homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: Relative nastiness of CofE pressure groups (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: Relative nastiness of CofE pressure groups
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
[QB] I started this threat with the intention of discussing the tone of various pressure groups, independent of the policies they advocate. For many posters, this sadly seems impossible.

I don't believe it is possible to separate the tone of a debate from its subject matter. Egregious injustice sometimes requires intemperate language that would be inappropriate in a different case. However, on reflection, I do think you are correct that my tone and language in this thread have stepped over the line. I've allowed my cynicism and suspicion to override my more charitable impulses, and used language that presumed a greater certainty of the disingenuousness of those opposed to the ordination of women than is justified. Please accept my apologies.

Opposition to the ordination of women comes from either of two theological and sociological places that are far removed from my own. I find it very difficult to understand how one can arrive at them without having a deep underlying vein of misogyny, and yet as others have pointed out there are a fair few women who subscribe to these views. What I suppose I find difficult is that there are people who hold these views with genuine faith and sincerity, and have arrived at them as a consequence of principles they hold to be fundamental to their belief in Christ; but there are others (I hope you will concur) who have arrived at the same public views as a cover for traditionalism and/or misogyny. Telling the difference is doubly hard as even for the former category, trying to be comfortable in that position is made easier if you can convince yourself that women don't make good priests, which ends up treading ground that looks awfully similar to misogyny.

It is no doubt the case that the same is true on the pro- side. I grew up with the understanding that women should be ordained on the same basis as men, and with female priests (good and less good) serving in the parish where I grew up. It's possible I'm part of the first generation who grew up with that being the case. It's hard then to say whether my convictions on this issue come from the core understanding of my faith or the reverse. Certainly the "facts on the ground", the experience of female priests in active service has strongly inclined me towards what might be termed a Galatians 3:28 view - I simply find it very hard to imagine that God cares at all about gender distinctions any more than he does about class or race. They are just not things that are on God's radar.

I realise I've rambled a bit here but I hope it gives a clearer picture of where I'm coming from.

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The key phrase is actually. You know, things like, believing they're actually priests,

Sorry to nit-pick but if someone doesn't believe that a woman can be a valid Priest, then why on earth would/should they act towards them as if they are?

By all means treat people with respect and basic dignity and care of the person, but if they can't be something then they shouldn't be treated as that something...?

Which what the problem is in a nutshell. If 'someone' doesn't accept the validity of any woman's consecration and ministry, then 'someone' isn't doing anything worth jack to accommodate them within the church. That's entry-level decency - respect, basic dignity and care comes afterwards.
[brick wall]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The key phrase is actually. You know, things like, believing they're actually priests,

Sorry to nit-pick but if someone doesn't believe that a woman can be a valid Priest, then why on earth would/should they act towards them as if they are?

By all means treat people with respect and basic dignity and care of the person, but if they can't be something then they shouldn't be treated as that something...?

Which what the problem is in a nutshell. If 'someone' doesn't accept the validity of any woman's consecration and ministry, then 'someone' isn't doing anything worth jack to accommodate them within the church. That's entry-level decency - respect, basic dignity and care comes afterwards.
[brick wall]
Jeez. Imagine what it's like being a woman and a priest with 'someone' around denying your very existence.

There's no 'stabbing yourself in the face' smilie for that.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778

 - Posted      Profile for S. Bacchus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:


Opposition to the ordination of women comes from either of two theological and sociological places that are far removed from my own. I find it very difficult to understand how one can arrive at them without having a deep underlying vein of misogyny, and yet as others have pointed out there are a fair few women who subscribe to these views. What I suppose I find difficult is that there are people who hold these views with genuine faith and sincerity, and have arrived at them as a consequence of principles they hold to be fundamental to their belief in Christ; but there are others (I hope you will concur) who have arrived at the same public views as a cover for traditionalism and/or misogyny. .

Thank you. Yes, that is helpful. It seems to me that the problem has been greatly exacerbated because the Church of England, although of one polity, is not really of one ecclesiology (i.e. they don't all view that polity in the same way). The Anglo-Papalist mindset (which, I think it is safe to say, prevails in Forward in Faith) is, I'm sure, not easy for those from a liberal or open evangelical background to understand. Even for those of us who are not Anglo-Papalists but who are in some shade of the catholic wing of the Church of England, Rome doesn't seem perhaps quite so distant as it might otherwise. Even in my own parish, which is definitely in the Prayer Book Catholic tradition and is more liberal than not, copies of the CTS Daily Missal and GIRM sit in the sacristry to resolve questions like 'does the feast of the sacred heart have a Gloria and Creed at Mass?'. Over time, that sort of thing probably does lead us to care more about 'what Rome says' than might be the case in the charismatic evangelical parish down the street. Remember also that most high Anglicans still feel very deeply hurt by Apostolicae Curae, and that a small minority of them had dedicated inordinate effort to 'showing Rome that our orders are valid'. For them, the ordination of women was a step backward in this quixotic quest. For a larger number (of frankly more reality-minded) people, it was only the realization that Rome was never likely to come round that opened the possibility of accepting the ordination of women.

