James says that trials of many kinds test what, producing perseverance?

Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Church of the Masses

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment

Last updated on: April 10, 2005 at 9:30 am by Barbara Nicolosi

2005-04-10T09:30:00-06:00 Barbara Nicolosi

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

A lapsed-Catholic friend of mine (a writer who sees himself as kind of a broadcast standards guy for St. Blogs), commented to me the other day that he thought John Paul II missed an opportunity “to drag the Catholic Church into the 21st Century.”

Barb: [repressing a groan and thinking, “We already have the Catholic Church married to the current age. It’s called mainline Protestantism,” but saying] “The 21st is just one more century. The Church doesn’t get dragged anywhere. She’s the polestar.”

I cite this here because I have little doubt that the MSM coverage of the Papal Enclave is going to shift out of respect and into this mode very soon. There will be many teachable moments to explain to people the teachings that are rooted in the nature of things, and so cannot change (birth-control), and those that are rooted in discipline/administration and may change (the process of canonization).

A good line I read recently from some theologian whose name I forget (someone let me know if you know who said it, and also to correct my paraphrasing): “If the Church weds herself to the currents of any age, she will become a widow in the future.”

P.S. And in the name of full-disclosure, I have always had trouble with placing the ordination of women in the category of “things proceeding from nature.” It seems to me that the case repeatedly cited against women priests is one that comes from convention/tradition not from theology/philosophy. (Once I heard a story from a theologian who had just come from a theologian’s breakfast with the Holy Father. This would have been back in the mid ’90’s. And the Pope said to the theologians, “Get me a theological argument against women’s ordination.”….Just so.) The argument gets heat from what seems to be prudential concerns. (That is, a lot of us in the Church have a dark vision of a pregnant priest at the elevation, and it feels frighteningly icky.)

Now, granted, as the Sacred Tradition people, I am aware that some things don’t need a theological reason to be unchangeable – like, for example, that we use bread and wine for Communion. But the question remains, did Jesus die for us as a male (vir), or as a man(homo)?….

In the end, I’m a good daughter of the Church, and I am not, in any sense, part of a movement for women’s ordination. (But I know that saying that will not stop some of you from gnashing heresy charges at me. Or trying to convince me by stating over-simplified arguments. I have pursued this with some rigor. It isn’t an easy comment-box answer…) What needs to happen is a definition of “maleness” as part of the matter of the sacrament of ordination. And this is a huge problem because it is un-sanctifying grace-ish to be gender exclusive.

So the point in this moment is, it isn’t clear that ordination exclusively for men does proceed from the nature of things, but we’ve been told over and over that it does. And we can try and tell the secular world over and over and they are goiong to keep hearing us as not being honest, because there is a difference in this issue. (ie. There is nothing about maleness that is connected theologically to the ability to offer sacrifice. The priest stands in persona Christi in Christ’s humanity. Otherwise, women need another mediator who would be fully man and fully woman?) This is hard ground to hold in the modern age, but it seems to me we have to stop pretending like there is some gnostic complex theological case against women’s ordination, and just shrug, and say it’s like using bread for Communion. Something we just do, that in fact defines us, without really having a reason.

Okay. Hit me….

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 9, 2005

Next Post

April 11, 2005

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 March 2012 October 2011 September 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 September 2010 August 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 November 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

James says that trials of many kinds test what, producing perseverance?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Your faith Your character Your love Your patience