<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [MR] Women and the Early Church</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Palatino">It is important to remember that words such as “heresies” are subject to the teaching OF THE TIME. Because the church is made up of people, the stance of the church (any church) on an issue is subject to the political and social climate of the time. And who happens to be in power. Context is everything...<BR>
<BR>
Jessamyn di Piemonte <BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT SIZE="2">In a message dated 3/1/02 8:37:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, sfdowns@pinn.net writes: <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT SIZE="2">If "history is a science," then you need to give precise, scientific <BR>
definitions for "heresies," "authentic Catholic teaching," and "correct, <BR>
orthodox teaching." Frankly, these do not sound like the words of a <BR>
researcher who is "examining the evidence clearly and objectively," but <BR>
rather display a fairly obvious bias. I have nothing against people being <BR>
biased about religious issues, I know I am myself, but if you claim to be <BR>
objectively practicing science, you can't use words like heresy, authentic, <BR>
correct and orthodox. These are words which connote distinct value <BR>
judgements.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT SIZE="2"><BR>
</FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>