Ship of Fools: Women's Ordination and equality in dignity

Thread: Women's Ordination and equality in dignity 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=030676

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

How can men and women be equal in dignity if no woman will ever be able to decide on matters of Church discipline and discern Church doctrine with the authority of a priest or bishop?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Silly stonespring. "Equal in" does not mean equal, it means equal.

In other words, it means one can continue to oppress whilst protesting that one is not.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I know that sexual complementarity is not something that all accept as true a priori. I do not even agree with much if it, if any. But I am trying to address the teaching that men and women are equal in dignity on its own terms and see if it holds true when women cannot be ordained and hence cannot exercise any teaching and legal authority in the Church, if at all, without their authority being subordinated to that of a male superior.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

To state my view plainly: Equal in dignity is bullshit without equality in rights and practice.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

lilBuddha has just knocked that one on the head. 'Equal in dignity' is camouflage, behind which one can carry on with the old oppressions, and even some new ones, which we have thought of recently, and which we would be delighted to share with you - only, of course, if you are male!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

... or in layman's terms, lets put women on a pedestal and then make them dust it. [Snigger]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Plus a bit of hoovering round the base; plus sex, when I feel like it; plus, I get to hold the TV remote.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It reminds me of separate but equal. Thus:

Gentlemen, we hereby affirm that the white and Negro races have separate responsibilities and duties, but are equal in dignity, and equal before God.

Thank you all. Could I just remind you that the next lynching of a nigger will take place, Sunday, at 7pm sharp in the town square. There will be a hog-roast, a travelling band, and circus performers. Don't miss out!

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Does anyone have even the slightest clue as to how those people who oppose women's ordination claim that it still allows for men and women to be equal in dignity? I can't even understand how it allows them to be equal in dignity, let alone equal in all other aspects.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I think it has something to do with the dignity of motherhood - which was probably invented by someone who chose not to be present during births, and didn't change nappies.

I wouldn't know - being single, that definition, if it is what is involved, wouldn't dignify me.

I agree, the thought processes are very hard to follow, but I have come to realise that there are many people whose minds work completely differently from mine, and faced with whom I realise that I have no theory of mind, and am probably autistic with regard to them (though not in regard to other mindsets.) They have the same problem in the other direction.

One of the arguments against gay marriage has been that the institution must have the complementarity of male and female built into it, and I found myself suspecting that what was meant was inequality, since every couple works out its complementarity according to the partners strengths - don't they?

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Does anyone have even the slightest clue as to how those people who oppose women's ordination claim that it still allows for men and women to be equal in dignity? I can't even understand how it allows them to be equal in dignity, let alone equal in all other aspects.

Ok, I'll bite. The functions that you refer to neither reflect nor confer dignity. There are plenty of other groups of people who would be unable perform those roles whose dignity is unquestioned. Leadership is not a right. Etc.
Incidentally, I don't actually believe in ordination at all, and I wonder if the "power" involved in being ordained in more Catholic traditions than my own is part of the issue here.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

What other groups cannot be ordained? Other than children, who can be ordained when they are older, it seems to me that among those baptized who accept and live by the Church's teachings, women are singled out. Of course there is no right to be ordained. No man has that right either. But there is a difference between an individual's not being called to the priesthood by God and a whole group's being un-ordain-able. In other words, it is not that any woman does not have a right to be called by God, which is true, it is saying that women cannot possibly be called by God to the priesthood because God wouldn't do that.

Although other Christian traditions disagree, being a bishop is largely about exercising power, wisely and humbly, but exercising it nonetheless. You can't be the servant to the servants of your diocese without having the power to bind and loose. Priests exercise power that is delegsted to them by their bishop. It is all for the purpose of service (ie, ministry).

Anyway, the reason I seize on the issue of authority is that any role you can claim that women can perform that men cannot (ie, motherhood) does not have any kind of authority that men (ie, fathers) lack. Maybe mothers are better able to tug at our moral strings than fathers, but fathers can participate in that kin if authority and often exercise it better than many mothers. The priesthood and episcopate have types of authority that women are not allowed in some churches to exercise at all. There is not a single woman that God would call tothst kond of authority. That is what I think goes against equality of dignity.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Um, let me try. You see, Christ is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride. Right? And bridegrooms are male and brides are female. And the female, as in the electrical and mechanical trades, is a receptacle that receives the male protrusion. And the male effusion too, one might add. Of equal dignity but different shape, function, and symbolism. Ok?
So therefore, the priest representing Christ at the altar must be male. So only men can be priests. And the communicant, representing the Church at the altar rail, must be female. So only women can receive the Lord's Supper.

Oh wait. That's not right is it? [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

This is a tangent from the main topic, but the focus on nuptial complementarity in vocations does have its pitfalls. If priests acting in persona Christi are married to the Church (feminine, the Body and Bride of Christ), and nuns are brides of Christ, what are lay religious brothers? For that matter, what are celibate single people?

Also about the idea of motherhood being a purely female thing that makes up for women's not being able to be ordained, doesn't that demean fatherhood?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Amos: no-one has yet defined the purpose of the penis in the administration of the Eucharist.

But we all know that it is essential, just because....

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I have heard (at a Christian Union weekend away) that men are the head of women because God the Father is the head of God the Son. Ummmmm....

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

Jade - that is kind of sa version of Arianism and was knocked on the head by the early church. It is a moderrn heresy in the form you report it which seems to have originated in the USA and Sydney Anglican diocese. Sydney Anglicans droped it when people told them they were Arians!

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Am I the only one who finds it curious that the discussion on Women's Ordination is a shouting back and forth of "It's an issue of human rights!" on one side and "Ordination is in response to a calling by God and not a right." on the other side?

Why doesn't anyone point out that opponents of women's ordination are basically saying that God has called men to be ordainable (even if not every man is called to be ordained) while passing over women (and not giving them any other equivalent or even complementary role - motherhood is compelente fully by fatherhood and the priesthood is not just a form of fatherhood). I just do not see how you can say that women are equal to men in dignity when they are shut out of the class of people that God chooses priests from.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I just do not see how you can say that women are equal to men in dignity when they are shut out of the class of people that God chooses priests from.

And we just do not see why you make that equation.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Mousethief, can you explain that post? Where did my reasoning go off the rails?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Mousethief, can you explain that post? Where did my reasoning go off the rails?

It's not your reasoning, apparently, it's your gut feeling that equality of dignity requires equal access to the priesthood. "I just don't see it" isn't reasoning.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

So let's call a spade a spade: God does not consider women (in general- pax Our Lady) "equal in dignity". Equality in our usage is a modern term. It's an ancient religion, and it doesn't care if women feel or are thought of as "equal". Suck it up, ladies.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not your reasoning, apparently, it's your gut feeling that equality of dignity requires equal access to the priesthood. "I just don't see it" isn't reasoning.

If a company claimed to consider all female employees to be of equal dignity to male employees, while simultaneously making managerial roles male-only, what would be your opinion of that company's claim?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Well, to be fair, the reasoning against ordination of women is fairly tenuous.
1. We've never done it so we cannot do it now.
2. God did not explicitly say we can. (No, no, ignore the part where he didn't say we couldn't, that isn't relevant.)

ETA: response to MT.

[ 23. May 2013, 15:42: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

OK, I'll bite, although be aware that I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate, as I'm actually in favour of women's ordination / consecration.

I think the OP, and some subsequent posts, are aiming at the wrong targets.

1. In the Olden Days your function in society was determined by your birth. If you were born a peasant you would be a farmer, if you were a noble then you would administer the land, and so on, and the roles of men and women fit into a larger scheme of birth-determinism. The idea that you could choose your own path in life was totally alien to society. (Ironically, AIUI, the Church was, if anything, a liberalising force, in that you could move upwards in power and influence by joining the clergy or the religious orders. If you wanted to be a powerful woman you were best off being a nun.)

In theory the people at the top were supposed to recognise that they weren't actually better or more meritorious than those below them - they were there by the grace of God, which is why our coins still say D.G.REG*. on them. The Habsburgs had a splendid funeral custom where the pallbearer would ask for admittance to the Capuchin Chapel, giving a list of the deceased Emperor's titles (which takes forever), to meet with the response "I don't know of him". The body would only be allowed to enter when the pallbearer said: "X, a miserable sinner".

