18 Jul '10 05:29>
Originally posted by vistesdI think that such an exclusion is pernicious discrimination (unjust, de facto unequal treatment). I also do not think that pernicious discrimination ought to be excused—or treated as somehow less pernicious—simply because it follows from cherished tradition (e.g., apostolic succession).
EDIT: complete re-write.
Understood (though I really hadn’t thought that through at the time of posting). I wanted to treat the broader issue of discriminatory exclusion of women from a forum that affects women’s life choices (not limited to the issue of ordination—e.g., birth control).
I think that such an exclusion is pernicious discrimination (unj ...[text shortened]... tute an argument as to why such discrimination is not pernicious or why it is not objectionable.
Well, I haven't been justifying any exclusion nor have I argued that it is justifiable on the grounds of cherished tradition. In this thread, I have been concerned with two points:
1. That sacerdotal ministry should be decoupled from the exercise of authority. Hence, laypeople should have a greater presence in Catholic universities as professors and deans, and in the Roman Curia, not just as advisors but as senior leaders. There is doctrinally no necessary reason to exclude women from the cardinalate.
I have been at pains to stress that the issue here is not one of gender discrimination but a much deeper structural problem of where power is located in the Church; it is a lay/clerical problem. Allowing women to be ordained would still mean that clerics retain this power and that others be excluded from the forum.
2. That discrimination in itself is not a sign of inequality. For this, I have been accused of justifying male chauvanism and of bigotry reminiscent of racial segregation. I don't think this is fair. The point is purely theoretical. I don't believe it is enough to show that one group is excluded. It may be that this same group is compensated by another entitlment or that what they are excluded from is actually bad. On this point, I do not believe I am being very radical. This is in fact a fairly conventional feminist critique.
Explaining the facts of the case, and how that particular form of discrimination came to be institutionally embedded, does not constitute an argument as to why such discrimination is not pernicious or why it is not objectionable.
That's quite true. I was not trying to justify discrimination by explaining its historical origins. I was replying to only a small comment of yours that the issue was not really about ordination at all. I dispute that only because of the way that authority is recognised, in Catholicism and in other churches claiming apostolic origin, ordination is the very centre of the issue.
I do not believe that ordaining women would solve the problem either. In the end, only a select group of women would be ordained, hardly representative of the spectrum of women in the Church. Probably these very women would not have children and so, as your argument goes, most women would still not be able to participate in the forum.