Thread: Priestesses & bishopesses? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027587
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Is referring to priests and bishops who are female as priestesses & bishopesses ever in order, even in DH or Hell?

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
I would take it on the chin and point to valid apostolic succession and conformity to and descent from the Early Church Fathers and the disciples and scripture and tradition.

I respect CofE bishops professionally rather than spiritually.
The Church of England can trace Apostolic succession under precisely the same rules that the RCC does. The RCC chose not to acknowledge this for political purposes and now can't dig itself out of that hole because Cardinal Ratzinger absurdly decided to nail it to the mast as something Catholics have to believe.
The Dutch touch, you mean? Not for much longer, with bishopesses as well as priestesses in the system. And technical apostolic validity doesn't at any rate make up for those areas where the CofE has rejected Christian teachings and practices retained by the Church proper.
From the DH thread on Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women].
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
The post has been up for less than two hours, and our Hosts do have lives outside the Ship. Give them a chance!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
FWIW, I call it "giving people enough rope to hang themselves."
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Point taken Marvin!
 
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
Whoa. Are skins so thin?

It is grammatical, it is correct, it is relatively commonplace, and it is non-derogatory.

Do we not all have the right to use X or Y grammatical form, provided one is not also being abusive?
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
It is derogatory. It is abusive.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It also

(a) implies that that the writer is coming from a standpoint that bishops must be male, instead of allowing the term to be gender-neutral (for instance, we don't talk of bus-drivers and bus-driveresses)

(b) fails to reflect current trends in language - for instance, terms like "actress" are falling out of fashion and others, such as "aviatrix", have already gone. We prefer to think that a word describing a person's office or occupation has no gender connotation.

Having said this, underlying attitudes are more important than the use of English - although such usage may betray those attitudes.

[ 15. July 2014, 14:55: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
I have seen abuse, and it does not rest on points of grammar.

Can we please be adult about this? Plenty of Anglicans have used the terms without censure. Are we sure we are not taking this as more than it looks people I am papist and others are not? C.S.Lewis even used it, for goodness sake, let alone the blogosphere.

Abuse? No.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Not only is it inherently derogatory, it is more often than not intentionally derogatory.

And believe me when I say that it is very much frowned upon on this website. Desist.

Marvin
Admin
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Invictus_88 - hand on heart - do you only use it as a point of grammar?
 
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
Moot point Boogie. The admin has spoken. We shall not call them priestesses because it is inherently derogatory.

Perhaps the pagans should be told?

Either way, I shall use alternative terms.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Perhaps the pagans should be told?
It is not necessarily derogatory of pagans if, in fact, the particular type of pagans in question had an exclusively female priesthood.

But no Christian church has an exclusively female priesthood. In fact, the very point of the churches that decide to have both male and female priests is that they are priests irrespective of gender. Making a point of the gender distinction is, in the modern Christian context, an attempt to be derogatory.

And if I were you I would stop picking fights with an Admin ruling in the way you are currently, very very soon.

[ 15. July 2014, 15:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I have never heard anyone use the terms in other than a derogatory way.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Perhaps the pagans should be told?
It is not necessarily derogatory of pagans if, in fact, the particular type of pagans in question had an exclusively female priesthood.
It is not derogatory at all in modern Pagan communities, and the fact that is not derogatory does not require a Pagan tradition to have an exclusively female priesthood.

In fact, because many Pagans have experienced various degrees of prejudice from the dominant Christian culture around them, the male members of Pagan traditions often prefer to be called a "witch" rather than "priest" (if the tradition does not have a specific name for the priestly role which many Pagan Revival traditions do). It's even not unheard of in our circles to use "priestess" as verb for whoever will lead a particular ritual no matter what the gender of person ("Hey, Jack, do you want to priestess the Esbat on Friday"?).

[ 15. July 2014, 17:22: Message edited by: Mertseger ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Technically, the word "boy" is perfectly fine and inoffensive. Except for a few contexts. And, anywhere near those contexts, it is frowned upon to use it even when it is technically correct and meant inoffensively.

Such is the case for "priestess" et al here.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I should point out that Lewis used the word "priestess" in 1948, 66 years ago, when (1) -ess and -ix and so on were pretty much standard suffixes for female versions of traditionally male things, and (2) (not counting Li Tim-Oi) about thirty years before the first ordained female priests in the Anglican Communion at all. We're talking a whole generation here.

