Quote:Humans are made up of two parts though, Body and Soul, Biology and Ontology, corprae et anima unis (body and soul united), to quote St. Thomas Aquinas (who was quoting St. Augustine). Without either one, there is no ‘human’.
This is not a fact, merely a philosophical issue
Just because something is philosophical in nature does not mean it is not factual.
For example, 2+2=4 is a question of Natural Philosophy (have you ever noticed that the highest degree in Mathematics is a Doctor of PHILOSOPHY, Ph.D)
It is one whose factual nature has no real proof other than experiantial.
The same is true for the nature of humanity. If ‘humanness’ is defined strictly by the body alone, that would mean that is change of body is a change of person.
Does a removal of an appendix, for example, mean a person is less of a person, or a change their haircolor, they change their personality. Other than those on cosmetic commercials, the experiantial nature of the question would be in the negative.
Therefore, it follows that there is something more than the physical that defines a human. The common defintion of that ‘above physical’ aspect of a person is ‘the soul’.
So it is an experiantial fact that humans are made up of both body and soul.
Where metaphysical philosophy begins to differ is on the relationship between body and soul. Is the soul independant of the body or are they co-dependant.
Christianity differs from Eastern Religions in that the body\soul (Nefesh) form a unique entity, while Eastern Religions hold that the body is more of a shell.
But that distinction is actually irrelevant to the discusion, because the real question is then becomes
“God obviously designed differences in the roles the sexes have in bringing forth life; do those differences extent to Ontological life”
I think I have clearly shown that, if we are to assume God is a God of equality, those differences would exist"
To assume otherwise, the Church would have to have been granted clear Authority to ordain women, and that does not exist in Scripture.
In addition, the Church would be sadly mistaken if it assumed it possessed such Authority without clear proof, for such an assumtion would carry a measure of doubt. If the Church ordained women falsely, the Sacraments celebrated by such women would be invalid. The Eucharist would be simply bread, the Absolutions would be invalid.
Why would the Church risk infinitely invaluable souls on such a wager??