"They are men only because they stand for the 12 apostles." Looking at a statement like this, I can see someone easily arguing for the arbitrariness of the sign, so that anything should be able to stand for the 12 apostles, so long as it is recognized as standing for them. And though I don't think there is complete arbitrariness in this case — some symbols will require less effort to see as symbols for the symbolized —, still, it doesn't seem it would be so much a stretch to cast a woman as a man, much as men were cast as women in plays throughout history (and continuing into today in some places). Looking at this, it seems the argument for men alone representing the 12 apostles is that they should more readily represent 12 male apostles than 12 women should, though both could do the representation. But going from this, why not require them to paint their faces to any appropriate shade, and wear period dress, and the like, where such expenses could be easily borne?
"Western culture teaches us to put the individual above all others, Catholicism teaches us to put the community before ourselves" (spelling regularized). Given how long Catholicism has been of Western culture, and its integral part in developing Western culture — I am thinking of that whole middle period — why cannot one say that Western culture is Catholic culture, and that if Western culture does not appear to be what we think Catholic culture should look like, then perhaps our image of Catholic culture has been mistaken, and we are in fact living in it now? How are things as they are not what Catholicism comes to look like in the end? How long must one wait and keep saying, "Perhaps next year — perhaps next century — perhaps the next millennium?"
I respect your understanding in these matters, and it is why I ask you.
no subject
Looking at a statement like this, I can see someone easily arguing for the arbitrariness of the sign, so that anything should be able to stand for the 12 apostles, so long as it is recognized as standing for them. And though I don't think there is complete arbitrariness in this case — some symbols will require less effort to see as symbols for the symbolized —, still, it doesn't seem it would be so much a stretch to cast a woman as a man, much as men were cast as women in plays throughout history (and continuing into today in some places). Looking at this, it seems the argument for men alone representing the 12 apostles is that they should more readily represent 12 male apostles than 12 women should, though both could do the representation. But going from this, why not require them to paint their faces to any appropriate shade, and wear period dress, and the like, where such expenses could be easily borne?
"Western culture teaches us to put the individual above all others, Catholicism teaches us to put the community before ourselves" (spelling regularized).
Given how long Catholicism has been of Western culture, and its integral part in developing Western culture — I am thinking of that whole middle period — why cannot one say that Western culture is Catholic culture, and that if Western culture does not appear to be what we think Catholic culture should look like, then perhaps our image of Catholic culture has been mistaken, and we are in fact living in it now? How are things as they are not what Catholicism comes to look like in the end? How long must one wait and keep saying, "Perhaps next year — perhaps next century — perhaps the next millennium?"
I respect your understanding in these matters, and it is why I ask you.