2. In Modern Times we give more credence to the idea that people should be allowed to find their own path in life according to their skills and temperament. This is almost entirely a Good Thing, except that a.) it encourages personal pride in one's position, as one has the illusion that one is there through one's own choices and capabilities, and b.) it reinforces the idea that people in unprestigious careers, or who haven't advanced very far in a 'respectable' career, are failures by their own fault, when in reality all forms of labour should be equal in dignity.

3. This is a very roundabout way of saying that there should not be any more dignity attached to the office of bishop or priest than to the offices of housewife, cook, or cleaner, which is why I think the OP's attack misses its mark. The real problem with the traditionalist position is that, in reality, it offers a modern concept of choice to men but denies it to women.

* Dei gratiâ Regina - by God's grace Queen.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not your reasoning, apparently, it's your gut feeling that equality of dignity requires equal access to the priesthood. "I just don't see it" isn't reasoning.
If a company claimed to consider all female employees to be of equal dignity to male employees, while simultaneously making managerial roles male-only, what would be your opinion of that company's claim?

Apples and oranges. The priesthood isn't a managerial role.

@lilbuddha: The arguments will not be convincing to a non-O, I understand that. But mostly I was responding to treating "I just can't see it" as if it were an argument.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The functions that you refer to neither reflect nor confer dignity. There are plenty of other groups of people who would be unable perform those roles whose dignity is unquestioned. Leadership is not a right. Etc.
Incidentally, I don't actually believe in ordination at all, and I wonder if the "power" involved in being ordained in more Catholic traditions than my own is part of the issue here.

I'm certain it is, or rather I'm convinced that it's the tying in of leadership and power with authority and validity in celebrating the sacraments that makes it a question of equality.

What I mean is, in high church theory a bishop could just ordain anybody to an ontological status of being-able-to-preside, without tying them into being an elder. In essence a separate priestly group to whom you would go for sacraments but nothing else. If that was done, then ordination wouldn't really have equality questions because the qualities required for good priestliness would not be an issue. Okay, maybe some loony would argue that men were better at carrying chalices but I hope you get what I'm saying.

As it is though there are good reasons why bishops ordain elders, or those deemed capable of being trained to be elders, with all the leadership and organising and public face and so on that goes with it and so a refusal to ordain women looks like (whether it is in the intent of the refuser or not) evidence of belief in a lack of those eldership qualities in women.

Now I've no doubt that there are people who believe women as a group can't (as opposed to shouldn't) do leadership but I don't think that's mainstream. This seems to me to basically shoot the complimentarity argument down in flames, as it's really nothing more than saying women can't do this because they should be off having babies. You still have St Paul's position in Scripture and the argument from Tradition to contend with of course and that's another story.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The arguments will not be convincing to a non-O, I understand that.

They're not entirely convincing to me, when it comes down to it. But it will be many a long century before that changes in the OC, I fear. And for good or ill there are many other problems that we need to rectify before that is even viewed as possible let alone desirable.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
In theory the people at the top were supposed to recognise that they weren't actually better or more meritorious than those below them - they were there by the grace of God, which is why our coins still say D.G.REG*. on them.

Thought that was more a "Shut it! Who do you think you are speaking to?!"

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I did say 'in theory'. And in theory I think although you were supposed to show respect to your manorial lord, the respect was, in theory, for the office rather than the office-holder.

But as I say, I think the attempted abandonment of this sort of stratified society is almost entirely a Good Thing, so I don't want to defend it too closely.

[ 23. May 2013, 16:46: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Ok mousethief, how are women equal in dignity to men if they are believed to be a group that should not or cannot be ordained? I think equality in dignity means that either God can call you to any vocation that he can call anyone else to or, if your group has some vocation than it cannot be called to, then it must have some other vocation of complementary qualities that only members of your group can be called to. Therefore, that would mean women would have to have some vocation they could be called to that men cannot that complements the priesthood. Motherhood does not cut it because it already complements fatherhood, and if the priesthood is an expansion upon fatherhood, what would the complementary expansion upon motherhood be? Being a nun or sister doesn't cut it because men can be monks and brothers. If my logic is flawed please point out where and then please explain what equality in dignity means and how it can coexist with an inequality in opportunities for vocations.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Again it's not a question of logic, it's a question of something you think. You think that God should be able to call people to either the same, or separate but equal, ministries. Why? Why does this trump somebody who says, "I don't think that is an indication of dignity." (The rest of your post is examples, not argument.)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by stonespring
How can men and women ...authority of a priest or bishop?