In my experience, debates about the consecration of women to the episcopacy between parties with similar views of the episcopacy have been both more civil and more constructive than those where the parties do not have this underlying theological similarities. Thus, I think there is more to be gained from discussions between 'Affirming Catholics' and Forward in Faith (and probably also between 'open' and 'conservative' evangelicals) than there is between groups that do not share the same underlying theology. Synod mixes all together into a great tempest, and the results are sometimes incomprehensible. Listening to Synod on the radio was the first time I'd ever really heard talk of headship from actual person, as opposed to as a strawman. The position of Reform seemed alien to me. Sometimes the positions of 'liberals' seemed only a little less alien.


There are misogynists in the Church of England. In my experience, there are more of them amongst the laity than amongst the priesthood (probably because DDOs aren't entirely stupid). There certainly were Anglican priests who were clearly misogynists. Most of them have left the Church of England, generally very soon after the ordination of the first women priests.

Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect you have a rosier view of misogyny than women on this thread because you don't experience it. I have in a couple of London churches as a lay person visiting.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956

 - Posted      Profile for pererin   Email pererin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect you have a rosier view of misogyny than women on this thread because you don't experience it. I have in a couple of London churches as a lay person visiting.

I suspect there's a certain sort of woman who goes around looking for evidence of misogyny, and can't accept that in doing so she is putting people's backs up — to her, it will always be their fault, and not hers.

--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)

Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
I suspect there's a certain sort of woman who goes around looking for evidence of misogyny, and can't accept that in doing so she is putting people's backs up — to her, it will always be their fault, and not hers.

I don't think a woman would have to be looking for misogyny to find it in your post--particularly after the testimony we've had from on this thread from women who are priests about the way they've been treated.

I have a simple test I usually try to see if something is really being condescending to someone of another race, sex, or sexuality--change the pronouns, etc. and see if it becomes ludicrous. Let's try it on your post, shall we? It would then read:

"I suspect there's a certain sort of man who goes around looking for evidence of misandry, and can't accept that in doing so he is putting people's backs up — to him, it will always be their fault, and not his."

If you can't imagine someone seriously saying that, you are out of line to make the observation about women--even more so when so many women who are priests have been sharing their sometimes-horrific stories on this thread. It becomes another case of talking ABOUT people instead of talking TO them.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The key phrase is actually. You know, things like, believing they're actually priests,

Sorry to nit-pick but if someone doesn't believe that a woman can be a valid Priest, then why on earth would/should they act towards them as if they are?

By all means treat people with respect and basic dignity and care of the person, but if they can't be something then they shouldn't be treated as that something...?

Which what the problem is in a nutshell. If 'someone' doesn't accept the validity of any woman's consecration and ministry, then 'someone' isn't doing anything worth jack to accommodate them within the church. That's entry-level decency - respect, basic dignity and care comes afterwards.
Agree with us or be called a bigot. DO you have any idea how ridiculous this idea is.

I am the Anglican Pope of the grand order of Make Believe. Not to treat me as such denies my basic rights and refuses me accomodation in the Church.

FFS...

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483

 - Posted      Profile for iamchristianhearmeroar   Author's homepage   Email iamchristianhearmeroar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As a more general question, though, do I as a member of the Church of England have the right (not sure that is the correct word really) to question the validity of someone's orders who has been ordained in accordance with CofE Canon Law on any ground I wish? Or is it only specific grounds? If so, which?

--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/

Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
As a more general question, though, do I as a member of the Church of England have the right (not sure that is the correct word really) to question the validity of someone's orders who has been ordained in accordance with CofE Canon Law on any ground I wish? Or is it only specific grounds? If so, which?

Since we're still officially in the period of reception by the wider Church of our unilateral action in '92, I'd say this one is definitely allowed.

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483

 - Posted      Profile for iamchristianhearmeroar   Author's homepage   Email iamchristianhearmeroar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, but my point was if that, why not other grounds? A priest is married, for example. A priest was not ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop. A priest was ordained by a Bishop who ordains women. A priest is gay. A priest is a transexual. A priest is intersex.

