Women Bishops.

Remove all ads!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4670631.stm

I still don't understand what justification there is for not allowing Women in the higher echelons of the church, previous explanations on here have only talked about the state of civilisation 2000 years ago as a means of protecting the women folk - hardly a valid argument today.

Equality will happen in time (but apparently not for at least five years in the Anglican church).

 

Maybe in Protestant churches but not in the Church of Rome.

Theologically speaking, Christ had female disciples and his mother occupies as much of a central position in the religion as possible for a mortal, but none of them was ordained for the priesthood. The cultural argument can't really be used, as there was a long tradition of priestesses in the Semite cultures, the prevalent hellenistic (post-Alexander Greek) culture of the time and in the Roman religion. As a consequence, the Church doesn't have the power to ordain priestesses. This doesn't mean the role of women in the Church is lesser, subservient or otherwise unequal. It's simply different. As for high echelons... does heading a huge international order of nuns qualify for high echelon?

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

For the Anglican Church, it's different. While it does look strange to allow women priests but not women bishops, they don't see it as an obstacle of a doctrinal nature but only a legal one or one coming from tradition. Generally, in the Catholic Church, if you're capable of validly becoming a priest, your ordination to bishop would also be valid (if not licit -- this means the person would indeed become a bishop even if the whole operation would be illegal in terms of canon law), despite the usual requirements of age, education etc. If Anglicans see the gender restriction in the same light as age destriction or education requirement, the whole matter starts to look different. Also bear in mind that for Anglicans (except Anglo-Catholics), priestly or episcopal ordination is not a sacrament and one doesn't receive any powers that he wouldn't previously have. Consequently, for them, it's the universal priesthood of the Christian faithful which gives them any of their priestly faculties and ordination only "authorises" them to perform the functions in their church's name.

In the Catholic Church, the Orthodox, the Eastern Churches and for Anglo-Catholics, ordination is indeed a sacrament that marks an indelible character on a person's soul, gives the power to consecrate the Eucharist, absolve of sins etc, i.e. powers that Protestant pastors believe they don't have (and they reject any notion of being priests, as well). Unordained ministers are also present (for liturgical and pastoral duties that don't require a priest) and women can indeed be those.

A woman can be a minister authorised to perform a Catholic Sunday service (which is not a mass), including teaching and distributing the Holy Communion (consecrated by a priest), which is what your average Protestant pastor or bishop believes he's doing. Except he doesn't get the Holy Communion consecrated by a Catholic priest before his service.

Another idea is perhaps some Anglicans believe bishops are the essential ministers dating back to Christ, instituted by Himself, and starting from the Apostles in an unbroken chain of succession (which is more or less correct, so long as the ordination rite is valid and the intent correct) and it's up to them to delegate some powers to the priests (which is also more or less theologically correct), thus claiming they can ordain female priests if they want but not bishops because they can't.

Well, we'll see what they do. I see a procession of Anglican clerics heading to the nearest Catholic bishop for ordination.

[ July 15, 2005, 17:04: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I've been taught that the duties of wife and Mother are as sacred and important if not more so than those of the Priesthood. This also allows both parents to meaningfully contribute to the home spiritually...

 

Gnarf,

I'm sorry, but to me it just sounds like a way of ensuring that Women are happy with their place (given to them, wait-for-it, by men). It's fine to believe and even preach that, but for a fair and equal society you need to allow Women to assume any position open to a man.

Chev,
Again I'm sorry, but saying they are unable to ordain priestesses just has a ring of a cop out. As God's mouthpiece, I'm sure the church has the authority to do so. - I'm sure it's an extrememly bad example, but Jesus didn't confirm anyone a Saint, yet the Church has the authority to confirm saints.

I also don't understand how that letter can claim that it is not discriminatory. You are singling out Women as a group that you will not make Priests - a fairly text-book example of "Discrimination".

I agree with you on one point though - It ain't going to happen in the Catholic Church in the near future.

 

Not any more than to rewrite the Bible to accommodate gay rights.

