|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Apr 20, 2005 10:18:08 GMT -5
Why is the chair of the Theology Department not a Jesuit? And here's a question I posed earlier--will the University ever select a Jesuit going forward to be dean at MSB, or Law, or the College? Are Jesuits no longer considered dean material at a "Top 25" school? To the former question -- department chairs rotate every 5 years or so, largely because most professors feel burnout from the position of dept. chair, which brings in a bunch of administrative responsibilities that constrict the capacity to focus on scholarship and/or teaching. I know that there are still plenty of Jesuits in the Theology department (Hentz, Fields, Walsh, Steck, King, McFadden, etc.), but I'm not sure how many have been, or aspire to, department chair responsibilities. To the latter -- I'm not sure exactly why there haven't been Jesuit Deans lately (though the last, Bob Lawton in the College, was not universally well-regarded). One thing that may be driving it is the number of G.U. Jesuits who are picked as presidents of other Jesuit colleges and universities -- Lawton, Garanzini, Pilarz, Wildes -- many with little administrative experience of their own. What this tells me is that there is a small pool of president-level Jesuits in the U.S., and that some who a couple of decades ago been "decanal material" have been expeditiously advanced, due in part to this personnel crisis.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 20, 2005 13:37:24 GMT -5
To suggest that the Church has done a poor job of promoting itself is not altogether fair. The Church is growing in Africa, China, and in the developing world, and is really one of only two faiths (the other being Islam) to be doing so. Mainline Protestant denominations are declining, while evangelical and Catholic populations grow because they stand for something, whether you agree with them or not. While this growth may or may not be seen in the Northeast, it certainly is in the West and Southwest. Contrast that with the Episcopal Church, which has been more accomodating with doctrinal changes, has seen its membership drop 36% in a generation. As to the earlier point on women and married priests, I do not recall any citation of women priests in past history. Some non-cloistered priests were married in early Christianity but the practice was phased out, in part, because the Church did not want to pay for entire families. FWIW, my parish has a married priest (who is a converted Episcopalian priest) and it works fine. I can see both sides of that issue. I don't see real growth in the US. There's a lot of Catholics that aren't really Catholic. Onto my larger point, the very early Church did have very liberal policies about married/female clergy, but a fight with a female-worshipping religion (think Tom Robbins) changed much of that. Something to that effect (or that nun in my Catholicism class was lying). My point was not to center on that. Much of Church doctrine was made by men who "floated with winds of the era." Rethinking them is NOT backing down from some unalterable truth. Easyed's assumption seemed to be that current thoughts and trends are not right and that everything in the past of the Church - War, Murder, Torture, Slavery, etc -- was some sort of Universal Truth.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 20, 2005 14:33:34 GMT -5
As for celibent priests there is a long standing tradition in the Catholic Church, yes...but it by no means spans back to the time of Jesus and nor is it devoid of contraversy.
It was at the Council of Nicea (where the Nicean Creed comes from) in 325 that it was decreed that priests could not marry after being ordained. No mention is made of the legitimacy of the marriages obtained prior to ordainment...
In 385, Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope, then turned around and decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives.
At the 2nd Council of Tours, in 567 it was decreed that any cleric found in bed with his wife would be excommunicated for a year and reduced to the lay state.
Benedict VIII as a block on the growing problem of inheritance and church property. The growing number of priests' children was creating an interesting legal dilemna so in 1022, ol' Benny VIII banned marriage and mistresses.
1045-Pope Boniface IX dispensed himself from celibacy and resigned in order to marry.
To head off the problem, in 1095 Pope Urban II took extreme measures and had priests' wives sold into slavery and children were abandoned.
Then, at the First Lateran Council of 1123...later confirmed by Innocent II in 1139, Calistus II voided all present marriages and declared the offspring illegitimate. A touchy move at the time, but it shored up the Church's concern with the rights to inheretence, etc.
I'm not making judgements here, and this is just some tidbits, but it always struck me as strange growing up a catholic and a history student that the policy is often drapped in the mantle of infallible tradition when the facts don't bear it out. It's been an issue of incredible debate throughout the entire history of the Church and to just say one side is the "traditional" answer is questionable. Though it's clear that neither seems to have any firm link to scripture.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 20, 2005 15:48:00 GMT -5
"Easyed's assumption seemed to be that current thoughts and trends are not right and that everything in the past of the Church - War, Murder, Torture, Slavery, etc -- was some sort of Universal Truth. "
SFHoya - don't put words in my mouth. I never implied that everything the Church did in the past was right for it obviously was not. In some cases it has been terribly wrong.