Are any/all of these grounds on which the validity of their orders could reasonably be challenged?

--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/

Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778

 - Posted      Profile for S. Bacchus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Yes, but my point was if that, why not other grounds? A priest is married, for example. A priest was not ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop. A priest was ordained by a Bishop who ordains women. A priest is gay. A priest is a transexual. A priest is intersex.

Are any/all of these grounds on which the validity of their orders could reasonably be challenged?

Being married or gay would definitely have no bearing on the validity of orders (although they ordaining a married man priest would be an illicit act for a Western-Rite Roman Catholic bishop), and Rome has of course received several married Anglicans priests into the Ordinariate. The other hypothetical examples would require a more skilled canon lawyer than myself

--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.

Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Agree with us or be called a bigot. DO you have any idea how ridiculous this idea is.

The CofE is a church that ordains men and women as priests. Therefore it is not ridiculous to expect male priests in the CofE to accept female priests in the CofE as validly ordained.

I find it ridiculous that some don't.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne
Shipmate
# 73

 - Posted      Profile for anne   Email anne   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Agree with us or be called a bigot. DO you have any idea how ridiculous this idea is.

The CofE is a church that ordains men and women as priests. Therefore it is not ridiculous to expect male priests in the CofE to accept female priests in the CofE as validly ordained.

I find it ridiculous that some don't.

I don't know about ridiculous - but I certainly find it hard to understand some of the anti-OoW sentiments expressed by some men ordained into the CofE in the last decade. Whatever the 'untainted' status* of the bishop who did the ordaining, they were ordained into a church which ordained women. A church which used the same selection process, the same ordination rite, which invoked the same Holy Spirit on all its priests, whatever their gender.

If the CofE is as wrong as some think about this, and if the CofE being wrong matters as much as some say, why choose to be ordained into it? Because 'I believe that God has called me to be a priest in a church which is in the most terrible error about some of the most important parts of being a church and this error will lead me to be out of communion with some other people who will also be ordained into the same church' doesn't cast God in a very flattering light.

anne

* degrees of untaintedness including, but not restricted to 'never ordained a woman', 'never thought about ordaining a woman', 'consecrated by other bishops who had themselves never ordained a woman', 'used to ordain women, but cravenly changed his mind after some local unpleasantness and has washed his hands really, really well, promise'**

**Oh yes, he's out there

--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale

Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Yes, but my point was if that, why not other grounds? A priest is married, for example. A priest was not ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop. A priest was ordained by a Bishop who ordains women. A priest is gay. A priest is a transexual. A priest is intersex.

Are any/all of these grounds on which the validity of their orders could reasonably be challenged?

Being married or gay would definitely have no bearing on the validity of orders (although they ordaining a married man priest would be an illicit act for a Western-Rite Roman Catholic bishop), and Rome has of course received several married Anglicans priests into the Ordinariate. The other hypothetical examples would require a more skilled canon lawyer than myself
What S Bacchus said. You know damned well, iamchristian, that only some of those issues can affect validity. You act as though opponents of the purported ordination of women are just plucking, selectively, reasons out of their arses to reject something which is apparently obvious.

This. Is. Not. The. Case.

And the CofE is not "a church which ordains women". It is a church which for the last twenty odd years purported to do so in the context of a process of discernment by the wider Church which has not yet ended

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
anne
Shipmate
# 73

 - Posted      Profile for anne   Email anne   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
And the CofE is not "a church which ordains women". It is a church which for the last twenty odd years purported to do so in the context of a process of discernment by the wider Church which has not yet ended

I don't quite understand the implications of this statement. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining further. Specifically, could you answer this question:

Am I a priest?

If you need some background: I was ordained (alongside 15 other men and women) in accordance with the Anglican ordinal, in a Church of England Cathedral, by a Church of England Diocesan bishop.

I receive a stipend from the Church of England to exercise a ministry (Team Vicar) which is only open to ordained Anglicans.

I am licensed to this ministry by a (different) Anglican Bishop.

So am I a priest in the Church of England? And if I am, by what possible logic is the CofE not a church which ordains women?

anne

--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale

Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
And the CofE is not "a church which ordains women". It is a church which for the last twenty odd years purported to do so in the context of a process of discernment by the wider Church which has not yet ended

I'm watching from overseas, so I'm not exactly up on everything happening in the C of E. Still, wasn't it something like 40 of 42 dioceses that overwhelmingly endorsed the legislation for women to be consecrated as bishops before it barely failed to pass by a 2/3 majority in General Synod (which, as I've been given to understand on the Ship, is probably a less representative group)?