I would assume (and welcome Hostly correction or confirmation) that in Hell, since all gloves are off and rudeness is allowed if not positively encouraged, one can use "priestess," "bishopess," etc. along with all sorts of other words, though I imagine that would be adding more glitter and neon to the target one already paints on oneself when posting in Hell.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
My real life certainly did interfere!

I think context is all. For example, there is no harm in discussing "Priestess of the White" in Heaven should the regular book threads choose it. It comes from a fascinating series.

But in serious discussions of the role of women in the church the use of the term priestess is obviously provocative, rather than descriptive (as it is in the "Priestess of the White" context.)

If I'd been around, I would have posted something along these lines in the thread. In general, provocative posting gets in the way of serious discussion, pisses people off and gets you a call to Hell. If you make a habit of it, you can get the reputation of being a bit of a jerk, and too much of that can get you banned by Admin (see Commandment 1).

So it's best avoided. It's a discourtesy (Purg Guideline 5 also applies in Dead Horses.) Sure, there is a balancing act between that and Commandment 5 (Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended) but in this case I think the balance tips in favour of not using the term.

[ 15. July 2014, 21:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:


I would assume (and welcome Hostly correction or confirmation) that in Hell, since all gloves are off and rudeness is allowed if not positively encouraged, one can use "priestess," "bishopess," etc. along with all sorts of other words, though I imagine that would be adding more glitter and neon to the target one already paints on oneself when posting in Hell.
The Hellhosts would be quite disappointed if the Hellions did not treat this usage as applying a laser target designator to some low part of the user's anatomy.

Moreover even Hell has its limits: Amongst others, C1, our 'anti-jerkishness' commandment is in effect in Hell, and while that includes the negative "isms" such as sexism, hosts invoke it sparingly and reluctantly.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It also

(a) implies that that the writer is coming from a standpoint that bishops must be male, instead of allowing the term to be gender-neutral (for instance, we don't talk of bus-drivers and bus-driveresses)

(b) fails to reflect current trends in language - for instance, terms like "actress" are falling out of fashion and others, such as "aviatrix", have already gone. We prefer to think that a word describing a person's office or occupation has no gender connotation.

Having said this, underlying attitudes are more important than the use of English - although such usage may betray those attitudes.
Back in another century when I was young(er), the lady who sold you a bus ticket was always the conductress. On the other hand, my occasionally atheistic brother-in-law will only refer to female ministers as ministeresses, as he feels they are somehow unnatural and need to be distinguished on that account. But surely 'priestess' is a term that has been used for ever.

I give thanks that in my own profession we do not find it necessary to designate engineeresses.

It's good to be reminded that the language is evolving - a point well made, BT.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Here's another perspective: official job titles. Churches that ordain women do not confer "priestess" as a job title. When I was in the position, at a certain cathedral in San Francisco, to fill out marriage licenses, "Priestess" would not have been an acceptable way to fill in the blank for "official title" of the officiant.

Not that ordination is always a job, nor is it ever only a job. But when it is, the title is never "priestess" or "bishopess."

(On a side note, I once met a woman on a bus who claimed she left the Episcopal Church because, although they would ordain her, they wouldn't let her call herself a "Priestess.")
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Marvel Comics are turning their superhero, Thor, into a woman.

"If we can accept Thor as a frog and a horse-faced alien, we should be able to accept a woman"

You'd think so wouldn't you? But I suspect there are many who would prefer frog faced alien priests to woman priests.

Note, they are not calling her 'Thorina' or 'Thoresse' just 'Thor'.
 
Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Perhaps the pagans should be told?
It is not necessarily derogatory of pagans if, in fact, the particular type of pagans in question had an exclusively female priesthood.
It is not derogatory at all in modern Pagan communities, and the fact that is not derogatory does not require a Pagan tradition to have an exclusively female priesthood.
Yes, this.

Also, frankly, this is one of the excusable types of tone argument. I quite like the word "priestess". It's sort of beautiful. "Bishopess" sounds made-up, though, in a way that the other doesn't; I'd never heard or thought of it before this thread. And the trouble with both of them is that in context it sounds like they're being used to mean "not quite a legit priest/bishop".
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Marvel Comics are turning their superhero, Thor, into a woman.

"If we can accept Thor as a frog and a horse-faced alien, we should be able to accept a woman"

You'd think so wouldn't you? But I suspect there are many who would prefer frog faced alien priests to woman priests.

