Women Bishops.

Remove all ads!

@Chandos - did you talk to women belonging to RCC ? Did you ask them if they feel like lacking freedom because of that ? Those that feel that way, are completely free to convert to other religions, but somehow I don't see many doing that. Truth is, if someone leaves the Church, in general loses faith at all.

"Preaching the Word" is duty, not privilege. Priests are servants of religious community, not leaders. Even Pope is a servant of Church, but of course, temptation of power is sadly quite present among priests here and there.

Allowing female priests, among others, would mean the beginning of destruction of RCC. If Church is going to be true, it will always be "inconvenient" to some, be a "sign of opposition".

 

@Arendil: Can you explain how the Church would be destroyed by having more people available to spread the Word? I thought there was a worldwide shortage of seminary students; has that trend been reversed?

I'm truly curious, not trying to pick a fight.

[humor]
My husband has the theory that Catholics are trying to destroy other religions by out-breeding them. I guess female priests would put quite the damper on this fiendish little scheme.
[/humor]

 

Your comment was made regarding "ANY" church. Thusly, you now rely upon only your own church experience to prove that the subjugation of women is somehow "Christian."

Have you ever read the Scarlet Letter? The first scene in the novel portrays Hester being mocked by women, not men. Why would Hawthrone use women, buying into their oppression, to open his novel, which takes the larger literary stance of moving towards the liberation of women, rather than their oppression? And it is more than just a literary device.

 

I have to make one little comment.

Not a totally true statement. Many, especially women and ex-nuns have become Anglo-Catholics. I know this because I have met them.

And I freely admit that the reverse happens. Those unhappy with changes in the AC go to Rome.

 

[humor?]
I guess we catholics are no match for muslims, but we can easily outnumber Jews, despite their efforts to have 5+ children per family...
[humor?]


@Nakia - that's why I wrote "in general"...just as you, I say from my personal experience...still those that convert to other religions are minority compared to those that lose faith at all.

@Chandos - when I say church, I mean those belonging to christianity in general. Tell me - which churches that you know forbid women priests ? In this regard I use RCC as an example only. And I defend my own Church, plain and simple. Also, please, let's stick to reality...and leave some fictional works behind.

@Rally - as I said before, this is not matter of "allowing more people to spread the Word". This is a matter of changing tradition, that can cause RCC to divide, some people will remain with present beliefs, some will find out that this changed RCC is not much different than Evangelical Churches, some will lose faith, and so on. Result - tearing RCC apart into many smaller churches. This IS grave matter...

P.S.How many female rabbi's do you know ?
I'm truly curious, not trying to pick a fight.

 

One of the three rabbis at my synagogue is a woman. I've met other rabbis, both male and female, but these three are the ones I know best.

Thanks for your perspective on change. Interestingly, I see the same impacts arising from an overly-rigid adherence to tradition.

5+ children per Jewish family? Where does that come from? What I usually hear is at least two, preferrably one of each gender (so the couple replaces themselves in the next generation). Of course, striving for that gender mix could lead to a large family, but that tends to happen among the Orthodox more than Reform or Conservatives.

 

I usually hear such charges against Catholics actually. Any religion that forbids the use of contraception is sure to have a lot of kids produced.

 

I agree, and in that case, it's time to move the RCC out of the Middle Ages and into the 21st century. That's the biggest problem with dogmatic institutions - they create their own reality. Which is fine if that works for its members. The problem comes once these guys start moving into politics with this "phony reality" and start applying it to the daily lives of others who are not memebers, and who would rather enjoy their civil liberties.

 

About the catholic church.......in their early history priests were allowed to marry and women were allowed to be priests. So the argument about the gospel itself forbiding female priests is just wrong.

[ July 29, 2005, 18:42: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

Celibacy was not in fact a requirement for the priesthood till 1138, if the bible itself says unmarried priests are the ideal it took a hell of a long time for anyone to notice! One of the real reasons for banning marriage was the creeping nepotism that was overtaking the church of that era with high powered positions in the church becoming virtually hereditary. Not that the ban entirely cured the problem as families like the Medicis would show later on.

The Celtic church had no problem in allowing women to be priests or bishops, one of it's key differences (tilll it's suppression) to the Roman Catholic church with which it was technically at least allied, but often at odds with.

 

Actually, in the book of Titus I believe, it talks about Bishops, and it says that they must be men, and husband to one wife--Married Men. Quite specific, I'd say...

 

IMO, it all comes down to how many butts are in the pews. Both sides can easily be justified (modernization vs. tradition), so most churches probably just make the decision based on #leaving vs. #attracting on any proposed new policy. Even the most traditional faiths are looking at it from the viewpoint of "if we change, all these people will leave." And the 'super-modern' faiths think the exact opposite ("if we don't change with the times, all these people will leave"). I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that's called incentive-based economics.

 

By the way, can someone provide actual quotes from the New Testament on whether women should or should not be eligible for priesthood? Tradition is one thing, the Bible - another. I can't remember anything clearly for or against women's ordination, but I haven't been reading the Bible recently.

 

Ask and Ye shall receive my Friend.

Quite explicit if you ask me, and very demanding.

 

I'll say. Do you really think there are any current bishops who fulfill all of these criteria? I'd say this description just shows how far away from the religion the church has gone, so why not go one step farther? There's nothing in that which forbids lesbians, for example. In some ceremonies, one is considered to be the husband while the other is considered to be the wife. Hence, "husband of one wife".

 

Well, given the fact that "man" might indicate any human, and tends to usually be associated with a male pronoun (I don't know how it is in the Hebrew original, or the Greek translation, but I think at least one of them has gendered nouns), it makes for a somewhat dubious cause, but I suppose it could be defended. By the way, I suppose "husband of one wife" would be inclined more against either polygamy (hey, Christianity had been quite young at that time) or adultery, right?
Thank you. Is there something in the 4 gospels, by the way?

 

Actually, Lesbians would be forbidden as bishops because the Church doesn't recognize their marriage in the first place...

And I believe that these are the qualifications that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints hold their Bishops too.