This correction to my paper came from John Tonkin previously professor of history at UWA.

Hi, Peter,

I enjoyed your latest. But in characterizing certain attitudes as
"Protestant", you miss an important distinction between the Lutheran
and Reformed traditions. Mary has a large role in Luther's
understanding of salvation. She is seen as the archetypal faithful
Christian and he waxes lyrical about her, especially in his commentary
on the Magnificat.

Also, have you seen the ARCIC II documents on Mary?
>
>Cheers,
>
>John

relda,
Thanks for pointing out the ambiguities in my post. I guess it all depends on what one means by opposition. When I said I tried not to refer to Yin and Yang as opposing each other I meant to avoid situations where the one is understood as contradicting the other, i.e. where they are not compatible. You have used the term “binary opposition” which probably describes what I have in mind. I am sure Derrida’s critique of western thinking is valid to much extent, I have only difficulties with understanding what he is offering instead, and I am sure I am not the only one.

However, I agree that the distinction between the Western “coincidentia oppositorum” and the Eastern Yin-Yang balance or interplay is not that clear and I should have emphasized more that it is mainly my understanding of the terms involved that dictates my preferences for the latter. After all, Yin and Yang are often also referred to as opposites or poles, and in my remark on Niels Bohr I was carried away by his use of the term “contraria”.

Jung‘s anima-animus is nothing but (the projection into psychology of) Yin-Yang, although I do not know if he refers to that explicitly. Perhaps here (as in immigration) one should distinguish between “integration“ and “assimilation“, where the latter corresponds more to “coincidentia”. On the other hand, pairs like heaven-hell, good-bad, as traditionally understood, would rather fall into the category of “binary opposition“ or incompatibility.

When Cusanus says that opposites meet in God he means what one could describe also as the meeting of Yin and Yang (the preference for calling God our Father rather than Mother is cultural, and is a priori only to the extent that our Bible offers an a priori model of the Ultimate Reality) but not of features like good and bad that are incompatible by our very understanding of them. Statements about the Ultimate Reality that try to avoid conceptualisation are, or border on, mysticism. So on this level one indeed cannot distinguish between the coincidentia oppositorum and Yin-Yang approaches.

George

The idea of opposing forces is clearly an analogy from physics and while it suggests the required idea it is obviously has a particular bias that does not fully describe the idea of the yin and yang. The Jungian intuition-sensation dichotomy is closer to being a particular instance of a yin-yang pair rather than a general conceptualisation of the idea.

Clearly yin-yang includes the idea of pairs that operate together as tensive polarities in a specified domain of interest. So in the domain of human society one axis of tension which proves to be particularly creative has masculine and feminine as its poles. In the more specific domain of religious function (priestly role for example) the masculine-feminine axis of tension might or might not be informative depending on the theological and/or pastoral context.

I, along with some more liberal protestant traditions, assert that a mixed gender priesthood operates with a balance and wholeness that cannot be achieved in an exclusively male-gendered priesthood. As I understand you, you assert that a perfectly good balance is achieved having an exclusively male priesthood cooperating with female-gendered religious orders and female minor religious functionaries.

Conservative protestants argue that there is a Biblical dictate against the inclusion of women in the priesthood. Im not sure that you subscribe to this particular line of justification and yet you do seem to agree with its conclusions. One problem with Catholic Marianism is that Mary, though venerated above all other women, is still "less than" Jesus. The argument that Mary balances out the maleness of Christology has some force but the axis remains out of balance to some degree as Christ takes primacy over Mary. Protestanism, at least those protestant traditions which include women in the priesthood, are finding that including women in the priesthood certainly does produce a well-balanced proclamation of the Word.

Its getting late here so God Bless and I look forward to a continuing exchange of ideas

waterboy,
So, if I understand you properly, you agree that it depends on what one understands by "opposing", "opposite", whether or not one applies these terms to the Yin-Yang pair.