I'm no Belshazzar, but I can read the writing on the wall. As far as most of the C of E is concerned, it would seem to any disinterested observer that the period of discernment is basically over.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
And the CofE is not "a church which ordains women".

Well done on keeping a straight face while typing this. I certainly didn't manage one while reading it.

The CofE is a church which ordains women. I've even been there when they've done it. You might have other ideas, but for the purposes of ordination in the CofE, they have absolutely no weight at all.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The point was to set in the wider context (a wider context specifically invoked by the '92 measure) the simplistic statement that "the CofE is a church which ordains women". Reduction to nuance-obscuring simplicity is one of WATCH's chief tactics, and it's infuriating.

The period of discernment cannot end until the Universal Church decides on the matter. This might mean it never will. But this is what the CofE decided, bearing in mind its claims to be a part of the Church Catholic, rather than another Protestant sect, promised to do. Those women who have been ordained/'ordained'/insert-your-favourite-term have been so provisionally. Conditional, if you will, on the eventual (or not) approval of the Church.

SO to pretend that there's some arbitrary temporal line, past which we can stop caring about the wider Church is ridiculous. Theology doesn't go away because we get bored of it. One of the chief tenors of WATCH and their affiliates has been the "we've waited long enough" line. It's bullshit. If it took another two thousand years, if it took ten, we should have bloody waited.

In response to your question, Anne, I don't think you are. Some people, including the majority of Anglicans alive today, do. None of us actually know the answer, and shan't until an Oecumenical council sets forth the Will of the Church one way or another.

The fact of your occupying a cure of souls, tending to that cure, being licensed by the bishop, or receiving a stipend are irrelevant to the validity or otherwise of your Orders, so I'm not sure why you bring them up, except to say 'the CofE considers me a priest'. WHich I'm perfectly prepared to concede, for a fairly exact definition of 'CofE' and 'considers'.

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
anne
Shipmate
# 73

 - Posted      Profile for anne   Email anne   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This just in from the Church in Wales

--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale

Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
[QUOTE]


This thread has gone some way in my mind toward establishing that supporter of the ordination of women hate their opponents in a way that is simply not true the other way round.


Other way round for me. It just confirms my many observations that the anti-women party habitually lies about their opponents.

And that is hurtful too, especially for those trying very hard to keep those people in the CofE, if they want to stay.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483

 - Posted      Profile for iamchristianhearmeroar   Author's homepage   Email iamchristianhearmeroar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Llongyfarchiadau!! [Smile]

--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/

Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The period of discernment cannot end until the Universal Church decides on the matter. This might mean it never will. But this is what the CofE decided, bearing in mind its claims to be a part of the Church Catholic, rather than another Protestant sect, promised to do.

I'd be interested in knowing if this was how anyone else voting for the measure read it. I suspect it was a very carefully worded measure which allowed far too many different viewpoints to read into it what they hoped to find, trusting to be able to gain more political momentum in the next cycle of elections.

I also know that if the CofE considers itself Catholic instead of Protestant (not something I'd care to posit strongly, myself) they would say "Whomever we choose to ordain is ordained". It is not a Catholic trait to allow the laity to decide who is ordained and who is not.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
anne
Shipmate
# 73

 - Posted      Profile for anne   Email anne   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
In response to your question, Anne, I don't think you are. Some people, including the majority of Anglicans alive today, do. None of us actually know the answer, and shan't until an Oecumenical council sets forth the Will of the Church one way or another.

The fact of your occupying a cure of souls, tending to that cure, being licensed by the bishop, or receiving a stipend are irrelevant to the validity or otherwise of your Orders, so I'm not sure why you bring them up, except to say 'the CofE considers me a priest'. WHich I'm perfectly prepared to concede, for a fairly exact definition of 'CofE' and 'considers'.

Thank you. Like you, I do not think that my stipend, licence etc are relevant to the validity of my Orders. I brought them up for the reason that you give, in order to emphasise that 'the CofE considers me a priest.'

It seemed to me that the two statements 'the CofE considers (a woman) a priest' and 'the Church of England is not a church that ordains women' were not easily reconcilable, whatever your definitions of 'CofE' and 'considers'.

