dhosek@euler.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) (05/28/91)
In article <May.26.23.12.22.1991.24580@athos.rutgers.edu>, oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes: > 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. Actually, the issue of non-caucasian priests is one with a convoluted history. There have been black priests at many times in the history of the church. Until the Islamic conquest of North Africa, there were many black churchmen coming out of that area (remember that the racial mix in that region has changed frequently over the centuries). There was an official edict among the Jesuits against non-European members from the sixteenth century until after the supression. This grew out of a political maneuver to try to wrest political control from the Spanish Jesuits, many of whom were converts from Judaism. This rule unfortunately led to many talented young men being rejected from the society in the colonial missions in America and the far East. -dh Don Hosek dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu Quixote Digital Typography 714-625-0147