Thursday, June 30, 2011

MJBono on the Catholic case against women’s ordination
Answering the Patriarch of Lisbon, at whom I’m surprised as 99% of the time this comes from Catholic minorities living in Protestant countries such as the US (the idea’s obviously from outside the church). Most of the time in the church, the matter just never comes up.

Protestants can and do vote for substantial changes to their churches. We can’t, and don’t want to.
The Cardinal’s implication that we cannot ordain women priests merely because it is “Tradition” that we do not is still quite irresponsible and deceptive, since it does not address or make clear the nature of Tradition, which, in this case, is the Traditional form of the Sacrament of Ordination, and thus is Sacramental validity.
Sounds Protestant of the patriarch. Actually scripture is part of tradition.
For, just as we cannot baptize using sand (but must use water, as dictated by Traditional form), and just as we cannot confect the Eucharist using potato slices and Pepsi (but must use bread and wine, as dictated by Traditional form), and just as Christian marriage cannot be polygamous, or homosexual ... or inter-species! (but must involve only one man and one woman, as dictated by its Traditional form), so we are bound to only ordain men (potential fathers – patriarchs) to the Christian priesthood. To do otherwise would be a false, unApostolic physical sign of the Sacrament, and thus an invalid Sacrament. So, for the Cardinal to say there is “no theological obstacle” to ordaining women to the priesthood is simply untrue and ridiculous. There is a BIG theological obstacle to it – namely, the very foundation of Catholic Sacramental theology, which recognizes that correct physical form dictates Sacramental validity. ;-)

The bigger problem here, of course, is the liberal-modernist notion (adopted by all-too-many otherwise right-minded modern Christians) that there is no fundamental difference between men and women. This is a lie from the very pit of hell. For, while men and women are certainly created with equal human dignity, etc., they are not (as Traditionally understood) the same creation; and they most certainly do not perform the same function or have identical roles in human society. A British comedian by the name of Jim Jeffries (whose comedy is typically quite foul ... but insightful all the same) illustrated the principal quite well, when he said ...
Now, when a man sleeps with a lot of women, we say that he’s “a stud,” and society admires that. But, when a woman sleeps with a lot of men, we say that she’s “a slut”; and people think that’s unfair – a double-standard. But, it’s not unfair at all, and I’ll tell you why: Being a stud is bloody hard. To be a stud, you have to be charming, and witty, and handsome; have a lot of money, drive a really nice car and have a really amazing job. But, to be a slut, you just have to “be there.” And, don't get me wrong ... I love sluts. But, let’s be honest: I’ve know a lot of fat, ugly sluts. But I’ve never met a fat, ugly stud. :-)
Any secular person would admit that this is 100% true. So, if the intrinsic difference between men and women (and the roles they can and do play in our society) is obvious to seculars, it should be obvious to Christians as well. Women are not men who merely lack penises. Sexuality is part of our human makeup and human identity, and it has a Sacramental dimension in the Church of Christ. A woman cannot be a father or serve as the physical Sacramental sign of a patriarchal priesthood.

The bottom line here is that we need to stop apologizing for patriarchy or buying into the liberal belief that patriarchy is somehow “oppressive” or “unfair.”

Essentially, the Catholic “both-and” (as opposed to the Protestant “either-or”) mentality must apply here. For, on one hand, man and woman are the same creation (as per Genesis 1:26-27 ... both created in the image and likeness of God); but, on the other hand, they are different creations – that is, created for intrinscally different purposes (Genesis 2:6-7 and Genesis 2:18-24). As it says in Genesis 2:15, man was created to “tend and guard” the Garden (i.e., creation), so as to safeguard it from evil; and to this man (as head of the human family), the proto-commandment was given (Gen 2:16-17). However, as it says in Gen 2:18, the woman was created to be a “help mate” for the man – to assist the man in his God-given ministry, for “It is not good for the man to be alone.” And while the woman’s role is essentially that of a subordinate, it is also, paradoxically, greater than that of the man, since the man must essentially be at her service (just as he is with the rest of creation), since she is the final and greatest creation (God’s masterpiece), and he is to “tend and guard” her as well – protecting her from evil. Now, in the tragedy of the Eden narrative, Adam of course fails to do this. But, while Eve is the first human being to sin, it is Adam’s sin which alienates all of mankind from God, because he possessed the greater responsibility; and if Eve had sinned and Adam remained faithful, he could have (as a sinless human being) interceded for her, and have, himself, been the Messiah. But this was not to be.

Indeed, the most telling aspect of the Eden narrative (viz. the role of men and women) is the contrasting statements in Gen 2:17 vs. Gen 3:3. For, as I said, in Gen 2:17, which takes place before Eve is even created, God gives the command to Adam that he must not “eat” of the Tree of Knowledge, “lest you die.” Yet, in Gen 3:3, when Eve recounts the same commandment to the serpent, she says, “You must not eat of it, or even touch it, lest you die.” The distinction between these two expressions would be readily obvious to an ancient Jew, who would immediately recognize it as a legalistic “hedge” – a legally imposed barrier, just as, in the Torah, Leviticus is a “hedge” (courtesy of Moses) to prevent one from violating the Ten Commandments (the heart of the Law); and just as Deuteronomy is another “hedge” (courtesy of Moses) around Leviticus, to stop one from violating Leviticus, so that, in turn, one would not violate the Ten Commandments. What the author of Genesis expects us to conclude is that the additional stipulation not to “touch” the fruit of the Tree was imposed upon Eve by Adam, her authoritative head And he does this in order to faithfully carry out his God-given ministry of human headship. His only fault is that he does not follow through on his responsibility, but follows his wife into sin.

So, in short, men and women are equal in created dignity, but intrinsically different in created purpose. And one need not be a believer to discern this. Until the rise of modern Feminism (and the tyranny of political correctness that accompanied it) it was and is simply common sense.
Ties into the natural-law truths of Roissy (not a churchman at all but, a realistic observer of human nature, otherwise conservative: ‘typically quite foul ... but insightful all the same’): women like strong men and would have it no other way, modern(ist) public piety notwithstanding.

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment