# Women in the Clergy



## GenJen54

The U.S. Episcopal Church, a member of the Anglican Communion (world organization of Anglican and Episcopal Churches) recently elected a female bishop to lead the U.S. branch of the Church.  This has caused great controversy, not only among individual members and member churches, but within the universal church body.  

The Anglican Church (Church of England), which is also a part of the Anglican Communion, does not allow female bishops.  

The Catholic Church does not allow for female priests.

To my knowledge, Islam does not allow female imams.

In fact, in many religious traditions, females are delegated lesser roles in Church leadership; they serve either as nuns or "elders," but are never allowed to take the lead role. 

In some protestant churches, females may be ordained and serve as church pastors.  They also often serve as leaders of a particular "ministry," usually "youth" or "choral," or something of that nature. 

Is the idea that a woman's place is "in the home" so inherent in modern culture, that ancient religious beliefs cannot be changed?  Are women not equal to the task of sharing the word of God/Allah/Yweh/Buddha, etc?


----------



## Etcetera

The Orthodox Church doesn't allow female priests, too. 
I'm afraid I'll be the only one who thinks so, but in my opinion, the Church shouldn't change anything in traditions already established. And frankly, I wouldn't go to confession to a female priest. I just feel more confidence in a male priest.


----------



## maxiogee

I can't speak for women in other religions, but in the Roman Catholic church there are many women in religious communities - nuns - who do what they see as God's work in the community, in schools, hospitals, prisons, and among many disadvantaged groups within society. I know of one long established project set up to work with prostitutes and women in the sex trade in Ireland which was founded by a community of nuns.

They may not be priests, but there is a lot of scope for women to work within the Church. There is not - at least in Ireland - a great outcry for the ordination of women.


----------



## GenJen54

etcetera said:
			
		

> I just feel more confidence in a male priest.


 
But why is that?  Is a male more inately qualified to offer religious guidance and counsel?  Does he "know" God better?  Or, is this this a reaction to a need for a "father figure," which only a male can fill?



			
				Maxiogee said:
			
		

> I can't speak for women in other religions, but in the Roman Catholic church there are many women in religious communities - nuns - who do what they see as God's work in the community, in schools, hospitals, prisons, and among many disadvantaged groups within society.


I don't discount the fact that there are many roles for women in religion.  But does this mean that women cannot also have a share in the leadership of the C/church?  Should women always be relegated to the traditional roles of "service," as opposed to leading from the pulpit?


----------



## maxiogee

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I don't discount the fact that there are many roles for women in religion.  But does this mean that women cannot also have a share in the leadership of the C/church?  Should women always be relegated to the traditional roles of "service," as opposed to leading from the pulpit?



I don't know.

I have a load of criticisms to level against the Catholic Church, but being 'fickle' and changing its views easily is not one of them.
I do believe that the time will come when they will ordain women - but there's a lot more wrong with their attitude to women which needs to be fixed first. Find a few staunchly loyal Catholic women and ask them their list of grievances and you'll find that the lack of ordination chances is well down the list.

I truly don't understand why women would want to be ordained into the priesthood of a misogynistic patriarchal establishment.


----------



## aragorn

> I truly don't understand why women would want to be ordained into the priesthood of a misogynistic patriarchal establishment.


 
I reckon that it is all a clever plot by women to avoid a particularly unpleasant occupation

aragorn
exit stage left


----------



## moirag

While I tend to agree with aragorn and maxiogee on this point ( like, why would women want to be able to join the army, or why do homosexuals want to marry?) that is a personal opinion and I realise that being able to ....be a priest/ get married/join the army is important to a lot of people. Partly it´s a matter of principle/ fairness, and largely it´s a way of being publicly accepted. The fact that women are often NOT allowed into higher positions in the world´s major religions is merely a reflection of society´s attitudes at large to women. It may not be the most important one, but when you see people defending the prohibitions so vehemently, you realise that there really must be a lot at stake here, or else, why all the fuss? The Church and other religions may be A LITTLE behind the times and conservative/ reactionary or whatever, but I believe it´s just that .....a little.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I truly don't understand why women would want to be ordained into the priesthood of a misogynistic patriarchal establishment.


To make it less patriarchal and misogynistic?...


----------



## gato2

Yo no entiendo porque la Iglesia Catolica se empeña en no admitir a mujeres en el sacerdocio. De acuerdo que hay problemas mas graves dentro de la Iglesia perono le veo ninguna razon logica.

Pienso, como dice maxiogee, que las cosas de la Iglesia llevan su tiempo y que llegara el dia en que las admitiran.


----------



## Random1

> The Church and other religions may be A LITTLE behind the times and conservative/ reactionary or whatever, but I believe it´s just that .....a little.


This is why I think the church does not allow women to become priests. The church is old, and like old people, set in its ways. Men have always been looked at as supperior to women, all through out history (until the last couple hundred years women are beginning to be looked at as "equals" in "modern" contries. The church came around and set its way prior to this change, and thus is still prejudice.


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:
			
		

> To make it less patriarchal and misogynistic?...



Some things are best left alone.
You cannot change things which are wrong with an organisation if the organisation doesn't allow you full membership - and I'd seriously want to ask why one would want to have full membership of any organisation which not only doesn't want you, but doesn't see the wrong in not wanting you.


----------



## Sallyb36

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Some things are best left alone.
> You cannot change things which are wrong with an organisation if the organisation doesn't allow you full membership - *and I'd seriously want to ask why one would want to have full membership of any organisation which not only doesn't want you, but doesn't see the wrong in not wanting you*.



That was my first thought on reading the initial post in this thread.


----------



## Etcetera

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> But why is that? Is a male more inately qualified to offer religious guidance and counsel? Does he "know" God better? Or, is this this a reaction to a need for a "father figure," which only a male can fill?


I was thinking about it for the whole night.
Look into the Bible. Who's God? - He's _Father_. When you confess to a priest, you're speaking to God. Hence, if the priest is a female, one may feel this as a dissonance. 
Am I making sense? My level of English obviously doesn't allow me to speak more clearly.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Some things are best left alone.
> You cannot change things which are wrong with an organisation if the organisation doesn't allow you full membership - and I'd seriously want to ask why one would want to have full membership of any organisation which not only doesn't want you, but doesn't see the wrong in not wanting you.


But the idea is to make them change their minds about not wanting you...


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Look into the Bible. Who's God? - He's our _Father_.
> When you confess to a priest, you're speaking to God. Hence, if the priest is a female, one may feel this as a dissonance.



Etcetera, you do not speak for all of us when you say "our".  Please choose your pronouns carefully.

The Bible, especially Isaiah, is filled with feminine metaphors for God.  

My God is not restricted to _one _gender, let alone restricted to manifestation in _one _species of Creation.


----------



## emma42

Random1 that was an insightful post.  

 Of course, unlike "old people" (!),  the Church (I will just talk about Roman Catholic here) constantly has "new blood" transfused, which, although probably often already inculcated with traditional ideas, may be able to see things from a more modern perspective and thus begin changes, no?  I am by no means an apologist for the Roman Catholic or any other Church or religion, but am simply trying to view the matter objectively.


----------



## moura

I can not find a good and rational reason for a Pope being not a woman (as priests, cardinals and other exclusif male functions in Church). 

Tradition can not justify a reincidence in a wrong position.
Different brains, nervous systems and hormons, don't justify either.
Lack of authority, wisdom and knowledge for that position, are also not good reasons, rather an insult if sustained.

So? Why aren't the things different? I can imagine three conditions for that:
First, the Church is ruled only by men, who would not fight against themselves; second, women are not really interested in changing that state of things; and third, the Church has some reductive positions when she (he?) sees any movement slightly opposite to the mainstream.


----------



## emma42

I would imagine that, for many religious women, they will be so immersed in the traditions and ideas of their church (I know I am being christocentric here, but it's the religion I know most about) that they will not want, nor see a need to challenge patriarchal assumptions (male-only clergy.

Now, don't all jump up at once!  I am fully aware that there has  been a movement to effect the ordination of women in the Anglican Church and that it has been successful.  I am also aware that a milder movement is afoot in the Catholic Church.  However, in respect of the former, I would say that, without the support of men female ordination would not have  been accepted, and I know that many Christians are still deeply unhappy about it and have even changed Church!  In respect of the latter, as far as I am aware it is a much weaker and smaller movement.


----------



## Papalote

One small comment regarding the Roman Catholic Church. One should not forget that most of the countries who are overwhelmingly RC are also overwhelmingly machistas, male-oriented. The RC church must include all of its followers, not only those who hail from slightly more advanced female-male-equality-wise countries.  Any change in any of the doctrines of the RC church must necessarily apply to everyone around the globe. In many of the male-oriented societies, females do not perceive equality with men as a must. They usually hold an important role in their families and they are content with that. The ones who would like to see some change have abandoned the church, not necessarily their faith. Change will occur in the RC church when women demand it, not before.

Also, let´s not forget that for many RCs, any other Christian religion is regarding as an evil to be avoided. Anything that other Christian religions do and accept, divorce, women priests, no confession, etc., is viewed as sinful. So having women priests in the RC church is not going to happen any time soon.

P


----------



## emma42

Those are excellent points, papalote.  Let's also not forget that the RC Church, as opposed to the Anglican, fought tooth and nail for hearts and minds against other leaders (Henry VIII, Martin Luther etc etc).  It is a tough cookie, that one.


----------



## maxiogee

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Look into the Bible. Who's God? - He's _Father_. When you confess to a priest, you're speaking to God. Hence, if the priest is a female, one may feel this as a dissonance.


According to the New Testament, we do not need an intermediary between ourselves and God - we can address Him directly. 
When you confess to that priest, you are not confessing to God *through* the priest, you are confessing to God, as well as to the priest. God hears *you*, not you moderated by the priest.




			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> Those are excellent points, papalote.  Let's also not forget that the RC Church, as opposed to the Anglican, fought tooth and nail for hearts and minds against other leaders (Henry VIII, Martin Luther etc etc).  It is a tough cookie, that one.



Emma, I think you'll find that the Anglican Church would say that it too fought tooth and nail for hearts and minds — but against Rome and papists.


----------



## emma42

Yes, but Tony, I was just referring to the previous post about "Roman Catholic" countries.

And your point about not needing intermediaries is, I understand, exactly what the Quakers believe.  They have no priests.


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

Hi everybody

I would like to invite you to try to understand why the RC church doesn't accept female priests. It is very easy to blame someone without really listening to their own explication. I guess that many just know the fact that women are not allowed to priesthood and that's it. There have been many documents and discussions dealing with this matter on a theological, dogmatical, liturgical and pastoral level.
One thing that is absolutely wrong is to suppose that women don't have anything to say within the RC Church. Priesthood and leadership are not necessarily linked! The leader of one of the biggest lay movements in the Church (Focolare) is a woman! There are several women working in the Vatican who through their office have VERY much power, up to the grade that even bishops have to "obey". 
Even in Church history there have been important women concerning their teachings and their influence, telling even the pope what to do (like Catherine of Siena, Hildegard of Bingen, etc.)
That the Church still has a patriachal might be right, but it definitively is not misogynic. 
I, as a person, may disagree with certain points of the rules guiding this Church, yet it is not correct to accuse in a inappropriate way. 
One comment to papalote> Do you really think, that in our actual world there is a country "free from machismo"? I believe that even our "developed" countries still have a long way to go until we can afirm that men and women have equal rights and oportunities, just see the difficulties female bishops have to confront within their own western communities.


----------



## GenJen54

> Priesthood and leadership are not necessarily linked! The leader of one of the biggest lay movements in the Church (Focolare) is a woman! There are several women working in the Vatican who through their office have VERY much power, up to the grade that even bishops have to "obey".


 
But women are still not allowed "on the pulpit" as it were.

Outside of Papalote's comment regarding sexism in general, is there another explanation? 

Are women not equal to the task of being messnger's of [name your deity]'s word?

What about for non-Christian religions?


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> But women are still not allowed "on the pulpit" as it were.
> 
> Outside of Papalote's comment regarding sexism in general, is there another explanation?
> 
> Are women not equal to the task of being messnger's of [name your deity]'s word?
> 
> What about for non-Christian religions?


 
Well, as we don't use the pulpit anymore...  , at least I don't!
Women are allowed to preach, to give conferences and to teach in universities, they are not allowed "behind the alter", that is to say the only thing the RC Church does not admit is women to consacrate bread and wine, to hear confession, to confirm and to annoit the sick. They can baptize, bless people, preside certain liturgical celebrations, celebrate weddings and many more. Therefore women can be perfect messengers of the sacred words.

There are many arguments against women beeing priests. One of them is for example the so called "in persona Christi" argument, that says that it is Christ in the priest who "gives the grace", like maxiogee already told us (through the priest). Another argument is that Christ himself did not put any women in charge (apostles), nor did they themselves. Even if Christ gave very much importance to them! Basically the Church authority affirms that we do not have the right to decide something like that, as it is not up to us to decide.

I know that there are women rabbis (jewish), buddist nuns, witches (original african religions), healers (latinamerica)


----------



## Papalote

Pedro Arteaga said:
			
		

> Hi everybody
> 
> One thing that is absolutely wrong is to suppose that women don't have anything to say within the RC Church. Priesthood and leadership are not necessarily linked! The leader of one of the biggest lay movements in the Church (Focolare) is a woman! There are several women working in the Vatican who through their office have VERY much power, up to the grade that even bishops have to "obey". But, Pedro, we are not talking about lay movements within the Church, we are talking about the Church hierarchy itself. Let´s not confuse apples with oranges.
> Even in Church history there have been important women concerning their teachings and their influence, telling even the pope what to do (like Catherine of Siena, Hildegard of Bingen, etc.) Again, not one was part of the religious hierarchy in the Church. For that matter you could also mention the Popessa, mistresses of some of the Popes, the female Borgias, etc.. No matter how many of these females you show us, it doesn´t change the fact that they were lay people, that there is discrimination within the Roman Catholic Church, and that things are going to be getting worse with the present representative of St. Peter. I am not attacking the church. I am attacking a tradition which is not based on any of the teachings of Christ but on historical facts. If as lay people, politically, economically and culturally, we are no longer living as people did in Jesus´times, why should we live religiously like that?
> That the Church still has a patriachal might be right, but it definitively is not misogynic. Perhaps you can explain then why, until Vatican II, women did not help serve mass. And do you think that this is enough and we should now be happy and keep silent once more?
> I, as a person, may disagree with certain points of the rules guiding this Church, yet it is not correct to accuse in a inappropriate way.
> One comment to papalote> Do you really think, that in our actual world there is a country "free from machismo"? I never implied that because they were RC countries they were machistas or that they were the only ones who had such retrogade attitudes towards women. If you thought this in what I wrote, coudl it be because deep within you you are in agreement that the church in those countries *has helped* maintain the machista attitude towards women?
> I believe that even our "developed" countries still have a long way to go until we can afirm that men and women have equal rights and oportunities, just see the difficulties female bishops have to confront within their own western communities. Well, nobody can go from being nothing to being at the top. They have been ordaining women priests for quite a while now. And they do have a female bishop after all. I wouldn´t be surprised if the ones objecting to this were males already in power, and closed-minded lay people, of both sexes.[/quote]
> 
> And I am ending here, before I am totally off-topic.
> 
> Thanks for reading me.
> 
> Papalote


----------



## Papalote

Pedro Arteaga said:
			
		

> Well, as we don't use the pulpit anymore...  , at least I don't!
> Women are allowed to preach, to give conferences and to teach in universities, they are not allowed "behind the alter", that is to say the only thing the RC Church does not admit is women to consacrate bread and wine, to hear confession, to confirm and to annoit the sick. They can baptize, bless people, preside certain liturgical celebrations, celebrate weddings and many more. Therefore women can be perfect messengers of the sacred words. And if you read the history of the church, you´ll realize that most of these ¨allowed¨ (should I go down on my knees and thank them for this generosity - I´m being sarcastic here, but you make it sound like we have achieved enough as it is, so we should be content!) actions came to be because of lack of priests. I don´t think we, as women, want to wait until there are no more male priests and then we´ll be once again ´allowed´ to be almost like a male priest.
> 
> There are many arguments against women beeing priests. One of them is for example the so called "in persona Christi" argument, that says that it is Christ in the priest who "gives the grace", like maxiogee already told us (through the priest). Another argument is that Christ himself did not put any women in charge (apostles), nor did they themselves. Even if Christ gave very much importance to them! Basically the Church authority affirms that we do not have the right to decide something like that, as it is not up to us to decide. I almost wrote a word that starts with b! Historically, it would have been impossible for Jesus to have a woman as an apostle, as women at the time did not have the same status as men and thus would have had no followers. And, there were women disciples, but fancy, the church, or at least the nun´s who taught me, chose to ignore this fact. RCs continue to base their misogyny on old traditions and make outcasts of those who would like to participate in a more meaningful way.
> 
> I know that there are women rabbis (jewish), buddist nuns, witches (original african religions), healers (latinamerica). Yes, so why not priest? The RC church is having a hard time today finding vocations to enter the female religious orders. Could this be because young women nowadays know they are not second rate citizens and are not willing anymore to accept that as their fate if they chose to join a religious order?[/quote]
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> P


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro Arteaga said:
			
		

> Well, as we don't use the pulpit anymore...  , at least I don't!
> Women are allowed to preach, to give conferences and to teach in universities, they are not allowed "behind the alter", that is to say the only thing the RC Church does not admit is women to consacrate bread and wine, to hear confession, to confirm and to annoit the sick.


Are they now allowed to read out the Gospel? They weren't the last time I heard it




> Another argument is that Christ himself did not put any women in charge (apostles), nor did they themselves. Even if Christ gave very much importance to them! Basically the Church authority affirms that we do not have the right to decide something like that, as it is not up to us to decide.


Neither did Christ appoint any Egyptians, or any black people, or any handicapped people, or any - any of a whole load of people who would have been in the area - he didn't appoint any Romans (and there were no shortage of them in the area at the time!  ) but no-one says that these groups should be excluded because of his 'oversight'!


----------



## Keikikoka

In a religion based on the Bible, it should make sense that this religion would like to structure its hierarchy based on what the Bible says.


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

Papalote said:
			
		

> Pedro Arteaga said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi everybody
> 
> One thing that is absolutely wrong is to suppose that women don't have anything to say within the RC Church. Priesthood and leadership are not necessarily linked! The leader of one of the biggest lay movements in the Church (Focolare) is a woman! There are several women working in the Vatican who through their office have VERY much power, up to the grade that even bishops have to "obey". But, Pedro, we are not talking about lay movements within the Church, we are talking about the Church hierarchy itself. Let´s not confuse apples with oranges.
> Even in Church history there have been important women concerning their teachings and their influence, telling even the pope what to do (like Catherine of Siena, Hildegard of Bingen, etc.) Again, not one was part of the religious hierarchy in the Church. For that matter you could also mention the Popessa, mistresses of some of the Popes, the female Borgias, etc.. No matter how many of these females you show us, it doesn´t change the fact that they were lay people, that there is discrimination within the Roman Catholic Church, and that things are going to be getting worse with the present representative of St. Peter. I am not attacking the church. I am attacking a tradition which is not based on any of the teachings of Christ but on historical facts. If as lay people, politically, economically and culturally, we are no longer living as people did in Jesus´times, why should we live religiously like that?
> That the Church still has a patriachal might be right, but it definitively is not misogynic. Perhaps you can explain then why, until Vatican II, women did not help serve mass. And do you think that this is enough and we should now be happy and keep silent once more?
> I, as a person, may disagree with certain points of the rules guiding this Church, yet it is not correct to accuse in a inappropriate way.
> One comment to papalote> Do you really think, that in our actual world there is a country "free from machismo"? I never implied that because they were RC countries they were machistas or that they were the only ones who had such retrogade attitudes towards women. If you thought this in what I wrote, coudl it be because deep within you you are in agreement that the church in those countries *has helped* maintain the machista attitude towards women?
> I believe that even our "developed" countries still have a long way to go until we can afirm that men and women have equal rights and oportunities, just see the difficulties female bishops have to confront within their own western communities. Well, nobody can go from being nothing to being at the top. They have been ordaining women priests for quite a while now. And they do have a female bishop after all. I wouldn´t be surprised if the ones objecting to this were males already in power, and closed-minded lay people, of both sexes.[/quote]
> 
> And I am ending here, before I am totally off-topic.
> 
> Thanks for reading me.
> 
> Papalote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Papalote,
> thank very much, I consider myself openminded and very interested in  earnest discussions.
> Concerning your first comment. I do not separate the Church into "body and hierachy. If we consider only the ordained ministers (a very small part of the Church) as the ones who "decide" about the rest, we are simply wrong. Even if the pope is at the head of the hierachy, he is not deciding and ruling all by himself (just as the US president). If you consider hierachy all those who have decisional power... well there are many important women. (and I like fruitsalad!  )
> You wrote If as lay people, politically, economically and culturally, we are no longer living as people did in Jesus´times, why should we live religiously like that? This is a very good and interesting argument. I think Jesus tought the disciples through words and through his own life. He had many women following him. Was the fact that he choose only men as apostles, intended or accidental?
> Concering point three> misogynic ... well you quote something that is more than 100 years ago. I won't argue against the fact that there was a misogynic aspect in the Church and also I accept that it was antisemitic for a long time, yet I don't see it like that TODAY. Not allowing women to priesthood obviously can be interpreted like that. Maybe the problem is that priesthood and leadership are too strongly united.
> I do definitively agree that Church practice (more than its teachings) help a lot to maintain machismo. (a big mea culpa of the Church and many of their ministers).
> From my experience in Germany where I grew up (form my familiy I'm half protestant and half catholic) I would say that even after many years in the protestant churches, there is still a lot of tension regarding female ministers. Once more, I'm not completly against it, but I think there are many aspects that should be taken into consideration.
> By the way, I don-t think you went off topic.
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro Arteaga said:
			
		

> Concering point three> misogynic ... well you quote something that is more than 100 years ago.



papalote quoted Vatican II - opened in 1962 by Pope John XXIII - less than 50 years ago, not more than 100.


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

maxiogee said:
			
		

> papalote quoted Vatican II - opened in 1962 by Pope John XXIII - less than 50 years ago, not more than 100.


 
Ups sorry... I went back to Vat I....


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

Keikikoka said:
			
		

> In a religion based on the Bible, it should make sense that this religion would like to structure its hierarchy based on what the Bible says.


 
Keikikoka, I agree to your statement. That concerns all confessions that came up after the Bible was written. What about those who existed already before that?


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Are they now allowed to read out the Gospel? They weren't the last time I heard it
> 
> The carthusian nuns have been doing it with official permission for over 400 years ...  Yet I know what you mean. Everybody can proclaim the Gospel if there is no official minister. In case there is a minister, than he shall do it. A point you can discuss about, I agree. But this point is not against women, but it concerning the liturgical understanding of a lay minister and a ordained minister.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did Christ appoint any Egyptians, or any black people, or any handicapped people, or any - any of a whole load of people who would have been in the area - he didn't appoint any Romans (and there were no shortage of them in the area at the time!  ) but no-one says that these groups should be excluded because of his 'oversight'!


RIGHT!  Good argument!


----------



## Papalote

Me again!

Sorry to be so short and quick now but I have to get back to a translation (very boring translation), I just want to point out that most RCs consider the Pope as being the only ruler of the Church. Haven´t we been taught that he is infallible? I was taught that the ¨Princes¨ of the Church (talk about humility) were there to advise the Pope. When did this change? I am not being facetious, I left the RCs when I married a divorced Anglican, so I am a little out of touch on dogma and doctrine.

Since we are talking about female clergy, I would prefer that we talked about women within the religious hierarchy and not as lay people or, as we are lumped together, the body of the Church. Well, women want to be able to be part of its head.

You said,  think Jesus tought the disciples through words and through his own life. He had many women following him. Was the fact that he choose only men as apostles, intended or accidental? I say, neither: historically, as I pointed out, it would´ve been impossible for the society then to accept women as equal to men. The church has only perpetuated that notion. 

I must really go (my conscience is bothering me) but I will probably be back tomorrow to read all future posts. I don´t often get a chance to discuss topics of interest outside ordinary life.

Thanks,

Papalote


----------



## maxiogee

Papalote said:
			
		

> I just want to point out that most RCs consider the Pope as being the only ruler of the Church. Haven´t we been taught that he is infallible? I was taught that the ¨Princes¨ of the Church (talk about humility) were there to advise the Pope. When did this change? I am not being facetious, I left the RCs when I married a divorced Anglican, so I am a little out of touch on dogma and doctrine.



Infallibility is only claimed for the Pope when he speaks _ex cathedra_ on matters of faith and morals. It is not claimed that he is infallible in everything.





> Since we are talking about female clergy, I would prefer that we talked about women within the religious hierarchy and not as lay people or, as we are lumped together, the body of the Church. Well, women want to be able to be part of its head.


Jesus is the Head, the Church is the body.


----------



## moirag

Have I missed something, or has nobody addressed the fact of why God chose a male as his presence on earth ( or whatever you call it)? Did He just do eeny meeny miney mo ( no political correctness in those days?) or is it relevant that Jesus was a male? I would suggest God probably wasn´t thinking of Jesus's ( but the apostrophe´s another thread!) gender much at the time, and it´s the male writers of Bibles etc. who suggested it was relevant. I know the New Testament is supposed to "put right" the Old Testament in some ways, but it´s all part of the same tradition, and the Old Testament, with it´s "women do nothing, they don´t even give birth" attitude - and Zebneth begat David, and David begat Shabnath, and Zebedee begat  Dougal, or whatever.... seems particularly keen to drive its point home. Why did they dedicate pages and pages to this? Irrelevant? I think not. It is fundamental to the bases of the Jewish and Christian traditions. And does the New Testament take up this point, or is it considered that, by that time, the patriarchy was well-established enough to not have to bother?
Coming up to date, it´s not much different from "real life", as it´s still considered really modern and amazing to have a female President etc.  
Justification? I don´t think there IS any. I, at least, am still waiting to
 hear ( but not with bated breath) any single valid argument.


----------



## Keikikoka

Pedro Arteaga said:
			
		

> Keikikoka, I agree to your statement. That concerns all confessions that came up after the Bible was written. What about those who existed already before that?


 
Pardon me for being dense, but what do you mean by confessions? The only thing coming to mind is the Catholic confessions. Is that right?


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

Keikikoka said:
			
		

> Pardon me for being dense, but what do you mean by confessions? The only thing coming to mind is the Catholic confessions. Is that right?


 
Sorry... I once more mixed up languages.... in English it would be 
denomination! ups...


----------



## danielfranco

Once again, I would like to put forward the wild notion that my fellow males who (unlike me) have power in this world have spent the best part of the last *fifteen thousand* years trying to exclude women from positions in authority.
I like Auel's notion that the earliest cro-magnons had a matriarchal society. It makes a bit of sense to think that, when the world was full of mystery (as if it wasn't right now, but nevermind that for now...) women held a position of power for being related directly with the creative forces of nature.
Then, we have the speculation of Baxter (author and astrophysicist) who thinks that men usurped women's control of society and spent the following few thousands of years building the concept that women should stay away from leadership because they were weak.
Obviously, I think, this usurpation would be especially important in the realm of religion. Whoever dictates translates what the gods want, has a power that goes beyond plain leadership...
So, maybe we can overturn this schewed view of women's role in society in less time that it took to establish it. Maybe it won't take fifteen thousand years to accomplish it, and at least we've started already, no? At least a bit, I think, since we are all willing to actually discuss the issue of why or why not women should be part of the clergy leadership.
I leave you with the words of indignation from John Lennon: "Woman is the [n-word] of the world... is the slave of the slaves..."


----------



## ireney

Well if we go by who Jesus chose for his apostles and taking into consideration that only two of them (John and later on Paul) were single, how about selecting married people to be our bishops etc? (I am talking about the Orthodox Church -to which I nominally belong- and where priests are allowed to be married if they have wed before taking their orders (?) and the RC. I think that in most -if not all- of the other dogmas/denominations things are different)  ?


----------



## moirag

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Once again, I would like to put forward the wild notion that my fellow males who (unlike me) have power in this world have spent the best part of the last *fifteen thousand* years trying to exclude women from positions in authority.
> I like Auel's notion that the earliest cro-magnons had a matriarchal society. It makes a bit of sense to think that, when the world was full of mystery (as if it wasn't right now, but nevermind that for now...) women held a position of power for being related directly with the creative forces of nature.
> Then, we have the speculation of Baxter (author and astrophysicist) who thinks that men usurped women's control of society and spent the following few thousands of years building the concept that women should stay away from leadership because they were weak.
> Obviously, I think, this usurpation would be especially important in the realm of religion. Whoever dictates translates what the gods want, has a power that goes beyond plain leadership...
> So, maybe we can overturn this schewed view of women's role in society in less time that it took to establish it. Maybe it won't take fifteen thousand years to accomplish it, and at least we've started already, no? At least a bit, I think, since we are all willing to actually discuss the issue of why or why not women should be part of the clergy leadership.
> I leave you with the words of indignation from John Lennon: "Woman is the [n-word] of the world... is the slave of the slaves..."


I don´t think there´s much to add to that, danielfranco - so I won´t.


----------



## emma42

Neither will I, then.


----------



## Poetic Device

*1 Tim 3:14,15; 2:11-15* — These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. *[*_*What follows are God’s instructions for a woman’s functioning in the formal services of the local church, which would include Sunday School]* _... Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I _*[Paul, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, with full authority of one inspired by God]* _suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. *[**A woman cannot teach with authority; e.g., in Sunday School classes, Bible conferences, etc.* *When a woman stands before a mixed crowd that includes men and opens the Bible and preaches or teaches, she is taking authority.]* For Adam was first formed, then Eve. *[The woman was created after the man to be his helpmeet, not his head. Obviously, this is NOT a cultural matter, but is based upon the order of creation; this establishment of the principle of order transcends culture!]* And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived _*[*__*“*__*quite deceived” (NASB—Gen. 3:13)]*_ was in the transgression. _*[Therefore, the woman was not spiritually qualified to teach because of (1) the order of creation, and (2) the facts of the Fall.]*_Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, _*[i.e., she will be occupying herself with the duties of the home and family (as evidence of her salvation given through the birth of the Messiah), and will receive her fulfillment/purpose in life in that arena]*_ if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety *[“self-restraint” (NASB)]*.


----------



## maxiogee

PoeDev,
Are you agreeing with this or are you arguing against it?


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:
			
		

> PoeDev,
> Are you agreeing with this or are you arguing against it?


 
Sorry, I know that I went around the long way with this one.  I'm arguing it.  I am a woman that is a Christian with no denomination, and although I am by no means a saint I do read often, andI have to say that I have found more evidence that states/implies that women do not belong preaching in churches or synagouges.  Maybe in the home it is a different story because it is not in a temple of worship (technically), but as far as I can figure and until someone can point otherwise I don't agree with women preaching.  I am sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## GenJen54

poeticdevice said:
			
		

> andI have to say that I have found more evidence that states/implies that women do not belong preaching in churches or synagouges.


I'm certainly not offended by your opinion, nor your right to speak it and believe this. It only _*confirms* _to *me* why religions whose teachings proport these sexist viewpoints hold no appeal for me.


----------



## maxiogee

I'm agnostic, and am appalled at the notion that a modern woman would agree with Paul - the great Christian mysogynist.
In all his readings it should be borne in mind, I am told by Catholic priests (amongst whom I worked for eight years), that he really believed that the Second Coming was imminent, and that he was not therefore preaching to the ages.
How much of that is true I don't know. What I do know is what it sounds like to me - someone trying to talk their way out of an embarrassment for which they are not responsible.


----------



## cirrus

For me the salient point is that religions which fail to keep in tune with the times casually disregard their target audience.  By giving out the message that out gay men or women shouldn't be ordained for whatever reason it is clear that the church is more interested in exclusion than inclusion.  In the UK churchgoing is very much a minority pursuit and shows no signs of becoming more popular.  Weasel attempts to placate people whose views about women or gays verge on bigotry do nothing to make the church any more attractive or relevant to 21C life.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What I do know is what it sounds like to me - someone trying to talk their way out of an embarrassment for which they are not responsible.


 
Now I am going to show my intelligence.  I am very confused by this statement.  What embarrassment?  If one is not responsible for this embarrassment then why should they talk their way out of it?  Who's trying to do that?  I'm compuzzled.


----------



## GenJen54

cirrus said:
			
		

> For me the salient point is that religions which fail to keep in tune with the times casually disregard their target audience.



This is an excellent point.  In the US, many protestant churches try to appeal to a modern audience through their extensive "marketing"  campaigns. 

- They no longer hold "services."  Parishoners go to "experiences."
- Teens get their own "fellowship" services complete with "rock" bands and young, hip youth ministers;
- They offer exercise classes, Christian "bunko," fellowship "networking" and job fairs - lots of activities to "keep it in the flock."

Yet what they don't do is take a seemingly critical look at scripture.  If you ask me, it's all about the "fluff" and "trappings" and not about the message and finding ways to make the message appeal to newer audiences by allowing for critical discussion and questioning.


----------



## Joey.

I believe that their are many positions that women fulfill in the church, and I don't think that a priest should be one of them, for the single reason that Jesus was a man, and he was the one sent to spread the Word, and indeed he was the Word, as the Gospel of John points out in it's veyr first lines.

And furthermore, I believe that there are many ways to spread the Word and practically all of them do not include having to be a priest or even a clergy of some sort. Just by living a good life with your fellow man is what I think, and what I was taught in school.

So it seems that this arguement is really not that important. And although I may be wrong, it seems that those people who are devout (women in this case) do not seem to argue too much with the Church's opinions.

-Joe


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I'm agnostic, and am appalled at the notion that a modern woman would agree with Paul - the great Christian mysogynist.
> In all his readings it should be borne in mind, I am told by Catholic priests (amongst whom I worked for eight years), that he really believed that the Second Coming was imminent, and that he was not therefore preaching to the ages.
> How much of that is true I don't know. What I do know is what it sounds like to me - someone trying to talk their way out of an embarrassment for which they are not responsible.





			
				Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Now I am going to show my intelligence.  I am very confused by this statement.  What embarrassment?  If one is not responsible for this embarrassment then why should they talk their way out of it?  Who's trying to do that?  I'm compuzzled.



Many of the clergy I have worked with and spoken to are at pains to try to "justify" Paul's misogny. They are embarrassed by it. They need to talk their way out of it because Paul is a pillar of the Church about whose views they are frequently asked.


----------



## danielfranco

Reading #52 by Joey., I wondered a few things: "Why did Jesus chose to be a man?"
What is so special about being a man? What possible advantages could he have had being a man instead of a woman?
Well, I for one cannot picture Jesus as a woman managing to say more than a couple of parables before being stoned to death.
(Faint echos of "Life of Brian" threaten to overwhelm me...)
As it was, it only took His detractors three years to grow stones big enough to put him to death...
And Joey's absolutely correct in saying that there are many, many other ways of spreading the Word other than being part of the clergy.
Good and well, but the question remains even so, important or not: Why the brouhaha about women in the clergy? From a distance, it seems the issue is centered on the fact that one gender refuses to play nice and share the toys and let others take turns playing too. It hardly seems central to the judeo-christian religions in general. I mean, after all, Jesus never really pronounced anything about the roll or importance of gender in the worship of God. Maybe He supposed that everyone understood how to behave like a proper Jew. Paul didn't think it was that clear and he went ahead and explained it for the slow-witted: "Look, this is what Jesus _meant_ to say when he said the things he said, alright?"
Or so he seemed to say...


----------



## cuchuflete

IF you buy into the notion that any of this was written by something other than a human, and IF you assume it to be a good translation of a translation of a translation, and IF you think this is all literally accurate,

then you may choose to interpret it to mean that half of humankind is inferior.

IF that's your personal interpretation, you will have given lots of men and women cause to choose a different religion or to
avoid this sort of thing entirely.







			
				Poetic Device said:
			
		

> *1 Tim 3:14,15; 2:11-15* — These things write I unto thee,  For Adam was first formed, then Eve. *[The woman was created after the man to be his helpmeet, not his head. Obviously, this is NOT a cultural matter, but is based upon the order of creation; this establishment of the principle of order transcends culture!]* And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived _*[*__*“*__*quite deceived” (NASB—Gen. 3:13)]*_ was in the transgression. _*[Therefore, the woman was not spiritually qualified to teach because of (1) the order of creation, and (2) the facts of the Fall.]*_Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, _*[i.e., she will be occupying herself with the duties of the home and family (as evidence of her salvation given through the birth of the Messiah), and will receive her fulfillment/purpose in life in that arena]*_ if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety *[“self-restraint” (NASB)]*.


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

cirrus said:
			
		

> For me the salient point is that religions which fail to keep in tune with the times casually disregard their target audience. By giving out the message that out gay men or women shouldn't be ordained for whatever reason it is clear that the church is more interested in exclusion than inclusion. In the UK churchgoing is very much a minority pursuit and shows no signs of becoming more popular. Weasel attempts to placate people whose views about women or gays verge on bigotry do nothing to make the church any more attractive or relevant to 21C life.


 
Cirrus, I don't think your statement is correct. It depends on how you might define inclusion and exclusion. Many christian churches try to be inclusive, but not on any cost.

The main difficulty in all this discussion is that many within the different christian denominations really believe in what they preach, even if they sometimes have difficulties to live it all the way through. (a very good movie to recomend: Saved!)
I personally try to understand as much as possible the point of view of the other side. As a philosopher - anthropologist I try to critcize someone's point of view only if I have managed to understand him - her. That does not mean that I do agree with the other view, but at least I try to choose words that do not offend. 
I might not agree personally with the RC teaching about women not becoming priests, yet the people I have met so far, who are very involved in this matter, are serious and not superficial at all. It is though very hard to maintain an open discussion, if the counterpart is constantly accused to be narrowminded, sexist, mysogynist or on the other side to call them liberalistic, amoral, anti-biblical and whatever. Neitherone helps to "find a way out". According to me there are already to many wars are going on.
To start of: Nobody is forced to be presbyterian, methodist, evagelical or catholic. Shouldn't each denomination have it's rights to autodetermin it's own memberships?
By the way, Cirrus, there are many christian denominations that have all the changes we discuss here and yet... their membership numbers are droping even faster than those of the catholics. (At least what I know from Germany).

I pose the question: Is it really possible to make somone change his mind regarding women priesthood, if he or she is convinced, that it is a divine commandment? Of course we can argue about the fact that it might not be so, but it isn't easy.
Doesn't it happen often to us as translators, that we have a hard time to understand and make us understand in situations where the words are clear, but mentalities are not?


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Many of the clergy I have worked with and spoken to are at pains to try to "justify" Paul's misogny. They are embarrassed by it. They need to talk their way out of it because Paul is a pillar of the Church about whose views they are frequently asked.


 
Oh!!!!   Duh!  Well, there's my sign......


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Many of the clergy I have worked with and spoken to are at pains to try to "justify" Paul's misogny. They are embarrassed by it. They need to talk their way out of it because Paul is a pillar of the Church about whose views they are frequently asked.


 
Maxiogee, do you really think that they are embarrassed by Paul's affirmations? At least I am not. As a translator I know that many words accieve their sense in history. Nobody talks about Paul's justification of slavery! We do know that it was a fact of his time. It is a sort of "that's what it used to be". We don't agree on it anymore, yet we don't "judge" it. It would be wrong in our time. We know that the future will disapprove many things we do nowadays, like the use of military force, the abuse of nature, etc.
Paul wrote what he believed was right. It is up to the theologians - biblists to analyse if it was someting essential or accidental.

This point is not very easy!


----------



## GenJen54

Pedro Arteaga said:
			
		

> Maxiogee, do you really think that they are embarrassed by Paul's affirmations? At least I am not. As a translator I know that many words accieve their sense in history. Nobody talks about Paul's justification of slavery! We do know that it was a fact of his time. It is a sort of "that's what it used to be". We don't agree on it anymore, yet we don't "judge" it. It would be wrong in our time. We know that the future will disapprove many things we do nowadays, like the use of military force, the abuse of nature, etc.
> Paul wrote what he believed was right. It is up to the theologians - biblists to analyse if it was someting essential or accidental.
> 
> This point is not very easy!


 
You're right Pedro, it's not very easy. 

It seems, however, that in "analyzing" what is "essential" vs. "accidental," these experts and theologians are, in fact, choosing arbitrarily what should and shouldn't be believed.  As you say, Paul justified slavery, yet that was deemed (by society) to be wrong.  Why can the same *not* be said for women's inclusion in the Clergy?  Could this not as well be "accidental," or at least understood from the point of view of someone who some church leaders to be misogynistic?  Must "faith" in this way always be so blind?


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Sorry, I know that I went around the long way with this one. I'm arguing it. I am a woman that is a Christian with no denomination, and although I am by no means a saint I do read often, andI have to say that I have found more evidence that states/implies that women do not belong preaching in churches or synagouges. Maybe in the home it is a different story because it is not in a temple of worship (technically), but as far as I can figure and until someone can point otherwise I don't agree with women preaching. I am sorry if I offended anyone.


 
Hi Poetic Device, don't worry about confirming your point of view, I might not agree, but I surely won't judge you, neither do I feel judged by your ideas.
I would like to invite you to think about the way you understand the what we call "Holy Scriptures". There have been already many quotations here on this thread, some very interesting ones! If you choose to stick with the "literal" interpretation, you might be right. I personally do not think that the texts should be interpreted that way, as it was maybe not the intention of the author to be understood in this way. Let's try an example: if a ship sinks and everybody screams: Women and children first. Is this a sexist approach to the fact that the ship is sinking? You could argue: Women have the same right to die as men or on the other side: men have the same right to survive as women and children do. Well, we would need to deepen a lot to understand the motivation of Paul for the phrases he wrote in some (few!) of his letters. It definitively was not a major arguement for him.


----------



## maxiogee

danielfranco said:
			
		

> I wondered a few things: "Why did Jesus chose to be a man?"



Because he had already decided that we wouldn't listen to a talking chicken or a miraculous tree. He had to do what he came to do _as a human_. After that it was a 50/50 decision - a surefire way of ticking off a hunk of humanity.



> Well, I for one cannot picture Jesus as a woman managing to say more than a couple of parables before being stoned to death.


Assume you got that wrong and that she went on to do as foretold, would you care to estimate how many men would have taken a blind bit of notice?


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> You're right Pedro, it's not very easy.
> 
> It seems, however, that in "analyzing" what is "essential" vs. "accidental," these experts and theologians are, in fact, choosing arbitrarily what should and shouldn't be believed. As you say, Paul justified slavery, yet that was deemed (by society) to be wrong. Why can the same *not* be said for women's inclusion in the Clergy? Could this not as well be "accidental," or at least understood from the point of view of someone who some church leaders to be misogynistic? Must "faith" in this way always be so blind?


 
Hi GenJen54,
It is very difficult to tell others what they should believe in or not. Yet I have made the experience (not easy!) that most of the people don't want to "bother" with too many ideas: "Just tell me Father in what I have to believe". Once more I don't agree with a similar attitude, yet I have to deal with it. 
The change away from slavery was one of the main acchievments of the christian faith. It wasn't society in itself! Maybe you are right and the change towards a women priesthood will come. I do agree that we have misoynistic people in the christian denominations, yet I don't think that it is the majority. Once more: Why do we think that God wants women priests? Just because some of us do so? Is it really a question of dignity? I personally don't think that women should work in the mines... should I consider myself misogynic? In the last african synod of bishops in Rome, a proposal was made, that women should be allowed to become cardinals. It wasn't approved yet, but it is theoretically possible...


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro Arteaga said:
			
		

> Maxiogee, do you really think that they are embarrassed by Paul's affirmations? At least I am not. As a translator I know that many words accieve their sense in history. Nobody talks about Paul's justification of slavery! We do know that it was a fact of his time. It is a sort of "that's what it used to be". We don't agree on it anymore, yet we don't "judge" it. It would be wrong in our time. We know that the future will disapprove many things we do nowadays, like the use of military force, the abuse of nature, etc.
> Paul wrote what he believed was right. It is up to the theologians - biblists to analyse if it was someting essential or accidental.
> 
> This point is not very easy!



Why does no-one talk about his attitude to slavery, for the same reason as no-one talks about his attitude to women - because the theologians say iot is not an issue - well how come the foundation of a way of life, and attitudes to morality and ethics can become passé.
Slavery is wrong, and Paul was wrong not to condemn it. It strikes at the very root of what it *is* to be a Christian to think that _*any*_ person, male or slave, woman or free, sick or child, aged or (insert _any_ form of discrimination here) ____ is any less to be valued than any other. The Catholic Church (and other Churches) doesn't believe that Paul wrote what he "believed" to be right, they believe he was divinely inspired to write what he wrote. (Or they used to!).
See this site. It actually says (admittedly vis-a-vis the dissolution of marriage) "We know that St. Paul was divinely inspired to write those words, and therefore they do contain the full truth." The fact that the words were about marriage is immaterial, as we can hardly be expected to believe that he was only inspired some of the time.