A common misconception among non-believers is that the governing clergy (should) think in the following categories: "we made it up, we created the god, the scripture and the religion, so we may as well redefine it and everyone will be happy". But if that were true, it would make no sense to be a believer.

Then there goes age, marital status, whatever. Married men can't (normally) become priests, nor can priests be allowed to marry (not normally and never without being "laicised"). A man can't be a mother and a woman can't be a father. There are roles and requirements coming from the necessity of the office, from natural design, heck, from biological differences as well. Jesus had a number of female followers who were also trusted friends. And yet, none of them made a priestess.

What is fair is to consider all factors on all sides. What's equal is a matter for a separate discussion. Giving everyone an equal start or the opportunity to reach the same (and only that) result from different starting points? Or an equal proportion with a different starting and ending point?

Let's take a feudal society. How do we make them equal? Do we make everyone a lord or everyone a peasant or everyone something in between? Do we create anarchy or a system of constituencies and elections? Do we regulate how much people can have or do we make a one-time rebalancing and leave them alone from that point on? Or do we "compensate" so that peasants could catch up with lords? Or do we switch roles so that peasants would have more than lords for a change? Or maybe everyone's property should increase by the same percentage every year?

Let's also take a school. Do we give A's for great results or for dedicated studying? Do we cut out talented slackers or hardworking underachievers? In sports, should we win because of our results or because of the intensity of training, economical/social obstacles to overcome by individual sportsmen etc etc?

Perhaps the right way is to have everyone do his job, whatever it is and whatever he's best at.

[ July 18, 2005, 15:27: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

So the clergy is a sport who's league is made up of the male team and the female team, and the males are winning?

Well that certainly explains a lot.

 

Circular logic, m'dear. You're right back to the question of who gets to define what job any individual is allowed to have.

The rest of your post is so full of patronizing BS that I simply can't take the time at work to address it point by point, but you've dealt your own credibility a serious blow, IMO.

 

Chev,

I think you have slightly mis-understood, I said they have the authority to do so. If the pope was to declare that Women would be able to become priestesses it would happen, (though admittedly not without a lot of hassle).
In terms of The Bible, it's not as if it hasn't be re-written before (Mary Magdelin for example) but regardless it has been interpreted by many people to say that it isn't as homophobic as is currently made out. If you ignore the old testament with the stoning, slavery et al. the oldest version of the new-testament text (Paul?) (in ancient Greek) does not translate directly as homosexual, and there were certainly better words in ancient Greek to mean Homosexual. I think one of the words at least translates as "male bed" which I would say is closer to a Male Prostitute.
The changes in the Church aren't going to happen, (if for no other reason than admitting they were wrong)

If you can tell me what makes a Woman unable to perform the task of a priest EXCEPT for the fact she is a Woman, then I will accept your arguement. Ability should be the only benchmark for determining whether someone should get a job or not. It's the only reason why people do well at sports or school. Working hard at something only increases your ability.

I totally agree, the problem is, you'll never know if the best job a Women could do is to be a Priestess. You'll never know if she would be better than the Priests we have at the moment (A number of Paedophile cases spring to mind for example). You'll never know if she is out there who would heal the rift between nations and bring everyone back into the Catholic fold. (OK I'm stretching a bit) You can talk about the role that Nun's play but they are not (or at least not seen as) the driving force or the public face. Mother Teresa is the obvious figurehead but what did she ever do politically?

I don't quite understand how your feudal example applies to the Church. It's a simplification of the ways that countries broke from the Royal system of Europe - Communism for Russia from their own royals and Capitalism for the US (From the UK) Both are good ideas, but neither particularly works.

A fair and equal society would enable anyone through ability (whether natural or by dint of hard work) to acheive any position they wanted to. This is the model that America was based on, and I still believe to be the only fair one. The problem is it gets corrupted, the same way that Communism got corrupted - because people are in charge.