I am sorry if you consider this to be a "reduction to nuance-obscuring simplicity" - it is not my intention to infuriate, simply to understand.

anne

--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale

Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
This just in from the Church in Wales

Bishops say "Trust us to produce a code of conduct" fat chance.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The point was to set in the wider context (a wider context specifically invoked by the '92 measure) the simplistic statement that "the CofE is a church which ordains women". Reduction to nuance-obscuring simplicity is one of WATCH's chief tactics, and it's infuriating.

So "wider context" actually means "according to the nit-picking obsessions about validity held by a large minority of those members of the CofE who oppose the ordination of women"? Sounds like a narrower context to me.

And you keep on going on about how nasty WATCH is being to you without ever quoting anything nasty from them. You're just asking everybody to believe that they were horrid to you once. Someone who read this thread who knew nothing about these CofE pressure groups would not have learned anything about e supposed nastiness of WATCH from what you have written here.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes - I am sorry the 'traditionalists' are, yet again, being marginalised.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
In response to your question, Anne, I don't think you are.

Considering Rome doesn't recognise any Anglican orders, male, female or otherwise, your argument is highly theoretical and utterly pointless. We are where we are, and we ordain women.

Rightly or wrongly, you've lost the argument over this. It's up to you how you respond - but sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la not listening" is well, futile?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If anne is not a priest, what is happening in terms of the sacrament given to her parishoners ?

Is theirs a communion of intent - or do you sincerely believe that a large number of CofE parishoners are just being conned ? Ultimately, what theological consequences do you believe this has for those parishoners ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Agree with us or be called a bigot. DO you have any idea how ridiculous this idea is.

You may not be a bigot. But you are acting like a bigot. No doubt the desires and desires of your heart are pure and free from taint. But the women who believe they are called to be priests don't receive the benefit of that. Their colleagues don't receive the benefit of that. Their congregations don't receive of that. All they receive is your outward judgements. You can't expect them to honour your integrity as of right if that integrity is being exercised at their expense.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kitten
Shipmate
# 1179

 - Posted      Profile for Kitten   Email Kitten   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
This just in from the Church in Wales

[Yipee] This is good news

--------------------
Maius intra qua extra

Never accept a ride from a stranger, unless they are in a big blue box

Posts: 2330 | From: Carmarthenshire | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
And the CofE is not "a church which ordains women". It is a church which for the last twenty odd years purported to do so in the context of a process of discernment by the wider Church which has not yet ended

By that standard the CofE is not a church. It only purports to be a church in the context of a process of discernment by the wider Church (which has consistently so far ruled it to be schismatic).

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Llongyfarchiadau!! [Smile]

COngratulations indeed. This time next year we will be able to consecrate women as Bishops in the Church in Wales. I'm guessing on the basis of ages that St David's will be the first see to fall vacant.

On pressure groups, I think it's easier to see nastiness of those with whom you don't agree. However, I don't think WATCH are being nasty by pointing out that logically you can't both ordain women bishops and not ordain them. People complain liberals don't stand for anything then complain when they show that they do.

I'm also pondering what my vicar said last night, that 'intolerance is essential'. The point was that there are certain behaviours and beliefs that cannot be accepted, even with fuzzy edges there is a point beyond which we cannot go. And for me, that includes not tolerating women being treated as second class, however theological the reasons for this; that is not compatible with who God is and who she created us to be.

Carys

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956

 - Posted      Profile for pererin   Email pererin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
This just in from the Church in Wales

Bishops say "Trust us to produce a code of conduct" fat chance.
Yeah, their "code of conduct", if it ever materializes, will probably just be a device for them to persecute traditionalists with.

--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)

Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956

 - Posted      Profile for pererin   Email pererin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
COngratulations indeed. This time next year we will be able to consecrate women as Bishops in the Church in Wales. I'm guessing on the basis of ages that St David's will be the first see to fall vacant.

That is, if we don't decide we've got too many bishops and decide that it should be held jointly with Swansea & Brecon at that point.

--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)

Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'traditionalists'

I do appreciate that you've used the scare quotes, but I find myself wondering why we use the term "traditionalist" for people who are against the ordination of women, but are really very untraditional in many other ways. The relationship to certain diocesan bishops, for example--the whole "flying bishop" thing seemed far more novel to me than the ordination of women to the priesthood.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If anne is not a priest, what is happening in terms of the sacrament given to her parishoners ?

Is theirs a communion of intent - or do you sincerely believe that a large number of CofE parishoners are just being conned ? Ultimately, what theological consequences do you believe this has for those parishoners ?