Note, they are not calling her 'Thorina' or 'Thoresse' just 'Thor'.
The ordination of extraterrestrials should perhaps belong to another thread, but Þora is a common Norse woman's name (indeed, I know a skateboarding nephrologist by the name) and perhaps here we have a North American anglophone tendency to avoid genderizing. At least one place on the planet, every day, someone is unconsciously imposing their world view on somebody else.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
There is also the problem, in a CofE context, that a Deaconess was not equivalent to a Deacon but was a lower rank.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have never heard anyone use the terms in other than a derogatory way.
I have, but about 15 years ago.

I think it is now pretty firmly established that at least in the Church of England, women priests do not generally like being referred to as priestesses, and that it is not, within the CofE, the technically correct way to refer to such office-holders. Therefore using 'priestess' is both incorrect as a matter of terminology and by now is known by almost everyone who has followed the OoW debate to be highly offensive.

If anyone reading this thread is learning that for the first time, I would hope that their response is more "Oh, I didn't know - I'll avoid that term in future", than "It's an ordinary English word and I don't care who it offends".
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Marvel Comics are turning their superhero, Thor, into a woman.
Well... not technically, no. Thor, the son of Odin guy, is still around but due to something we haven't seen yet will lose the worthiness to lift the hammer, and this will be a new female character taking on his mantle as the new Thor. (He was turned into a frog, and Loki did become female for a while, though the alien horse character was also a different person taking on the mantle back in the 80s.)
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]I think it is now pretty firmly established that at least in the Church of England, women priests do not generally like being referred to as priestesses, and that it is not, within the CofE, the technically correct way to refer to such office-holders. Therefore using 'priestess' is both incorrect as a matter of terminology and by now is known by almost everyone who has followed the OoW debate to be highly offensive.

If anyone reading this thread is learning that for the first time, I would hope that their response is more "Oh, I didn't know - I'll avoid that term in future", than "It's an ordinary English word and I don't care who it offends".
I suppose the first thing to say is that bishopess is not an ordinary English word at all, and AFAIK it never has been. Priestess has ever only been used of women priests in the Anglican Church here in a highly derogatory and offensive sense. In any event, it is incorrect as there is no order of priestesses in the Anglican Church.

As to some other comments, the only dioceses here which will not ordain women as priests are Sydney and NW Australia - both predominantly evangelical of an idiosyncratic style. The other holdout, Ballarat, was as Anglo-Catholic as eg Chichester, and it now accepts and will ordain women as priests.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Marvel Comics are turning their superhero, Thor, into a woman.
Well... not technically, no. Thor, the son of Odin guy, is still around but due to something we haven't seen yet will lose the worthiness to lift the hammer, and this will be a new female character taking on his mantle as the new Thor. (He was turned into a frog, and Loki did become female for a while, though the alien horse character was also a different person taking on the mantle back in the 80s.)
Chast - it is good to have you back!
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Loki did become female for a while...
Loki has form for turning into a female. Thor, as far as I recall, limited himself to a bit of cross-dressing...
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Please note that nerdish talk about comic book characters belongs in Heaven, not here! Ta muchly

Spike
Styx Host
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is referring to priests and bishops who are female as priestesses & bishopesses ever in order, even in DH or Hell?

In the same way that it's in order to refer to doctoresses and lawyeresses and judgesses. In fact, let's go the whole hog - let's have human beings and human being-esses. Wouldn't want to confuse women with people, would we. [Biased]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is referring to priests and bishops who are female as priestesses & bishopesses ever in order, even in DH or Hell?
Why is it so difficult to accept someone's statement that using certain words is hurtful, and just not do it?
 
Posted by jerrytheorganist (# 4720) on :
 
I just had a very odd thought,,,

If using a female form of a word is wrong,, then perhaps we should start calling Mary the "Mediator" instead of "Mediatrix".

What does everyone think?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jerrytheorganist:
I just had a very odd thought,,,

If using a female form of a word is wrong,, then perhaps we should start calling Mary the "Mediator" instead of "Mediatrix".

What does everyone think?
Except the term "Mediatrix" has its footing in a very specific understanding of Mary's role in salvation; someone who merely says "Mary is a mediator between us and God" is saying something quite different from "Mary is the Mediatrix." The term is loaded with centuries of meaning. "Mediator" is not. Therefore, "mediatrix" is not merely the feminine form of a masculine word the way "aviatrix" is the feminine form of "aviator" or "waitress" of "waiter."
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is referring to priests and bishops who are female as priestesses & bishopesses ever in order, even in DH or Hell?

