POINT:
It was with regret that I read President Jimmy Carter’s “know nothing” condemnation of the Catholic church, and by implication, the Eastern Orthodox churches throughout the world for the church’s lack of authority to ordain women as priests. Unlike his own Baptist denomination and most other Protestant churches, the doctrine concerning ordination in the Catholic church and the Orthodox churches is completely different and not subject to change for secular political purposes.
In the Catholic church, especially during Mass, the Catholic priest is a sacramental image of Jesus Christ who is a man and the bridegroom of the church. The church herself, composed of souls, is always feminine (soul in Latin, “anima” is a feminine noun for both men and women) and she is the bride of Christ, who with her bridegroom begets spiritual children through water and the Holy Spirit.
Though our secular political culture is very confused about gender differentiation, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s recent decision on marriage, the churches of the East and West are not. It is unfortunate that President Carter brings his “know nothing” politics and religion to bash the Catholic church, completely unaware of our dogmas and doctrines that will never change to accommodate the secularist agenda. Not even the pope can change this dogma for his authority is limited by God. And certainly President Carter can’t change it either.
COUNTERPOINT:
“I would not characterize President Jimmy Carter’s recent remarks regarding the Catholic Church’s practice of not ordaining women as an attempt to bash our Church or as being related to the virulently anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant Know Nothing movement of the middle 1800’s. (“No Change,” Letters to the Editor, July 7) Reasonable people, including Mr. Carter, can and do disagree with our Church regarding many of our doctrines and policies, but not every criticism or expression of disagreement should be seen as an attack, or as a tactic for advancing some amorphous “secularist agenda.”
When reading the metaphors used in Sacred Scripture to describe the Church, one can fall victim to the fallacy of “reification” or misplaced concreteness, mistaking the symbolic metaphor for a concrete reality. In Scripture the Church is described as or styled to be the female “bride” and Jesus Christ the male “bridegroom.” The bride/bridegroom metaphor describes the intimate nature of the relationship of Jesus to His church, it speaks to the fidelity of God towards His people, and it challenges us (the “bride”) to be faithful as well. This metaphor does not describe the gender of the Church since, of course, the Church itself has no gender. Taking another example, it would not be correct to say that the metaphor that Jesus used to describe himself, “I am the vine, you are the branches…” (John 15:5), should be understood to mean that Jesus actually is “a climbing or trailing woody-stemmed plant.”
12 comments:
Carter's Mama dropped him on his head when he was a baby...
While the bride/bridegroom metaphor is not to be taken literally, that does not mean that it lacks any relationship to reality. The metaphor is used to teach an underlying reality . . . and uses symbols that make that point.
The maleness/femaleness of the relationship is not irrelevant to the underlying reality that is being taught . . . in fact its inherent truth is the very basis for using the specific metaphor in the first place.
Blessed John Paul II vs. Jimmy Carter? No brainer http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
Why does anyone take this man seriously?
Helping the needy, which Mr. Carter certainly does, can have the same effect as versus populum Mass. Those who regularly serve the needy face the danger of feeding heavily on the gratitude of those served and on the praise of assistants. The Mass must be offered, and the needy must be served, but without increasing the arrogance that leads us to think we are gods, entitled to tell God how he should run his Church.
"Helping the needy, which Mr. Carter certainly does, can have the same effect as versus populum Mass."
In these internet days when everyone's heard almost everything, such a fresh new perspective is rare indeed.
Thanks, Henry! I notice that tomorrow is the feast of St. Henry II on the PVI calendar. Perhaps it is a patronal feastday for you?
Didn't his daughter become Catholic? Or, am I thinking of Ronald Reagan's family? Maybe it was the Andrew Jackson's. I know there was a conversion connected to a president.
It was LBJ'S daughter, she got married at the National Shrine.
The best way to tell if you have helped the poor is if they are better off and don't thank you for it.
Apropos of nothing in particular, when I visit this blog I am treated to a photograph of an entrance procession with the caption "Extraordinary!". It certainly is. Preceding the celebrant is what appears to be a lay reader in an alb (no diaconal stole). He is holding the Lectionary so far above his head I can only assume he is in training for something. The crucifer, who should be between the two acolytes, is in front of them. Then there is a strange figure in cassock and cotta striding on ahead and swinging its arms. It's hard to tell, but from the ankles it would appear to be female (shock, horror). What is going on here?
I do wish we could get it right. It really should not be that difficult...
Post a Comment