Royals only get their positions through birth and an ancester who had the required ability - even if that ability is only as a rallying point. The only reason I support the British Royal family is they generate more money than they receive. But then I wouldn't say we operate a feudal system anyway.

 

Not given by man, but by God. Remember Him? The One we worship? If you want to start a religious discussion then try to ban us from using Religious tradition and scripture it would be like me starting a thread questionins Science but not allowing you to use knowledge about science to defend it. That's just stupid.

It was stated in the Book of Genesis that the Woman would bear children. If you think that raising children is not that important, then you really won't understand our point...

 

What if a woman can't bear children? Could she be a bishop?

 

I haven't made up my mind whether there should be female priests or not in the Catholic Church but I think that if the Church TRULY believes that women cannot be priests (based on Scripture and such), then it is within its rights to disallow them. As with other issues, any church shouldn't change its stance on matters due to what majority of its members want.

 

No one who wants to be or to be able to be a bishop should be one.

@Charlie: It's even more obvious than that. Actually, the Church doesn't disallow female priests starting from the default both gender clergy, but she refuses to extend the default male clergy by female clerics. The Church doesn't have the authority to make such an extension, even if she would still have the authority to ban certain categories of people from ordination that used to be able to be ordained at some point. With the state of things in the Scripture and tradition, it's up to proponents of female ordination to prove their points in favour of such an extension, not up to the opponents to prove the opposite (which is already in the Bible and tradition)...

[ July 19, 2005, 09:47: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Chev,

Excuse me cannot use the quote function with this browser.

"The Church doesn't have the authority to make such an extension, even if she would still have the authority to ban certain categories of people from ordination that used to be able to be ordained at some point"

In my view this is a cop out the Catholic church uses too much, yes being raised a Catholic I've heard it before - there is nothing that the church cannot change about itself.

As for your earlier comments -
Feudal society! - I don't live in a Feudal Society, not sure about yourself... but using this as an example is comical We have moved on from Feudal times - largely because that system wouldn't work todays. Trial by water anyone?

When you come down to it the Church as its stands today was invented by man, so theres no reason why it cannot be changed or "improved" by man. If that includes women priests/bishops then so be it.

[ July 19, 2005, 11:24: Message edited by: Tap Dancing Oyster ]

 

Once again Gnarf you miss my main point, but I'll try and answer yours.

Yes Genesis says Women will bear children (A little obvious to me, unless you happen to be a Seahorse - look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about). But unless I'm much mistaken it says nothing about them having to bear children (and regardless it is illegal to force a woman into having a child) and also nothing about them having to spend their lives at home doing nothing but raise the Child. Men are quite capable of raising children, my partners brother-in-law is a good example.
Oh, and Men giving birth is potentially viable (Slightly old article):
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000085.html

Women are quite capable of doing any job that a man can. Fair and Equal means they have the choice.

Chev,

Am I going to get an answer to my previous post?

 

My own Church of course allows female clergy. I don't care what is says in a bible but if God gave us orders about how things should be done then I expect him to have the brains (not sure if God would actually have brains but if not then intelligence) to explain logically why things should be this way. I won't follow or care about doctrines or rules which to me make no sense.

 

Huh? So only people who don't want to or are unable to become bishops should become one? What does that mean?

 

I didn't quite get that either. I know most people who enter the priesthood do so because they have "the calling". Supposedly, this calling would involve a feeling that you want to be a priest. I imagine the same would apply to bishops.

 

When Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, they were commanded to go forth, be Fruitful and Multiply. This means that God commanded Women to bear children. This does not mean that men are incapable, just that women, usually, are better than the men at it. I'm not saying that they aren't capable of doing the job, but that their traditionally defined roles are too important to cast aside to seek out roles traditionally assigned to men (the Priesthood specifically, I DO NOT mean that woman should not work outside the home).

Hebrew 5:4 States:

No Man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God...

This means that Priesthood is not somethign that you seek out, but that which the Lord calls you to...

 

I'm reasonably certain that I am incapable of bearing a child, though I confess I've never tried.