In the same way that it's in order to refer to doctoresses and lawyeresses and judgesses. In fact, let's go the whole hog - let's have human beings and human being-esses. Wouldn't want to confuse women with people, would we. [Biased]
In the US we have corporations and corporationesses.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In the US we have corporations and corporationesses.
[Overused]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why is it so difficult to accept someone's statement that using certain words is hurtful, and just not do it?
.

Sorry, don't understand. I said precisely that on the DH board in question.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Sorry, don't understand.
What precisely don't you understand?
...That the words like "priestess" have a default derogatory definition in the SoF context?
...That derogatory material affecting Shipmates should be confined to Hell?
...That the effective meanings of words in English are based on what the majority construe them to be, not what individuals (or even dictionaries) think they should be?

That last one bugs me, a lot. But it is true.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is referring to priests and bishops who are female as priestesses & bishopesses ever in order, even in DH or Hell?
Why is it so difficult to accept someone's statement that using certain words is hurtful, and just not do it?
Didn't think iamchristianhearmeroar was querying that - in fact, I thought (s)he was (implictly) querying why this hadn't been pointed out on the thread after Invictus_88 used the term.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by jerrytheorganist:
I just had a very odd thought,,,

If using a female form of a word is wrong,, then perhaps we should start calling Mary the "Mediator" instead of "Mediatrix".

What does everyone think?
Except the term "Mediatrix" has its footing in a very specific understanding of Mary's role in salvation; someone who merely says "Mary is a mediator between us and God" is saying something quite different from "Mary is the Mediatrix." The term is loaded with centuries of meaning. "Mediator" is not. Therefore, "mediatrix" is not merely the feminine form of a masculine word the way "aviatrix" is the feminine form of "aviator" or "waitress" of "waiter."
Just because it is old, does not make it right. Still seems like
priestess or bishopess to me.
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Yo, yo, I'm the one that started this thread y'all. I'm also the one that pulled Invictus_88 up on this in the DH thread.

I have absolutely no difficulty in accepting "someone's statement that using certain words is hurtful" as mousethief put it, not least as I was the one making that statement about how hurtful and offensive I found the use of the terms...

What I don't understand is exactly what mousethief's point was.

Stejjie gets it.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Since "Mediatrix" is Mary-specific (nay, Mary-exclusive), till we know she is offended by it, perhaps we can keep using it?

[Angel]

(Jokishness aside here, since in that case it is her specific title, given in a specific church, and honestly it's not treated interchangeably with "Mediator." It's like "Mary, Queen of Heaven"--I don't think anyone out there wants to change that to "Mary, Monarch of Heaven" (which even carries a bit of a different meaning!).)

[ 22. July 2014, 23:15: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
What is someone does not consider someone a legitimate priest or bishop? I consider Katherine Jefferts Schori a raving apostate and therefore not a legitimate bishop of God's Holy Church. Am I allowed to put quotes around bishop, i.e. Presiding "Bishop" Schori, when referring to her?

Also, could those who consider women priests or bishops in general not actual priests and bishops use quotes in a similar manner? (I am not quite that dogmatic myself. But if someone is, they should feel free to express that in their grammar.)

[ 22. July 2014, 23:44: Message edited by: St. Punk the Pious ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Well, I don't put quotes around pope when I use it, despite not being RC or believing the claims made by that church for itself or its leader. I would consider that unnecessarily sectarian and divisive.

I am not sure how the Schori situation is different.

I don't use scare quotes around the terms rabbi and imam either. If I needed to make my theological position clear - I state or explain my position (intelligibly I hope).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Am I allowed to put quotes around bishop, i.e. Presiding "Bishop" Schori, when referring to her?
No.

You call a Bishop a Bishop, even if you have doubts about the validity of her orders, or the orthodoxy of her beliefs. You call a doctor "Doctor", even if his degrees are from a medical school that you hold in low regard. And you call John Smith, who was born with XX chromosomes and the usual complement of female sexual organs "Mr. Smith" if he now presents himself as a man, whatever your opinions on transgender.
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
Those points are well taken. Sometimes (usually?) courtesy is more important than making a point. But there are times, methinks, when refusing to indulge a pretense is called for. And one should certainly be allowed to so refuse with one's choice of words and/or grammar.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
If you fail to have the courtesy to give the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church the title she is due, I will refer to your ecclesial community as "that sad little band of retrograde schismatics" at every opportunity.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
"schismatics"
Weren't they a punk band in the 70's?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Ha! If they weren't, they should have been. With righteous guitar riffs and off-key vocals.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
What if someone does not consider someone a legitimate priest or bishop?
If you want to be generally offensive, use the fucking petty little scare quotes - with the understanding that you may be called to Hell by somebody who gives a crap, and that it might accrete a fractional addition to your Commandment 1 dossier.