I think it's important to separate those things which are Scripture-based (e.g. "Thou Shalt Not Kill"; "This is My Body"; etc.) and those that are not Scripture-based (Married priests; women priests; etc.). These latter, in my opinion, are subject to change over time while the former are what I call dogma and not subject to change.
I happen to be very conservative in my Catholic views but still find trouble with some current Catholic teachings which seem to violate what's said in Scripture. For instance, Jesus told us to "turn the other cheek", so how can we engage in war no matter the reason? The just-war theory leaves me cold. For the same reason I support Pope John Paul II's statements that capital punishment cannot usually be supported.
The main thing I think we must always hold onto is the sanctity of human life. If I understand the science properly, when the male sperm fertilizes the female ovum a new being comes into existence and that new being immediately has a unique DNA and will retain that DNA until death. Science tells us this but I don't hear scientists shouting out that that initial being is a human. Where's the scientific honesty? Because of this, I believe that any killing of that new being as a result of in-vitro experimentation, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, most "contraception" methods (which are really abortion-inducers after fertilization), capital punishment, war, or any other taking of the life of this new being is in violation of "thou shalt not kill".
Call me a right-wing nut if you like but I'm consistent in protecting what I believe to be a gift of God and one we cannot choose to take away.
The life issues are the ones I hope Pope Benedict XVI will concentrate most of his attention on and hope he is very vocal in clearly stating the "whys" of the issues.
I'm prepared for the onslaught.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 21, 2005 8:19:59 GMT -5
I think it's important to separate those things which are Scripture-based (e.g. "Thou Shalt Not Kill"; "This is My Body"; etc.) and those that are not Scripture-based (Married priests; women priests; etc.). These latter, in my opinion, are subject to change over time while the former are what I call dogma and not subject to change. While I may not agree with your (or the Church's for that matter) opinions on the scripture-based issues, I have deep respect for you, in that you are able to draw distinctions between issues of traditional practice/policy and issues of scripture. Too many Catholics --and ultra-dogmatics in any faith--, lack this important perspective.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 21, 2005 10:57:09 GMT -5
"Easyed's assumption seemed to be that current thoughts and trends are not right and that everything in the past of the Church - War, Murder, Torture, Slavery, etc -- was some sort of Universal Truth. " SFHoya - don't put words in my mouth. I never implied that everything the Church did in the past was right for it obviously was not. In some cases it has been terribly wrong. I think it's important to separate those things which are Scripture-based (e.g. "Thou Shalt Not Kill"; "This is My Body"; etc.) and those that are not Scripture-based (Married priests; women priests; etc.). These latter, in my opinion, are subject to change over time while the former are what I call dogma and not subject to change. I happen to be very conservative in my Catholic views but still find trouble with some current Catholic teachings which seem to violate what's said in Scripture. For instance, Jesus told us to "turn the other cheek", so how can we engage in war no matter the reason? The just-war theory leaves me cold. For the same reason I support Pope John Paul II's statements that capital punishment cannot usually be supported. The main thing I think we must always hold onto is the sanctity of human life. If I understand the science properly, when the male sperm fertilizes the female ovum a new being comes into existence and that new being immediately has a unique DNA and will retain that DNA until death. Science tells us this but I don't hear scientists shouting out that that initial being is a human. Where's the scientific honesty? Because of this, I believe that any killing of that new being as a result of in-vitro experimentation, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, most "contraception" methods (which are really abortion-inducers after fertilization), capital punishment, war, or any other taking of the life of this new being is in violation of "thou shalt not kill". Call me a right-wing nut if you like but I'm consistent in protecting what I believe to be a gift of God and one we cannot choose to take away. The life issues are the ones I hope Pope Benedict XVI will concentrate most of his attention on and hope he is very vocal in clearly stating the "whys" of the issues. I'm prepared for the onslaught. Sorry for assuming, Ed. I do apologize. We probably agree on quite a few things, though I am far from right wing.
|
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Apr 21, 2005 11:04:40 GMT -5
You all should go check out the Back Room at the NDNation message boards.
Some of those discussions make easyed look like a radical progressive.
|
|
TigerHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,808
|
Post by TigerHoya on Apr 21, 2005 19:07:17 GMT -5
|
|