.e. none at all.  It is primarily not a question of human 
rights, but of divine will and it is the job of the magisterium to
discern that.

|  But I *do* wish to stress that your proposed idea
|  of "God wills that man dominate woman" DIRECTLY contradicts
|  this passage.

I, of course, didn't say that.  First, I dislike the loaded word 
"dominate" in this context, because it serves the "feminist" argument 
by presupposing that the culture was "dominated" (rather than, say, 
"lead") by men -- I only used it because it had been used.  Because 
the word choice is significant, I will say "male-lead society" hence-
forth.  Second, if you read what I _did_ write, you will find that I 
used that past tense.  I suggested that it might have been the case 
that males lead the Jewish society and culture of the day because it 
served God's interest.  That is not to say that today's secular society 
and culture _should_ still be male-lead, although I am not willing, at
this time, to argue the converse either.

|  In addition, you'll find that virtually NO
|  bishops, priests, or other Catholic authorities would agree with
|  your hypothesis that "male domination serves God's interests".

Once again, by using the present tense you have mischaracterized my
_speculation_ (not _hypothesis_).  Are you intentionally misrepresenting
my statements?

|  You are more or less alone in that view

Yes, since _I_ didn't even say it, it must be a very lonely view to hold.


Regards,

--

bralick@cs.psu.edu                 with disclaimer;       use disclaimer; 

Not to seem aposiopetic, but

MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (06/15/91)

Hi, Brian,

I don't know, nor do I particularly care, how St. Augustine would be
classified by ethnographers.  However, when you said that the Catholic
Church never ordained black men as priests you should be prepared to
show that the North African Catholics, such as St. Augustine, were
not black.  Furthermore, I went beyond St. Augustine and pointed out
the the Church in North Africa went at least as far south as Ethiopia.

I also addressed the long period with no black priests.  After Islam
conquered North Africa and the Ethiopian Church fell into Monophysitism
there were, no black Catholics available to be ordained until missionaries
went to the new European colonies in sub-Saharan Africa many centuries
later.  The fact that there were never any American Indian priests until
after missionaries came to the New World does not mean that there was
a Church law that American Indians could not be ordained.  However, to
return to the point, the Church in Europe had women available to be ordained
if they could have been ordained.  Some women played very prominent roles
in the life of the Church, such as St. Catherine of Siena, but none were
ever considered for ordination.

Finding out how prevalent priestesses were in the pagan religions of the
regions where the Church spread out after it moved beyond Jerusalem will
require some research, which will require finding the time to do it.  (How
does one apply for inflationary increases in the number of hours per day?)
When I have time I will look into it.

Marty Helgesen

[One of our faculty members is convinced that NASA's primary motivation
in space exploration is the hope of finding a planet with a 25 hour
day.  --clh]

ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (06/15/91)

In article <Jun.2.02.20.21.1991.16926@athos.rutgers.edu>, emev02@castle.ed.ac.uk (H Oral) writes:
> 
> Hi everone;
> 
> I am not a christian, however as a muslim I should enjoin to the right.
> Therefore I support David that woman should be submissive to their
> husbands.
> 
> Islam brings the tauheed, "oneness" with it, where all human race regardless
> of their colour, tongue and land worship only ONE GOD.  All prophets come
> to preach this ONE RELIGION.  And our return will be to ONE GOD at the end.

I would like to point out here that Christians do worship ONE GOD as you
have captilized, and that ONE GOD consists of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost.   Therefore, Jesus is God.

I would also like to note that NOT all prophets came to preach "ONE GOD",
as many prophets are false prophets.

 If anyone would like to see that God always has chosen men as leaders,
> look at the Prophets of One God...  They are all men including Adam,
> Noah, Jesus, Muhammad (peace be upon them).

God has not always chosen men as leaders.  The Bible, unlike the Koran,
says that there were women prophetesses, including Anna and Deborah.
The Bible also says that through the gift of the Holy Spirit, "sons
and daughters shall prophecy."

The Bible also says that all leaders are in power because God has allowed
them to be in power.  So, take note of the Queen of Sheeba, Margarat
Thatcher, and Behnzier Butta (sp?).

Further, you failed to note that your version of Jesus is completely
different from Messiah Christ.

 
> [This posting raises some policy issues.

It certainly does.

Therefore, I have a few suggestions.  First, before accepting any 
posting from another religion, you should require that person to identify
his beliefs whith his religion, all in the same sentence.  For example,
instead of saying "There have never been any women prophets," the poster
should be required to say, "According to the Koran, there have never
been any women prophets."

Next, you should require the person to identify the Jesus that (s)he
is talking about.  For example, if the poster is Moslem, instead of
saying "Jesus", that person should have to write "Jesus according to
the Koran."  The Jesus in the Koran is certainly NOT the same person
as Messiah Christ, however, many people don't seem to realize this.

[I think this posting was pretty clear about where the author
was coming from.  --clh]

hetyei@athena.mit.edu (Gabor Hetyei) (06/17/91)

In article <Jun.15.01.53.47.1991.18364@athos.rutgers.edu>, MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet writes:
|> I don't know, nor do I particularly care, how St. Augustine would be
|> classified by ethnographers.  However, when you said that the Catholic
|> Church never ordained black men as priests you should be prepared to
|> show that the North African Catholics, such as St. Augustine, were
|> not black.  Furthermore, I went beyond St. Augustine and pointed out
|> the the Church in North Africa went at least as far south as Ethiopia.

 Unfortunately I did not read the original article, but as far as I
know, there is a fair amount of Black priests and bishops in the
Catholic church. Right now we have some 24 Black cardinals, and I
would not be surprised having a Black pope sooner or later.

				Gabor Hetyei