One of the titles given to Mary Magdalene by the Eastern Orthodox Church is Iσαπόστολος, isapostolos in Greek, aequalis apostolis in Latin, which, translates into English as Equal to the Apostles.
Another case is Saint Phoebe (1st century) who was a deaconess of the Church. Phoebe was commended to the congregation of Rome by St. Paul, who praised her for her assistance to him. According to tradition delivered the Epistle to Romans to the congregation, her feast day is 3 September
A third example is Saint Macrina the Younger, the elder sister of Saint Basil who served her community as a deaconess.
Finally, the life of Saint Melania the Younger a contemporary of Macrina founded numerous orphanages, hospices, and served as a deaconess,
I would humbly assert that Mary's designation and the work of these women and many others in the early church are sufficient reasons to warrant the full ordination and participation of women within the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, this position is consistent with the Jewish customs and mores that are the foundation for Christianity, traditions that recognized the feminine aspect of the Divine Presence exemplified by the Shekhinah.
The 2010 revisions made to Normae de gravioribus delictis, which ratified and reaffirmed the General Decree: regarding the delict of attempted sacred ordination of a woman, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 19 December 2007.
The more grave delict of the attempted sacred ordination of a woman is also reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
1° with due regard for can. 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, both the one who attempts to confer sacred ordination on a woman, and she who attempts to receive sacred ordination, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
2° If the one attempting to confer sacred ordination, or the woman who attempts to receive sacred ordination, is a member of the Christian faithful subject to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, with due regard for can. 1443 of that Code, he or she is to be punished by major excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
3° if the guilty party is a cleric he may be punished by dismissal or deposition
The position adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, flies in the faces of history and contravenes the positions adopted by the earliest communities.
19 July, 2010
19 February, 2010
Some Thoughts on Realism and its Progeny
In the field of international relations, the realist school of thought founded by Hans Joachim Morgenthau, and Edward Hallett Carr was established as a counterpoint to the idealistic (utopian) school of thought as exemplified by Ralph Norman Angell and Alfred Zimmern.
As a theory describing the nature and purpose of international relations, classical realism rests on framework of six pillars first articulated by Carr in his seminal text The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939, which, was released in 1939 just days before the outbreak of the Second World War. Carr’s six rudimentary theses were refined by Morgenthau in his 1948 classic entitled Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace.
The first principle underlying realism is the idea that international system developed in such way that the nation-state serves as the key actor within the system. Second, Carr, Morgenthau and subsequent realists argue that international politics is at its most basic level, an expression of a power struggle, a conflict between nation-states facilitated by the absence of an effective governmental structure on the international level. Furthermore, they maintained that continual state of conflict, which, exists on intrinsically the international level required the nation-states to inevitably rely on their own capacities and assets in order to ensure their survival as sovereign states. Third, the classical realists adhere to the belief, that in theory recognized nation-states alone possessed de jure the legal standing necessary to engage in relations with each other. The realists further qualified this point in order to account for the de facto differences in the capabilities of each nation-state and the boundaries imposed upon the states by the presence of these differences. The realists held that these de facto differences in capability amongst the nations resulted in the community of nation-states being divided into two general classes `more powerful states’ and `less powerful weaker states. The designation of a nation-state as a powerful state or a weaker state is based on the amount power and the nature of the influence exercised by the nation-state. The amount power and influence exercised the various states is calculated and determined by assessing quantitatively and qualitatively the de facto differences in capability. Fourth, in the realist school the nation-state is viewed as single unitary entities capable of separating domestic politics of the state from its foreign policy by compartmentalizing them into two independent and unconnected spheres. Fifth, realists perceive nation-states as entities characterized by rational decision making processes resulting in choices that benefit the national interest. Lastly, Carr and Morgenthau argued that power, its acquisition, exercise, and maintenance are the key, necessary to understanding, explaining and predicting the behavior of the nation state.
In the 1980’s a group of realist theorists led by Kenneth Waltz who were dissatisfied with the manner in which key concepts were being defined broke with the classical realist school and formulated neo-realistic theory as a critique of classical realism that was intended to be a reformulation of Carr and Morgenthau’s classical realism. As a preamble to the main body of their work Waltz and the other neo-realists forcefully argued that the core concepts of realism should be redefined in such a way that conformed to neo-realistic desire for a greater clarity, consistency and rigidity in the discussion of the key concepts of realism. Waltz and others also maintained that the structure of Carr and Morgenthau’s classical realism required several updates and revisions. First, the neo realists saw power not as a final end, but as a byproduct that resulted from a political relationship. Second, within the structure of realism, the neo-realists replaced power. Thirdly, Waltz and his collaborators sought replace Morgenthau’s single factor approach that viewed power as the ultimate end to a multi-factored approach asserting that politics is the master key, necessary to understanding, explaining and predicting the behavior of the nation state. Lastly, the neo-realists modified the anarchical formulation employed by traditional realists to describe the political landscape on the international level as well as the relationships between the international level and lower levels, creating the international system to better address these relationships, while retaining the wall isolating domestic policy and foreign policy.
Unlike the realists and neorealists, before them the neoclassical realists represented a major departure from long held ideas concerning the need to separate domestic and foreign affairs into two distinct and independent spheres. Neoclassical realists argue that since the same economic and technological variables effect both domestic and foreign policy alike there exists no need for the separation because, its serves no discernible purpose and in fact hinder a proper study power and politics.
As a theory describing the nature and purpose of international relations, classical realism rests on framework of six pillars first articulated by Carr in his seminal text The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939, which, was released in 1939 just days before the outbreak of the Second World War. Carr’s six rudimentary theses were refined by Morgenthau in his 1948 classic entitled Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace.
The first principle underlying realism is the idea that international system developed in such way that the nation-state serves as the key actor within the system. Second, Carr, Morgenthau and subsequent realists argue that international politics is at its most basic level, an expression of a power struggle, a conflict between nation-states facilitated by the absence of an effective governmental structure on the international level. Furthermore, they maintained that continual state of conflict, which, exists on intrinsically the international level required the nation-states to inevitably rely on their own capacities and assets in order to ensure their survival as sovereign states. Third, the classical realists adhere to the belief, that in theory recognized nation-states alone possessed de jure the legal standing necessary to engage in relations with each other. The realists further qualified this point in order to account for the de facto differences in the capabilities of each nation-state and the boundaries imposed upon the states by the presence of these differences. The realists held that these de facto differences in capability amongst the nations resulted in the community of nation-states being divided into two general classes `more powerful states’ and `less powerful weaker states. The designation of a nation-state as a powerful state or a weaker state is based on the amount power and the nature of the influence exercised by the nation-state. The amount power and influence exercised the various states is calculated and determined by assessing quantitatively and qualitatively the de facto differences in capability. Fourth, in the realist school the nation-state is viewed as single unitary entities capable of separating domestic politics of the state from its foreign policy by compartmentalizing them into two independent and unconnected spheres. Fifth, realists perceive nation-states as entities characterized by rational decision making processes resulting in choices that benefit the national interest. Lastly, Carr and Morgenthau argued that power, its acquisition, exercise, and maintenance are the key, necessary to understanding, explaining and predicting the behavior of the nation state.
In the 1980’s a group of realist theorists led by Kenneth Waltz who were dissatisfied with the manner in which key concepts were being defined broke with the classical realist school and formulated neo-realistic theory as a critique of classical realism that was intended to be a reformulation of Carr and Morgenthau’s classical realism. As a preamble to the main body of their work Waltz and the other neo-realists forcefully argued that the core concepts of realism should be redefined in such a way that conformed to neo-realistic desire for a greater clarity, consistency and rigidity in the discussion of the key concepts of realism. Waltz and others also maintained that the structure of Carr and Morgenthau’s classical realism required several updates and revisions. First, the neo realists saw power not as a final end, but as a byproduct that resulted from a political relationship. Second, within the structure of realism, the neo-realists replaced power. Thirdly, Waltz and his collaborators sought replace Morgenthau’s single factor approach that viewed power as the ultimate end to a multi-factored approach asserting that politics is the master key, necessary to understanding, explaining and predicting the behavior of the nation state. Lastly, the neo-realists modified the anarchical formulation employed by traditional realists to describe the political landscape on the international level as well as the relationships between the international level and lower levels, creating the international system to better address these relationships, while retaining the wall isolating domestic policy and foreign policy.
Unlike the realists and neorealists, before them the neoclassical realists represented a major departure from long held ideas concerning the need to separate domestic and foreign affairs into two distinct and independent spheres. Neoclassical realists argue that since the same economic and technological variables effect both domestic and foreign policy alike there exists no need for the separation because, its serves no discernible purpose and in fact hinder a proper study power and politics.
Structural Functional Analysis: A Rudimentary Discussion
Structural-functional analysis is a quantitative and objective method of analyzing different political systems by conducting a thorough examination of the individual structures within the political systems, and the institutions that form these structures, by comparing and contrasting the functions and roles these structures and institutions perform within the political system. Structural functional analysis also explains the interdependence that exists between the different structures and institutions that form the political system.
In order to conduct a structural-functional analysis two points must be assumed a priori: One is that the functions of the structures that form the political system, and the roles of the institutions that constitute the structures within the political system may differ from country to country. Two, structural functionalism assumes that while, a political structure and its institutions may possess and exercise more power with regard to a particular function within the political system, in most cases a single structure and its institution will not be permitted to possess absolute control over any one function within the political system. For example, within the United States political system even though the President of the United States, in his capacity as chief executive can appoint cabinet secretaries, for these appointments to become permanent the appointments must be confirmed by the Senate of the United States.
Within the political system there are six different structures that can be subjected to analysis. The six structures are the following: political parties, interest groups, legislatures, executives, courts, and bureaucracies. The outputs produced by these six structures can be examined to obtain quantifiable data concerning the four process functions which must occur for policy to be made and implemented. The first two functions involve the articulation and aggregation of interests. The other two processes are concerned with policy-making and the implementation of policy.
Structural-functional analysis can also be utilized to collect data about the three systemic functions that determine whether or not the political system will change or remain the same. The three functions that are used in this determination are the following: political socialization, political recruitment, and political communication.
The use of these functions impart to the theory its greatest strength namely, that because the data is purely empiric the data is not subject to the vagaries of any bias possessed by the authors or survey takers. Conversely, the nature of the data also lends itself to the greatest weakness of the theory. Structural-functional analysis by its nature cannot be used to account for the beliefs, mores and customs adhered to by individuals.
In order to conduct a structural-functional analysis two points must be assumed a priori: One is that the functions of the structures that form the political system, and the roles of the institutions that constitute the structures within the political system may differ from country to country. Two, structural functionalism assumes that while, a political structure and its institutions may possess and exercise more power with regard to a particular function within the political system, in most cases a single structure and its institution will not be permitted to possess absolute control over any one function within the political system. For example, within the United States political system even though the President of the United States, in his capacity as chief executive can appoint cabinet secretaries, for these appointments to become permanent the appointments must be confirmed by the Senate of the United States.
Within the political system there are six different structures that can be subjected to analysis. The six structures are the following: political parties, interest groups, legislatures, executives, courts, and bureaucracies. The outputs produced by these six structures can be examined to obtain quantifiable data concerning the four process functions which must occur for policy to be made and implemented. The first two functions involve the articulation and aggregation of interests. The other two processes are concerned with policy-making and the implementation of policy.
Structural-functional analysis can also be utilized to collect data about the three systemic functions that determine whether or not the political system will change or remain the same. The three functions that are used in this determination are the following: political socialization, political recruitment, and political communication.
The use of these functions impart to the theory its greatest strength namely, that because the data is purely empiric the data is not subject to the vagaries of any bias possessed by the authors or survey takers. Conversely, the nature of the data also lends itself to the greatest weakness of the theory. Structural-functional analysis by its nature cannot be used to account for the beliefs, mores and customs adhered to by individuals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)