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Why does no-one talk about his attitude to slavery, for the same reason as no-one talks about his attitude to women - because the theologians say iot is not an issue - well how come the foundation of a way of life, and attitudes to morality and ethics can become passé.
> Slavery is wrong, and Paul was wrong not to condemn it. It strikes at the very root of what it *is* to be a Christian to think that _*any*_ person, male or slave, woman or free, sick or child, aged or (insert _any_ form of discrimination here) ____ is any less to be valued than any other. The Catholic Church (and other Churches) doesn't believe that Paul wrote what he "believed" to be right, they believe he was divinely inspired to write what he wrote. (Or they used to!).
> See this site. It actually says (admittedly vis-a-vis the dissolution of marriage) "We know that St. Paul was divinely inspired to write those words, and therefore they do contain the full truth." The fact that the words were about marriage is immaterial, as we can hardly be expected to believe that he was only inspired some of the time.


 
Hi Maxiogee,
You hit the very point of the discussion! How are we supposed to interpret the Scriptures? Are they dicated or inspired? Most of the christian denominations believe that they are inspired. That means that they always carry a certain "human" component. Yet, who should decide about what is human and what is divine? Some fundamentalistic groups avoid the problem by confirming that all is divine and therefor to be observed. The majority of the christian believers choose the second dimension. In the RC church it is the authority in Rome, in the orthodox Church it is the Eucemincal Councils, in many of the protestant Churches it is the national Conferences. There has always been a lot of discussion about these points. 
Today nobody talks about slavery anymore, as it is no further question. The discussion about women and authority is still very alive and biblists are trying to give a helpful suport to the discussion (what does the Bible really tell us about it! Intention, Words, Context, etc.)
Even the RC church is trying to seriously understand what Jesus tought and what has to be "conserved" and what not. Just try to understand... a wrong desicion in either direction would have or does have a lot of painful consequences. Would you like to take the responsability on your shoulders to stand one day in front of the Creator and having to answer to the accusation of having misled thousands of people? Once more: I may not agree on certain positions of Church leaders, but on the other hand, I don't have to bare their responsabilities...


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro Arteaga said:
			
		

> Hi Maxiogee,
> You hit the very point of the discussion!


Hi Pedro,
, of course I did. That's the whole point of being here. To discuss topics. I try to think seriously about what I write here. (apparently, unlike some I correspond with, or read) 




> How are we supposed to interpret the Scriptures?


Are we supposed to?
Shouldn't last year's interpretation still be valid this year, and last century's, etc?




> That means that they always carry a certain "human" component.


*They* have had 2000 years to decide - what's taking so long?




> Today nobody talks about slavery anymore, as it is no further question.


There are millions in "the Third World" who would disagree, and more than a few in the rest of the world who know it.




> Would you like to take the responsability on your shoulders to stand one day in front of the Creator and having to answer to the accusation of having misled thousands of people?


No-one, absolutely no-one, forced them to do this "interpreting" - they assume this task freely - and often with a will!


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Hi Pedro,
> , of course I did. That's the whole point of being here. To discuss topics. I try to think seriously about what I write here. (apparently, unlike some I correspond with, or read)
> good to know!
> 
> 
> Are we supposed to?
> Shouldn't last year's interpretation still be valid this year, and last century's, etc?
> 
> You might be surprised! But my answer is NO! If we think that it is God who talks to us through them, how can we think that he wants us to act as they did 500 years ago! Don't we learn, at least a little bit, even if slowly? The more we know, the greater the responsability!
> 
> *They* have had 2000 years to decide - what's taking so long?
> 
> You remember how the Church looked like 2000 years ago? No computers - no email and NO WORDREFERENCE.COM !  Still you are right it takes very very very long!
> 
> There are millions in "the Third World" who would disagree, and more than a few in the rest of the world who know it.
> 
> I've been working there and I know what you mean. Today we have new forms of slavery - economic - sexual - racist. At least official slavery laws are banned. I lived 11 years in Italy - Milan! After 3 years we found out that there were chinese children slaves working in underground factories almost downtown! I must have walked by at least a hundred times... I never ever noticed anything.
> 
> No-one, absolutely no-one, forced them to do this "interpreting" - they assume this task freely - and often with a will!


Right! They are not forced into it, and still if you have a child and he asks you an important question, don't you have to give an answer. In all christian denominations nobody "chooses" to become a major responsible. Usually you are called or elected. Well you choose to accept. But, if you think that God asks you to do this service, would you easily refuse it?

I have had many friendly and deep encounters with orthodox rabbis. The way they understand scriptures is very demanding and not easy to bear, yet they seemed very good, deep and spiritual persons to me. I don't agree with them, but I think I understand them. Maybe if I would have been born into their culture I would think likewise.


----------



## emma42

Just to try an approach other than scripture:  Do any of those forer@s who are against the idea of female priests ever, when searching for the answer to a problem in their hearts, just try to allow their minds and "souls" and hearts to tell them what they need to know?
Do they trust their consciences to enlighten them, within the love of their god?  I cannot imagine that if I were able to do that, I would come to any conclusion other than, "Yes, of course women can be priests.  The very idea that they cannot because of their sex is ridiculous".


----------



## Pedro Arteaga

emma42 said:
			
		

> Just to try an approach other than scripture: Do any of those forer@s who are against the idea of female priests ever, when searching for the answer to a problem in their hearts, just try to allow their minds and "souls" and hearts to tell them what they need to know?
> Do they trust their consciences to enlighten them, within the love of their god? I cannot imagine that if I were able to do that, I would come to any conclusion other than, "Yes, of course women can be priests. The very idea that they cannot because of their sex is ridiculous".


 
Hi Emma42, nice to see you again. Thank you for your approach to the problem. Don't we always have to take into consideration our heart? It's voice? Do you really think that men and women in the different religious denominations just "jump to conclusions" without praying and without a sincere desire to find the right answer? I agree that there are such persons everywhere, yet it is my experiences that they are in minority in the different ecumenical councils I have been working in. There is a will to find a solution, but it cannot be just out of an inner feeling. If I look at my own heart I recognize that it has been blinded by many factors during my life. There is what we call discernment and this includes all possible dimensions: heart, mind, body, history, society, tradition, scripture, exegesis, consequences, etc.
What would you say to a person that claims to have a vison or mystical locution and who confirms the oposite point. Is it correct only to accept those answers that "fit into my mentality". I have read mystical writers who desire women priests and others don't. I still consider them very special (holy) persons ... both of them!
I do hope we would listen more to our hearts, yet I fear the danger that we could become somehow deaf if it tells us what we don't want to hear. Are we really that openminded or do we just expect others to be it? These are general questions, please don't take them personal, ... I can't stop being a philosopher...


----------

