Ecclesiam res et talia sermocinamur -

We talk about the Church, stuff, and such

Monday, March 06, 2006

A thing or two

I just have a quick note or two, and then I'm off to write a paper about 19th-century Europe.
  • Jimmy Akin has an interesting discussion up about the Annointing of the Sick, which he thinks should be extended to infants. I am inclined to disagree, as is, I believe, Dr. Peters.
  • The Jester just announced the release of this product, but I think someone got into his warehouse, because I've seen the stuff everywhere . . .
  • American Papist advertises our t-shirts. Go see, and then go buy some.
  • If you're interested, the OWU John Cardinal Newman Community has its new and improved website up, courtesy of yours truly. Unlike this blog, it looks better in Firefox (and I apologize for the geocities ads, I couldn't find a good free host that worked and didn't have ads and/or an update quota).
  • This isn't a link, but something from real life, actually (yes, I have one, sort of...) The Newman discussion today revolved around women in the Church, and why they aren't, and cannot be, priests. We didn't have much trouble at all with foaming feminists, but the question was raised as to why it is that women are not suited to the priestly ministry and men are. Obviously the answer could fill many books, but in short it dealt with the priestly function of saying the Mass, and of being in persona Christi there. I think a lot of people tend to view this issue as one of either favoring or not favoring women: I must hate women because I think they shouldn't do the same things as men. If I may be permitted to be rather Chestertonian, I think exactly the opposite is true. I don't dislike women at all -- I love women, I think they're self-evidently one of God's better ideas, and a wonderous gift to the univers and to mankind. Sure, they've goofed a thing or two up (that whole garden thing didn't go too well), but when you look at the whole picture, and weigh the Blessed Virgin against Eve, it's easy to see that we're rather fortunate to have women. As Chesterton said, the chore of keeping to one woman is a very small price to pay indeed for the privilege of so much as seeing one woman. Why then, would I want women to be like men? Why should I want to give such grave insult to women as to demand that they be like me? Heavens knows that the world has enough men, and has suffered enough stupidity at the hands of men, so that the last thing it needs is for women to start acting like men too. No, the reason I want women to be what they are, and not to be priests (or fathers, or kings, see below), is because I am fond of women as they are, and am not so unsatisfied with God's craftmanship as to want them to be something else.

File Under: , ,

3 Comments:

Blogger Jason said...

Women shouldn't be kings? I didn't take that away from your previous post on women- why shouldn't they rule? Unless I'm misinterpretting you (which is possible), as I would have to vehemently disagree...

5:25 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

Women shouldn't be kings because kings are by definition men. Women should be queens, which is related, but different.

8:01 PM  
Blogger Jason said...

Well, yes, of course they are by definition men. Do you mean, then, that they shouldn't function in the same roles as men should with regard to being the sovereign of a state?

8:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home