I don't know - I'm not God - but I fear the answer might be 'nothing'. This is why the issue is important, why it does matter, why it's not just about disliking women, or women priests, or wanting a nice tidy ecclesiology, or wanting to be like Rome. Because if Anne is not a priest - if the 30% (or is it more now?) of priests in the CofE are not priests, the laity is being scandalously deprived of sacramental grace. And that is harrowing to think about.

quote:
Dafyd:
You may not be a bigot. But you are acting like a bigot. No doubt the desires and desires of your heart are pure and free from taint. But the women who believe they are called to be priests don't receive the benefit of that. Their colleagues don't receive the benefit of that. Their congregations don't receive of that. All they receive is your outward judgements. You can't expect them to honour your integrity as of right if that integrity is being exercised at their expense.

I'd welcome (really!) suggestions as to how to oppose women priests whilst not seeming like a bigot. I really would. But so many people operate on "Opposition to OoW=sexism=bigotry". I understand why they do, but I don't agree. Yes, it's painful to hear something you believe to be insultingly false. But that is bound to happen.

quote:
Dafyd:
By that standard the CofE is not a church. It only purports to be a church in the context of a process of discernment by the wider Church (which has consistently so far ruled it to be schismatic).

I'd love it if the CofE consistently thought like this. Reunion would be so much closer.

quote:
Doc Tor:
Considering Rome doesn't recognise any Anglican orders, male, female or otherwise, your argument is highly theoretical and utterly pointless. We are where we are, and we ordain women.

Rightly or wrongly, you've lost the argument over this. It's up to you how you respond - but sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la not listening" is well, futile?

They're not the same issue, though: I clearly do believe that the CofE possesses valid order, or I wouldn't be here. I am not a Roman Catholic, and so I do not have to agree with Apostolicae Curae (in fact, I'm not sure anyone does, de fide). The Roman contention is that, through deficiency of intent and a break in succession, the Church of England lost its Apostolic succession. I don't believe that. I'm not sure what your point is by raising Rome's attitude to Anglican orders: one can have a traditional sacramental theology without an appeal to Rome. If we felt so bound to the power across the Tiber, why aren't we in the Ordinariate. To pretend we're all closet Romans is misleading and disingenuous.

As for our having lost, I'm often tempted to agree. Should we give up fighting? No. You've made it clear that you consider the only possible response to OoW to be acceptance. How then do you wish us to respond? Shutting up? Going away? We'll do neither: this is our Communion.

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40

 - Posted      Profile for Stephen   Email Stephen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
COngratulations indeed. This time next year we will be able to consecrate women as Bishops in the Church in Wales. I'm guessing on the basis of ages that St David's will be the first see to fall vacant.

That is, if we don't decide we've got too many bishops and decide that it should be held jointly with Swansea & Brecon at that point.
Hmm....Bishop John is about 60 I think, so he's got 5 years to go? Of course he could carry on to 70 if he wanted to I suppose.

--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen

'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10

Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483

 - Posted      Profile for iamchristianhearmeroar   Author's homepage   Email iamchristianhearmeroar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For all this talk of periods of reception and the wider church, is any of that reflected in the canons?

--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/

Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
TonyK, apologies. S Bacchus, apologies. I was in fact only responding to your patronising tone - not actually telling FiF et al to fuck off. Given the treating female clergy as if they don't exist that's happening on this very thread though, I think telling opponents to OoW to fuck off is a very mild response.

My point remains though - and I'm not really sure 'let's all just be nice to each other and pretend problems aren't there' is less youthful hopefulness than my position. Misogynists (or people who say that gosh they're not misogynists, but you see God is, so I have to support misogyny) have no place in a church that truly lives out the gospel. As for the RCC and Eastern Orthodox, has it not occured to anyone that God may well be calling them to ordain women, but the churches are ignoring it? I mean, if the RCC and EO were correct about everything, there would be nobody in the Anglican church (or other churches) at all.

Very happy to hear the news about the CiW.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
anne
Shipmate
# 73

 - Posted      Profile for anne   Email anne   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If anne is not a priest, what is happening in terms of the sacrament given to her parishoners ?

Is theirs a communion of intent - or do you sincerely believe that a large number of CofE parishoners are just being conned ? Ultimately, what theological consequences do you believe this has for those parishoners ?

I don't know - I'm not God - but I fear the answer might be 'nothing'. This is why the issue is important, why it does matter, why it's not just about disliking women, or women priests, or wanting a nice tidy ecclesiology, or wanting to be like Rome. Because if Anne is not a priest - if the 30% (or is it more now?) of priests in the CofE are not priests, the laity is being scandalously deprived of sacramental grace. And that is harrowing to think about.