The short answer is that they can't.

But to see this as an issue or problem purely for the CofE or other church is almost a side issue:

It is possible to take a view that the orders of priesthood in all the churches are seriously flawed, and that the more any denomination tries to claim it is reflecting either the time or will of Christ the more flaws it shows up.

The idea of an leadership unmarried by decree was not only foreign to judaism but anathema since the family of the rabbi was seen as being essential to show an example to the faithful of proper, observant family life.

But then you have the idea of a rabbinic or priestly tribe or family which would exclude a whole tranche of people from the possibility of leadership or priesthood.

And since judaism is passed through the female line, the whole idea of claiming some kind of orthodoxy through a male line, even a line not of biological decent, is particularly untrue to the roots the christians claim for themselves.

So, to be true to our judaic roots, the church should have a tribe or family tradition of priesthood; membership of this should be passed through the female line; and priests in general - and chief priests in particular - should be married men with children. [Smile]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

IIRC the female line thing came after 70 AD, usually given as the date when the Rabbinic Jews and the Christians parted company for the last time.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Judaism passes through the female line though that idea seems to have developed late; however, the status of Kohen or Levite is through the male line.

As far as I'm aware being a rabbi is not restricted to any family line. Any adult male Jew could potentially be a rabbi or cantor (extended to females in some branches).

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Alright mousethief, I will say then that one consequence I believe arises from men and women's being equal in dignity is their being equal in worth in the eyes of God. If God sees men and women as equal in worth, than He would call them to either the same set if possible vocations or two different complementary sets (with significant overlap) where, if one sex has a certain vocation exclusive to it that allow for a certain amount of power (power for service of God and others, of course, not service of self), the other sex must have an equal amount of power in one or more of the vocations that God calls that sex to. To give men a vocation that has powers that the women di not have in any vocation and to not even match it by giving the women powers in one or more vocations that men lack (and that are equal in importance to the powers exclusive to male vocations), is to grant men a superior dignity to that of women. Would anyone agree that a country's laws saw men and women as equal in dignity if only men could be head of state and hold positions in the legislature? I guess a country could have two separate and equal houses of the legislature, one for men and one for women, and have two heads of state, one for each sex, that had to agree on their policies, but that would awaken uneasant memories of apartheid - separate but equal inlaw almost never means true equality in practice. The Church, if women's ordination is impssible and certain powers of governance and doctrinal interpretation are left only to bishops and priests, does not even have that structure of separate but equal power.

The short way of saying all that is that equality of dignity means equality in potential power (as in equality in the power of the roles each sex can fill). If, as I suspect, you say that one does not follow from the other, please tell me how men and women are equal in dignity if one sex has powers that the other sex does not (and the other sex does not even have any different powers exclusive to it), or explain to me how men and women are in fact equal in power even if women cannot be ordained. Just saying that my arguments that no evidence is not enough. I am asking that you offer some evidence for your argument, whatever that is.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Apples and oranges. The priesthood isn't a managerial role.

It's where all the power and authority reside. It's where all the decisions are made, and it's how those decisions are communicated to everyone else. It's where a person becomes one of the leaders rather than one of the led, a shepherd rather than a sheep.

Power, authority and leadership are the key elements of the priesthood. Yet you say this isn't a managerial role?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Power, authority and leadership are the key elements of the priesthood. Yet you say this isn't a managerial role?

I got pulled up by someone here (can't remember who, but it wasn't mousethief) for using the word 'leader' to describe church pastors / priests / ministers etc. It feels to me like special pleading, to be honest...

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

When it comes to the Church, equality isn't equality and leadership isn't leadership. [Roll Eyes]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0