Anonymous
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
I have two separate concerns and I would greatly
appreciate all of your feedback.
My primary concern today is that my brother
and his wife, two Catholics, are adopting
and want her sister (also a Catholic) and
me (never confirmed) to be godparents for their child's Baptism.
I am quite versed in Catholic teachings (more
so than about half the Catholics that I know) and have no problem assisting their child
in their growth, spiritually, and otherwise.
Although I was baptized and received the Eucharist,
I had chosen not to become confirmed for a
variety of strictly personal reasons.
I don't think I can be an official godfather,
but I've heard somewhere that I may be able
to act as a Christian witness at the Baptism
with a sponsor.
- Could her sister or one of our parents
count as the sponsor, or would I be able
to participate at all?
My other concern is related to Scripture.
In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, verses 14:34-35, it states that women must
be silent in church, etc. Given that women
are allowed various roles within the Catholic
Mass, such as giving readings, announcements,
etc.:
- How does the Church interpret this passage
without going against the Bible?
I understand that interpreting this passage
to mean all women must be completely silent,
is too simplistic, but I lack knowledge of
the context in which it is meant to be applied.
If you could shed some light on this, I would
definitely have a greater appreciation of
the Bible, or at least how the Church understands
this passage.
Thank you in advance for your advice!
Anonymous
|
| {
Can an unconfirmed Catholic be a sponsor and how do you correctly interpret 1 Corinthians 14:34? }
|
|
Mary Ann replied:
|
Anonymous —
- As to your first concern, what do
you have against the Holy Spirit?
It's either that, or you have decided
not to be Catholic, in which case
you shouldn't even be a Christian
witness to a Catholic Baptism, as
you have specifically rejected Catholicism,
as opposed to merely not being led
in conscience to embrace it, as is
the case with a Protestant.
Mary Ann
|
John replied:
|
Dear Anonymous —
Regarding the text in 1 Corinthians:
The quick answer is that Paul
was dealing with a Church that was
completely out of order in its worship.
- The Charismatic gifts were being
abused
- the poor were being treated
like second class Christians
- one of their Church leaders was
in an incestuous relationship,
and
- there was general chaos.
While the text doesn't tell us what
certain women were doing at the service,
we can assume from what little the
text tells us, that who ever they
were, they were out of order and
disrupting the Liturgy.
Throughout this epistle, Paul
plays the role of Kindergarten Cop.
He is trying to restore order. He's
not making doctrinal statements so
much as he is making pastoral statements.
He's almost breaking up a fight.
He's the guy pulling people apart
and telling each of them to shut
up,
sit down, and take a breath. So Paul's
statement needs to be understood
in that context.
In addition, there were certain cultural
customs of the day as it related
to the public role of women and men.
Paul was not a social revolutionary.
He makes it clear in Ephesians that
there is no Greek, no Jew, no male,
no female, no slave, no master, in
Christ Jesus, rather, we are one
and equal in dignity. (Galatians 3:28) Paul is not
interested in promoted a social agenda
that overturns the institutions of
each society. He is looking to save
souls. So if women spoke in public,
caused scandal, he was against it.
The same is true with eating certain meats.
He personally said, they were free
to eat what ever they wanted, but
he also said, if eating a certain
meat that had been sacrificed to
idols would cause a brother to stumble,
they should show restraint for
the weaker brother's faith.
That said, all these statements need to be
understood in their cultural context.
John
|
|
|