I generally refuse to capitalize "god" whenever I mention the amusingly soft-minded concept, so why should I insist on you being any less shitty than myself? Like two festering little malignant peas in a scrotum, you and I - hard to tell us apart. Welcome, brother.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
What is someone does not consider someone a legitimate priest or bishop? I consider Katherine Jefferts Schori a raving apostate and therefore not a legitimate bishop of God's Holy Church. Am I allowed to put quotes around bishop, i.e. Presiding "Bishop" Schori, when referring to her?

...

Those points are well taken. Sometimes (usually?) courtesy is more important than making a point. But there are times, methinks, when refusing to indulge a pretense is called for. And one should certainly be allowed to so refuse with one's choice of words and/or grammar.
Courtesy an making a point are not mutually exclusive. In the particular example, there seems a simple solution. If you don't want to imply acceptance of the validity of someone's orders, what's wrong with simply omitting the title? Why not just call her Katherine Schori, or even Ms Schori (depending on your views of the use of "Ms")?
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(depending on your views of the use of "Ms")
I'm afraid to ask, but is there a context in which "Ms" is controversial these days? It wasn't even a modern invention when it was brought back into vogue decades ago...
 
Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :
 
Perhaps Dr Schori, since she has a PhD.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(depending on your views of the use of "Ms")
I'm afraid to ask, but is there a context in which "Ms" is controversial these days? It wasn't even a modern invention when it was brought back into vogue decades ago...
Imagine if every time you filled in an official form the form asked you about your partnership status. That is basically the question asked of women every time they are asked for their title.

Basically with title a woman has three choices:
Mrs = "I am married"
Miss = "I am single"
Ms = "I do not want to tell you my marital status"

A man is not required to tell their marital status. It puts the woman as a sexual object on official forms. Personally I would favour that women's title were brought into line with men's. That would mean anyone of 14 or over is addressed as Mrs. There is historic examples of such approach.

Jengie
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I thought "Ms" was the standard in professional usage ever since... like... the 1970s? [Confused] Indeed, precisely because it is parallel to Mr.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
(Maybe it's an American thing?)
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
A man is not required to tell their marital status. It puts the woman as a sexual object on official forms. Personally I would favour that women's title were brought into line with men's. That would mean anyone of 14 or over is addressed as Mrs.
...or as Ms.

This is not only my personal preference, but the convention used in modern publishing. All women who have not expressed a preference for a particular title are referred to as "Ms" until you're told otherwise. Regardless of their marital status.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
What is someone does not consider someone a legitimate priest or bishop? I consider Katherine Jefferts Schori a raving apostate and therefore not a legitimate bishop of God's Holy Church. Am I allowed to put quotes around bishop, i.e. Presiding "Bishop" Schori, when referring to her?

Also, could those who consider women priests or bishops in general not actual priests and bishops use quotes in a similar manner? (I am not quite that dogmatic myself. But if someone is, they should feel free to express that in their grammar.)
There's a reason those particular elements of punctuation have acquired the nickname "dick quotes".
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
Good suggestions, Alan and Mertide. And I have proceeded in that way when in my less cantankerous moods.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
I was under the impression that the use of a title merely indicated common usage and not approval. I presume I don't have to start using scare quotes, lest people assume that I believe the Church of Scientology has valid orders, that a Bishop in the Church of Latter Day Saints is a legitimate heir of the Apostles or that the Prophet Mohammed was inspired by God. Assuming one has something to say the difference between authority and courtesy should be implicit, if one merely wishes to sneer one could always refrain from posting.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mertide:
Perhaps Dr Schori, since she has a PhD.
Calling her Dr Schori would have the added advantage for those who recognize her apostolicity, as there is a convention that bishops, in their teaching office are doctors of the faith. This was the origin of the dodge (mechanism, if you will) for Irish RCs when referring to CoI bishops as Dr. It spared them having to refer to them as Bishop, but the use of Dr could be open to that interpretation. Or not.

