This is a fairly well reasoned statement on behalf of those who advocate
women's ordination and certianly well worth considering.  This issue would
be a further source of irritation in a liturgical context for reasons which
I stated earlier, and seems to at least partially prove my point on the
impact of liturgical renewal within Catholicism and the proclivity to
dissent (a proclivity more forcefully opposed now that it is part of Canon
Law).  Also, I certianly see how women who seek ordination and their
supporters would bristle when participating in a liturgy presided over by
men (in at least one recent women's conference, Mass was never celebrated
for this very reason - an interesting situation in a Church which sees
Eucharist as the center of its life).

If I may, I would like to ask a few questions:

>Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 06:12:46 -0400
>Original-Sender: "C. Bruce Low" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: re. invitation
>From: "C. Bruce Low" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave liturgy' to [log in to unmask]
>Reply-To: "C. Bruce Low" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>
>Re. canon1024, I haven't seen the new list yet, but as a RC, I welcome it.
>It's good to know that public discussion is still going on about this
>somewhere. Over the last few years, the silence imposed on us over this
>subject has been hard to bear (to put it mildly) and has been one of the
>factors which has served to further undermine respect for the teaching
>authority in many parts of the world. 

How does enforcing traditional Catholic teachings undermine respect for the
teaching authority?  Of course, you do include the caveat "many parts of
the world" which fits my impression that respect is primarily undermined in
the West, i.e. Europe and North America.  At the same time, I see an
increasing number of websites with large visitor numbers supportive of
Magisterial Authority, and several of the youth movements in Catholicism
are also more conservative in this regard.  I have also observed that
liturgical practices seem to be shifting to the more traditional, except in
the larger cities and diocese.  Of course, this may be the result of Rome's
installation of more conservative bishops, but Mother Angelica's wildly
popular EWTN seems to have an impressive grass-roots following (even
against a Cardinal it seems).  This could also be seen as a manifestation
of the Vox Populi of which you speak below, although from an opposite end
of the spectrum.

>Discussion still goes on of course,
>but in private. RCs who depend on the church for their livelihood are
>understandably unwilling to take the risk of speaking or writing about
>women's ordination in public. 

Does this not minimize and demean the deeply held convictions of millions
of Catholics, perhaps even the majority, who would oppose women's
ordination (unless it was imposed by the Authority).  This creates an
interesting situation of which I have earlier spoken - democratization of
the Catholic Church.  Even in the face of collegial collaboration before
VatII (which implies that the council did not really change that much in
this area) it was still the bishops with whom final authority rested, and
lay theologians, et al. did not have much participation in this area.
Liturgical changes and understanding after the Council (reflected in
Sacrosanctum Concillium and Environment and Art in Catholic Worship,et al)
does emphasise the role of laity which you note below.  It is my contention
that the liturgical renewal spawned a more active laity less willing to
accept "Rome said so" as proper use of authority.  

It is also interesting that the arguement is made that the Authority
oversteps its bounds when imposing silence against the convictions of "the
people".  What if the majority of Catholics oppose women's ordination and
the Authority "imposed" such on them?  This was also the case with the
transition from Latin to vernacular liturgy.  True, once most Catholics
became accustomed to vernacular, there was little interest in returning to
the older forms, but even today there are many who see the transition as
"imposed" and of questionable propriety.

>It's perhaps a measure of the frustration and
>anger generated by this imposed silence that the new list is the volatile
>place it is. 
>

That is certianly true!


>I'm dismayed to see so many non-RCs lining up respectfully behind the  
>pronouncements of the teaching authority in Rome, as if it alone was the
>(RC) church. 

I doubt that the issue is "who is the Church" but rather "who
teaches/speaks authoritatively for the Church".  While certianly there are
always problems with authority, there are also problems with democracy,
esp. when the idea of revealed religion is involved.  And, this style of
authority is an essential aspect of Catholic (and Orthodox)
self-understanding which arguably finds its roots in the NT (possibly even
OT and Dead Sea Scrolls).  It is my impression, furthermore, that many non
Catholics who line up behind Rome do so because they see Rome as defensive
of the moral and theological values they share (Scott Hahn, et. al for
instance) and others do so out of a sort of ecumenical respect (they
wouldn't want Rome preaching to them, so they don't preach to Rome).

>Even pre-Vat2, the bishop of Rome was supposed to consult with
>the other bishops before making such definitive pronouncements. So it's not
>just supporters of women's ordination who unhappy with the authoritarian
>style of the present administration. Since Vat2, there's also the
>acknowledgement that the church is the whole the people of God and that lay
>people can also be guided by the Holy Spirit and have a sense of what is
>right. It's odd to find people who acknowledge this in their own churches,
>apparently taking the opposite view  or at least, standing back from the
>discussion.
>
>Somebody mentioned the futility  of pursuing an argument which has been
>officially declared closed, but such arguments have been overturned in the
>past, sometimes quite quickly, as in the case of the vernacular liturgy.

Ah, but the use of Latin in the Roman Rite was never considered central to
doctrine or the essential nature and function of Liturgy.  And it was not
universally normative either (although vernacular was rare in the extreme
and generally prohibited).  There is little (reliable) historical evidence
to support this issue, and certainly little liturgical evidence that the
Church ever ordained women, or that they presided at liturgies (even when
those liturgies were held in the homes of wealthy female Christians).
Some, if not all, of the evidence on this point seems to simply be wishful
thinking.  Of course, I am always interested in any liturgical
references/evidence which may be informative, provided adequate research
and intelligent discussion are possible.

>The arguments for women's ordination have not gone way, nor have they ever
>been convincingly answered in the RC church, either from tradition or from
>scripture. 

This is a good point.  At the same time, for some, even if there was a
passage in every piece of the NT with Jesus saying "don't ordain women"
that would also not be convincing.  

Still, while it does seem to me that much of the support for women's
ordination in tradition and scripture is based on shaky or faulty research,
I would also suggest that there may be another approach.  For some feminist
Catholics, the issue of ordaining women has been abandoned precisely
because the Church's understanding of priesthood is considered essentially
flawed.  Indeed, the arguement is that the Church ought have no heirarchy,
but rather each congregation should select its liturgical presider as they
see fit.  While this may seem a radical approach, it has certianly been
used with some success within non-Catholic communions.  This would,
however, necessitate a radical and fundamental revision of everything that
the Catholic Church believes (and the Othodox as well) which, of course, is
the end result of Protestantism.  Which raises another interesting
question:  Why remain part of a religion in whose teachings one does not
believe?  I reached this point once in my spiritual journey, and simply
made the decision to pursue Truth elsewhere.

Thus, to reiterate what I have previously stated:  For Catholicism to allow
the ordination of women would necessitate such a fundamental and radical
alteration in its theology and self-understanding that it would negate its
own self-image as the guarentor of the fullness of revealed Truth
(somewhere in Vatican II - Guadium et Spes, I think).  Thus, to preserve
the integrity of the Catholic Church's theological self-definition,
altering Canon 1024 is simply not an option.   

I am also curious as to why there are not similar endeavors within/against
Eastern Rite Catholics (we keep saying RC, which is not the entire Catholic
world under Rome's jurisdiction) or the Orthodox.  The Eastern Churches are
significantly more restrictive of the liturgical role of women than the
Roman Rite.

curiouser and curiouser.

George, (yet again kicking against the goad)




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%