Also, I think our difference in preferences (I would not call it disagreement) in the question of female priesthood is probably due to different meanings attached to the term priesthood, and our different traditions. So within your definition "mixed gender priesthood operates with a balance" whereas the Catholic tradition understands on one hand the ordained priest as the "symbolic representative of Christ, the God incarnate" and on the other hand Mary (“venerated above all women“ AND MEN) as the very vehicle of this Incarnation, the symbol of uplifted humanity. As I stressed before, the Yin-Yang balance achieved through this veneration is on a purely psychological level (the need for both Father and Mother), not theological (obviously "Christ takes primacy over Mary" and the veneration of Mary takes primacy over respect for any particular priest). On this level it might play the same balanced role as for others the mixed gender priesthood. After all "including women in the priesthood" might not be the only way to "produce a well-balanced proclamation of the Word": For instance, the creator and head of EWTN, one of the most popular Catholic TV stations in the US, is a nun, and I have just recently been told by a young Catholic priest that one of their most respected professors of theology in the seminary was a female. For a Catholic, priesthood is more than just proclamation of the Word.

However, let me repeat, this is not my stuff, my preferences are grounded in my life-long liturgical and other experience, perhaps also emotions. I accept the rulings of the Catholic Church the same as I accept the Australian legal system, whatever their justifications are: if I were a theologian or a legal expert (which I am neither) I might be critical of this or that detail of the one or the other respectively, and suggest alternatives (which is not the same as preaching disobedience).

George

Reading your latest post I am struck by the fact that protestant doctrine is Jesus-centered and predominantly male gendered. Having said that, the Gospel portrayal of Jesus suggests a well-balanced individual rather than one who is strongly masculine. Given the protestant lack of balance at the doctrinal level the inclusion of both men and women in the priesthood seems to me a faithful 'representation' of the 'well-balanced' Christ and a solution of sorts to the obvious doctrinal imbalance.

Obviously, Im not as compliant as you with respect to acceptance of authority and I believe it is important to critique authority and challenge its assumptions. Some of the great injustices of history have been perpetrated under the auspices of church and secular government which suggests to me that there are times and circumstances where defiance is justified and even required.

I have known women who felt deeply hurt from being denied the opportunity to serve God in the way that they felt called and gifted.

Women are asking what it is about being female that renders them ineligible to 'represent Christ'. I know of nothing and I see women operating very effectively in that role. The exclusion of women from any role in our society simply on the basis of their gender seems to me to carry an implict diminution of their humanity which is totally unjustified. Secular governments have recognised this and legislated appropriately. When secular government leads the way on issues of justice while the Church resists it seems to me that the Gospel is being turned on its head and discredited.

One must surely ask if there is an issue of justice to be considered here which is of sufficient importance to justify a reassessment of tradition. Even our oldest and most revered traditions might have reached their use-by date.

waterboy,
>> I‘m not as compliant as you with respect to acceptance of authority <<
Well, unless you know a lot of physics and mathematics you have to “accept on authority“ what cosmologists tell us about the cosmos.

As for Jesus, for instance I did not read, and do not intend to, the recent book by the Pope (Jesus of Nazareth, Doubleday 2007), because I would probably not understand it, certainly not critically. The same about my acceptance of the reasons why the Catholic Church does not offer (yet?) an office of a priestess or bishopess, or why She interprets the Bible this or that way. I have my preferences, but they are just that, personal preferences which in this case happen to agree with the official position, whereas in other case (prohibitions in sexual morals, post-Vatican II liturgical reforms) they do only to a certain extent.

>> I have known women who felt deeply hurt from being denied the opportunity to serve God in the way that they felt called and gifted. <<
I do not understand: In this century and country they certainly can find a Christian church where they could find that opportunity. Whatever can be said of the Catholic church in the past, after Vatican II it respects as fellow Christians those whose conscience tells them to serve God in a way that is not available in the Catholic church. She welcomed with open arms Anglican priests who did not feel comfortable in their Church for reciprocal reasons, so it could work vice-versa.

Yes, as far as tolerance is concerned, She is a latecomer, nevertheless has learned to respect other Christians and their interpretation of the Bible, and perhaps can now expect the same from others.

For the third time: I do not feel at home with the topic of Christian priestesses, so please let us respect our different approaches to this question, and leave it at that.