The Holy See takes the approach, when addressing those whose orders they do not recognize, of courtesy. So Justin Welby is listed in Vatican documents as the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, and in ensuing references as Archbishop of Canterbury. Those who follow febrile and overexcited integrist RC blogs will often find postings decrying this as a gross misjudgement by the Vatican, with mutterings of those who pose to confect the Mass etc etc.

If the Vatican doesn't think that common courtesy undermines their theological position, I think that the rest of us can safely err on the side of politeness.

I still retain the use of priestess for the woman two blocks over who was charged a few years ago for sacrificing a raccoon (true!! but no conviction, as they could not prove that she killed the beast), and bishopess for any overbearing wife of a bishop, but outside those specific purposes, I see no point in the use.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mertide:
Perhaps Dr Schori, since she has a PhD.
Actually, Dr. Jefferts Schori. She uses a double last name.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The talk of doctorates actually gave me brief pause for thought, because of the phenomenon of people buying their doctorates from online universities and the like.

These doctorates are widely viewed as fake, and not entitling the holder to legitimately be called Doctor.

This troubled me for a moment. Might the same argument mean that it's possible to argue that someone's ordination is not legitimate, and they're not entitled to be called priest or bishop?

And then I realised the answer was no. Because a fake doctorate is fake based on the illegitimacy of the institution, not of the individual. If one accepts calling male ordinands of the Church of England by their proper title, one is accepting the legitimacy of the Church of England to ordain people. To then try to say that their female ordinands are illegitimate is (1) trying to dictate the rules of the Church of England when you don't have authority in that Church and (2) rank sexism.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

And then I realised the answer was no. Because a fake doctorate is fake based on the illegitimacy of the institution, not of the individual.
But in RC and Orthodox eyes, it is indeed the institutions that are illegitimate. Justin Cantuar does not, in RC or Orthodox eyes, lack valid orders because of some personal failing, but because of an institutional defect in the Church of England.

You seem to be suggesting that it's OK to apply scare quotes to TEC's Presiding Bishop as long as you also apply scare quotes to Canterbury's Bishop.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mertide:
Perhaps Dr Schori, since she has a PhD.
Actually, Dr. Jefferts Schori. She uses a double last name.
Though academic doctorates (hers is a PhD in Oceanography) tend not to be used outside of academic or research settings.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Just because it is old, does not make it right. Still seems like priestess or bishopess to me.
I think it's different from those, because it is a term that JUST applies to Mary, and it denotes a different form of mediation from Jesus'. He is called the Mediator between us and God (1 Tim 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"), but only he mediates the way he mediates (by dying for us), whereas Mary's mediation is of a different sort (by praying for us as the Mother of God). So a different term is warranted (indeed, needed). It's not a term for women mediators in general; in my experience it's just used for Mary. (Hence the capital "M".)

Women aviators don't fly in a different way from men aviators, and women priests in the Anglican communion don't priestify in different ways from men priests, so having a feminine term is unneeded, unwarranted, and offensive in this day and age. But "Mediatrix" as applied to Mary is not parallel to either of those.

I would also say that for any other woman who mediates, in whatever context, the word is offensive and should not be used.

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I have absolutely no difficulty in accepting "someone's statement that using certain words is hurtful" as mousethief put it, not least as I was the one making that statement about how hurtful and offensive I found the use of the terms...

What I don't understand is exactly what mousethief's point was.
On the contrary. Obviously, you do. I apologize for reading you wrong.


quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"schismatics" Weren't they a punk band in the 70's?
Ha! If they weren't, they should have been. With righteous guitar riffs and off-key vocals.
All 70s punk bands had off-key vocals. I think it was in the papers you had to sign before they let you become a punk band.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

And then I realised the answer was no. Because a fake doctorate is fake based on the illegitimacy of the institution, not of the individual.
But in RC and Orthodox eyes, it is indeed the institutions that are illegitimate. Justin Cantuar does not, in RC or Orthodox eyes, lack valid orders because of some personal failing, but because of an institutional defect in the Church of England.

You seem to be suggesting that it's OK to apply scare quotes to TEC's Presiding Bishop as long as you also apply scare quotes to Canterbury's Bishop.
That is precisely what I'm suggesting. If someone puts quotes around male priests and bishops then they are doing something entirely different from the "priestess" and "bishopess" business that gets directed at women.

And I'm also suggesting that the Ship hasn't seen a major outbreak of quotes around "priest" or "bishop". Because people don't seem to want to try that, in the way they seem to want to have a go at female priests and bishops.
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousething
On the contrary. Obviously, you do.
You got me. I had an inkling.

quote:
Originally posted by mousething
I apologize for reading you wrong.
Thanks.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mertide:
Perhaps Dr Schori, since she has a PhD.
Actually, Dr. Jefferts Schori. She uses a double last name.
Though academic doctorates (hers is a PhD in Oceanography) tend not to be used outside of academic or research settings.
YMMV, but here in the UK it is perfectly usual for clergy with doctorates to use the title, whatever their doctorate is in. In fact ++Welby is the first ABC since I don't know when not to have a doctorate (admittedly mostly DDs, but latterly- Carey and Wiiliams- PhDs) and it seems odd not to be able to refer to him as 'Dr Welby'.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by mousething
On the contrary. Obviously, you do.
You got me. I had an inkling.

quote:
Originally posted by mousething
I apologize for reading you wrong.
Thanks.
"Mousething"? Puh-leeze. Nice return for what I tried to make a gracious apology. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Oh dear. I'd genuinely not spotted that and it's made me cackle in my office [what, SoF in the office? surely not].
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Messing with people's names like that is both a personal attack and a really good way to get into an Admin's bad books. I strongly recommend that you don't do it again.

Marvin
Admin
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
A worthy discussion, and my 2¢ worth. This is a site with religious content and discussion, so the specific terms become sensitive because they can be personalized to either other posters or to people shipmates know, respect and love. Using them is thus bad manners in addition to being offensive. Using offensive terms to reference homosexuality, nationality and race may also have the same sort of double effect of being both bad manners to some shipmates and also generally offensive. Thus I think it is more possible to get away with terms that don't reference specific people on the Ship. Thus fucktard is accepted it appears (a contraction of fucking retard), but I understand that past rudeness related to Asperger's created problems because some shipmates identify themselves with this condition.

As a comparison I am interested in reports of Canadians teaching school children in the UK where UK personnel have no idea that fun activities regarding "red Indians" is offensive and likely a straightforward human rights complaint in Canada. So context is important. Commandment #5 reads in part about trying not to have hurt feelings, though I expect that the causing of hurt feelings and perhaps outrage is precisely what some posters enjoy, at least at times.

[ 24. July 2014, 16:01: Message edited by: no prophet ]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Messing with people's names like that is both a personal attack and a really good way to get into an Admin's bad books. I strongly recommend that you don't do it again.

Marvin
Admin
mousethief you have my apologies. It was completely inadvertent and not intended as a personal attack. I only noticed when you pointed it out to me. Won't happen again.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
mousethief you have my apologies.
Thank you.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I thought "Ms" was the standard in professional usage ever since... like... the 1970s? [Confused] Indeed, precisely because it is parallel to Mr.
You'd think, wouldn't you? The hospital unit I currently work for still labels its post to the female consultants as 'Miss.....'. Sometimes an occasional 'Ms' appears, but even the consultants' own secretaries tend to 'Miss' them. Still, I suppose we ought to be grateful that girls are allowed to be doctors at all [Razz] .
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The hospital unit I currently work for still labels its post to the female consultants as 'Miss.....'. Sometimes an occasional 'Ms' appears, but even the consultants' own secretaries tend to 'Miss' them. Still, I suppose we ought to be grateful that girls are allowed to be doctors at all [Razz] .
[Confused]
But surely consultants should be addressed as Dr??? Are the male consultants Mr or Dr?
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
It's normal for a (male) consultant to be addressed as Mr - weird, but for some reason once they reach that level they drop the 'Dr' and return to being 'Mr'.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Still, I suppose we ought to be grateful that girls are allowed to be doctors at all [Razz] .
The proportion in Canada was about 30%, 15 years ago. It's approximately half today. 10 years from now it will be more than half given the proportion in training. About titles, doctors' tendency to call patients first names has led to patients doing the same with doctors. Priests are usually first names these days too.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
It's normal for a (male) consultant to be addressed as Mr - weird, but for some reason once they reach that level they drop the 'Dr' and return to being 'Mr'.
I've always assumed that this was a kind of inverted snobbery - how do you distinguish the top brass from the common run of doctor? Why, by not calling them doctor. It doesn't seem to work in other professions, the commander of a warship isn't called midshipman.
 