Yes, it is harrowing to think about. This is exactly why I found the casual jokiness of the two FiF priest that I referred to upthread so appalling. They would, I think it's safe to assume, claim a very high understanding of the sacraments, of the importance of the Eucharist. Yet, faced with the knowledge, in their terms, of knowing that people who were not priests were masquerading as priests and misleading faithful Christians into receiving invalid sacraments, they made a joke. It was funny to them. They chose to remain part of a Church which encouraged this deception of faithful Christians. I can only think that they thought that lay people stupid enough to receive the Eucharist from a woman (albeit an ordained woman) deserved everything that they got - or didn't get.

I have reflected long, prayerfully and hard on the chance that I am mistaken in my calling. I worry that I may be valuing my own vocation at the expense of the vocations those who feel unable to remain in a church with me in it. I take this seriously. I can respect those who oppose my ordination and take it seriously. But to oppose my ordination and to consider the inevitable consequences for my congregation as a joke - I cannot easily respect that position.

anne

--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale

Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gratuitous offensiveness in response to a comment suggesting that men may not be the best people to know how much misogyny there is in the CofE notwithstanding, I actually do think that those people who hold that women cannot be priests in the Church of England should still have support and provision. I know people who have been members of the CofE since before all the changes and honestly believe that the changes are wrong. Not many now, most of those who were unhappy have changed their minds in the intervening 20 years.

However, I do not think that this should hold for those men who have been ordained into the CofE in the last 20 years and want to deny the orders of women. Those men chose to be ordained into a church that was ordaining both men and women and refuse to accept that fact. Deliberately entering an organisation to change it back does not entitle them to consideration and special provision.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If anne is not a priest, what is happening in terms of the sacrament given to her parishoners ?

Is theirs a communion of intent - or do you sincerely believe that a large number of CofE parishoners are just being conned ? Ultimately, what theological consequences do you believe this has for those parishoners ?

I don't know - I'm not God - but I fear the answer might be 'nothing'. This is why the issue is important, why it does matter, why it's not just about disliking women, or women priests, or wanting a nice tidy ecclesiology, or wanting to be like Rome. Because if Anne is not a priest - if the 30% (or is it more now?) of priests in the CofE are not priests, the laity is being scandalously deprived of sacramental grace. And that is harrowing to think about.

Yes, it is harrowing to think about. This is exactly why I found the casual jokiness of the two FiF priest that I referred to upthread so appalling. They would, I think it's safe to assume, claim a very high understanding of the sacraments, of the importance of the Eucharist. Yet, faced with the knowledge, in their terms, of knowing that people who were not priests were masquerading as priests and misleading faithful Christians into receiving invalid sacraments, they made a joke. It was funny to them. They chose to remain part of a Church which encouraged this deception of faithful Christians. I can only think that they thought that lay people stupid enough to receive the Eucharist from a woman (albeit an ordained woman) deserved everything that they got - or didn't get.

I have reflected long, prayerfully and hard on the chance that I am mistaken in my calling. I worry that I may be valuing my own vocation at the expense of the vocations those who feel unable to remain in a church with me in it. I take this seriously. I can respect those who oppose my ordination and take it seriously. But to oppose my ordination and to consider the inevitable consequences for my congregation as a joke - I cannot easily respect that position.

anne

Absolutely. [Overused]

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, I do not think that this should hold for those men who have been ordained into the CofE in the last 20 years and want to deny the orders of women. Those men chose to be ordained into a church that was ordaining both men and women and refuse to accept that fact. Deliberately entering an organisation to change it back does not entitle them to consideration and special provision.

But they were told that they had 'an honoured and equal place' in the C of E

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'traditionalists'

I do appreciate that you've used the scare quotes, but I find myself wondering why we use the term "traditionalist" for people who are against the ordination of women, but are really very untraditional in many other ways. The relationship to certain diocesan bishops, for example--the whole "flying bishop" thing seemed far more novel to me than the ordination of women to the priesthood.
I wholeheartedly agree but by the 'scare quotes' I am making the point that they are not traditionalists, just conservatives.

I care for tradition at least as much as they do.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, I do not think that this should hold for those men who have been ordained into the CofE in the last 20 years and want to deny the orders of women. Those men chose to be ordained into a church that was ordaining both men and women and refuse to accept that fact. Deliberately entering an organisation to change it back does not entitle them to consideration and special provision.