Posted by Abigail (# 1672) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
It's normal for a (male) consultant to be addressed as Mr - weird, but for some reason once they reach that level they drop the 'Dr' and return to being 'Mr'.
I've always assumed that this was a kind of inverted snobbery - how do you distinguish the top brass from the common run of doctor? Why, by not calling them doctor. It doesn't seem to work in other professions, the commander of a warship isn't called midshipman.
I'd always thought it was just surgeons who were called Mr?

I know that when I was last in hospital the surgeon who did my op was "Mr X" but the consultant who referred me to him and who followed me up for a couple of years after that was "Dr Y"

(Though that was 20 years ago; things could have changed)
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
Yes, they are called Mr after they pass the surgeon exams. I must look it up but I presume the tradition comes from the fact that medieval surgeons were not medically qualified doctors but barber-surgeons called in to do cutting and bleeding, though obviously the title developed a high status when the two were combined as professions.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think that's right. Surgical consultants are called Mr, but not medical ones. But in the UK anybody can call themselves Dr, e.g. dentists, or greengrocers (I think).
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Still, I suppose we ought to be grateful that girls are allowed to be doctors at all [Razz] .
The proportion in Canada was about 30%, 15 years ago. It's approximately half today. 10 years from now it will be more than half given the proportion in training. About titles, doctors' tendency to call patients first names has led to patients doing the same with doctors. Priests are usually first names these days too.
I have found that my mother (80s) and her contemporaries call their physicians Dr Bill or Dr Emily. My own GP firstnames me in private, and it is Mr The Aleut in front of her staff. My specialist is old-school South Asian and he gets Dr Rajput and he calls me Mr The Aleut, and introduces me formally to his interns, whom he calls his "young lady surgeons." One of them told me that this was the first time she realized that she was a young lady surgeon.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
They do not even have to be Consultants, just pass the surgical exams; many Senior Registrars and sometimes Clinical Assistants are Mr/Ms.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
This is all fascinating stuff but is straying a long way from Ship business. Perhaps Heaven would be a more suitable place to talk about peoples' titles

Spike
Styx Host
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that's right. Surgical consultants are called Mr, but not medical ones. But in the UK anybody can call themselves Dr, e.g. dentists, or greengrocers (I think).
According to the source of all wisdom:
quote:
In the House of Commons of the United Kingdom on 19 January 1996, health minister Gerald Malone noted that the title doctor had never been restricted to either medical practitioners or those with doctoral degrees in the UK, commenting that the word was defined by common usage but that the titles "physician, doctor of medicine, licentiate in medicine and surgery, bachelor of medicine, surgeon, general practitioner and apothecary" did have special protection in law.

 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
I'll assume we crossposted and you didn't read my comment above!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I'll assume we crossposted and you didn't read my comment above!
[Hot and Hormonal] Lo siento señor, I did indeed miss your post.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:


As a comparison I am interested in reports of Canadians teaching school children in the UK where UK personnel have no idea that fun activities regarding "red Indians" is offensive and likely a straightforward human rights complaint in Canada.
"Red Indian" has been an obvious definite no-go unacceptable term all my life, and I'm 35, so they must have found a really odd part of the UK, maybe the creche at a UKIP party conference?
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
"Red Indian" has been an obvious definite no-go unacceptable term all my life, and I'm 35, so they must have found a really odd part of the UK, maybe the creche at a UKIP party conference?
And yet when I was in England last summer the two natives I met that were informed that I was the "token Indian" of our group referred to Native Americans as "Red Indians". As I never used that term the more aware used the term I was using the less aware continued referring to me as a "Red Indian" until we parted ways.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
"Red Indian" has been an obvious definite no-go unacceptable term all my life, and I'm 35
I think you have either a short memory, or an experience that is not universal. In your youth, and mine, the TV schedules regularly featured American "Cowboys and Indians" type TV shows. I recall plenty of conversations from the late 80s and early 90s where someone would ask for clarification with "Red Indian, or Indian Indian?" with no sense that it was derogatory.

Currently, amazon.co.uk sells "Red Indian" costumes, toys and the like.
Here is a 2008 newspaper article referring to a man as a "Red Indian". Also see rugasaw's first-hand experience above.

[ 07. August 2014, 01:12: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
As people seem incapable of taking heed of my earlier host post about staying on topic, this thread is now closed
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0