But they were told that they had 'an honoured and equal place' in the C of E
No, they have chosen to interpret the words "an honoured and equal place" as "there will be a place for those who have chosen to ignore the changes within the CofE and continue to plough their own path". I interpret "an honoured and equal place" as saying what I said in the first paragraph; the one you snipped.

I am sure those who drafted the measure and included the words "an honoured and equal place" did not mean for certain PEVs to empire build a faction with the CofE by encouraging the ordination of men who chose to ignore the changes within the Church of England.

[ 12. September 2013, 18:21: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, I do not think that this should hold for those men who have been ordained into the CofE in the last 20 years and want to deny the orders of women. Those men chose to be ordained into a church that was ordaining both men and women and refuse to accept that fact. Deliberately entering an organisation to change it back does not entitle them to consideration and special provision.

But they were told that they had 'an honoured and equal place' in the C of E
No, they have chosen to interpret the words "an honoured and equal place" as "there will be a place for those who have chosen to ignore the changes within the CofE and continue to plough their own path". I interpret "an honoured and equal place" as saying what I said in the first paragraph; the one you snipped.

I am sure those who drafted the measure and included the words "an honoured and equal place" did not mean for certain PEVs to empire build a faction with the CofE by encouraging the ordination of men who chose to ignore the changes within the Church of England.

And you're basing this on what, exactly? And you square it with the repeated declarations from the bishops to the effect that there will continue to be such a place how, exactly?

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a difference in understanding here of those particular weasel words. And it seems to me the root of the differences here.

"An honourable and equal place" for those people who cannot accept women priests means to me alternative provision within the CofE, and I said that in my first paragraph of this response. The one that leo snipped. And I would still say that those people, lay and priested, who were in that position at the ordination of women 20 years ago should still have alternative provision.

But, there has been a faction within the CofE who have chosen to believe that this wasn't an interim measure but a permanent measure and that there should be separate provision in perpetuity.

If you choose to be ordained into a church that ordains women and refuse to accept that women are validly ordained, can't you see that many of us question that presumption? You have chosen to be part of an organisation that has agreed that women are validly ordained. If you don't agree that, then surely you are unable to accept some of the major tenets of the organisation of which you have chosen to become a part. And it makes it very difficult to sympathise with someone who has chosen to join an organisation, denies that women are seen as validly ordained in that organisation and continues to demand special treatment.

I see a real difference between those who have had the status of ordination of women changed around them and those who have chosen to ignore those changes and continue to campaign against something that the church agreed to.

Because how do you think you're going to change it back, realistically? Tell the 30% or whatever of female priests their orders are invalid and sorry, all those churches with women leading them are now without a validly ordained minister, so too bad, no Eucharists for you? And with the reduced number of ordained clergy good luck to finding anyone to minister to you?

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Given that an 'honoured and equal place' suggests both honour and equality, can I ask how opponents of women priests regard their female counterparts?

Certainly not equal, and hardly honoured, which is a shame since that's the promise that was signed up to. The measure you use on others is the measure used on you.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Dafyd:
You may not be a bigot. But you are acting like a bigot. No doubt the desires and desires of your heart are pure and free from taint. But the women who believe they are called to be priests don't receive the benefit of that. Their colleagues don't receive the benefit of that. Their congregations don't receive of that. All they receive is your outward judgements. You can't expect them to honour your integrity as of right if that integrity is being exercised at their expense.

I'd welcome (really!) suggestions as to how to oppose women priests whilst not seeming like a bigot. I really would. But so many people operate on "Opposition to OoW=sexism=bigotry". I understand why they do, but I don't agree. Yes, it's painful to hear something you believe to be insultingly false. But that is bound to happen.

quote:
Dafyd:
By that standard the CofE is not a church. It only purports to be a church in the context of a process of discernment by the wider Church (which has consistently so far ruled it to be schismatic).

I'd love it if the CofE consistently thought like this. Reunion would be so much closer.

You think the wider church is discerning whether women may be priests, and yet you're anticipating the results of that process of discernment by opposing women priests now? You're either doing one or the other. Either we're still discerning or we've come to a conclusion.
You say that the CofE only purports to be a church until the process of discernment is completed. And yet you are not opposing the CofE or the ability of the CofE to ordain male priests. This does not look consistent.

Finding a suggestion as to how to oppose women priests without looking like a bigot is your problem really. If it can't be done I think that might be a hint of some kind.

You're right. It may be painful to hear that opposition to the ordination of women is the same as sexism is the same as bigotry. But it is bound to happen. You can stoically bear what is painful for other people - good for you. Don't then whine about it when it's painful for you.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools