|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Flossie -- If I were you I'd take a break. Your postings are growing less reasonable by the moment.
If you're goning to "reply" to my comments, you might consider replying to what I actually said. WHich was that by considering only the CofE, you are declaring that you are primarily interested in England and only secondarily in the church of CHrist.
You make faulty assertions by claiming that provinces which have ordained women for over 20 years in asia and africa are justification for saying that growing churches don't ordain women.
And you sink well below the level of reasonable comment when you claim, falsely, that any provinces of the Anglican church "proclaim homosexuality". That is a reflection of pure, unsubstantiated bias and prejudice.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Ken [...] you don?t seem to realise that, apart from a completely separate province, there will be nowhere for Forward in Faith parishes to go once we have women bishops, apart from out.
This is why we have Dead Horses here. Many people say that a new province is needed and an extension of flying bishops cannot work. And I still have never seen it explained exactly why that is the case, in terms that don't seem to be either a violation of the small-c catholic ecclesiology they claim to hold or (worse) based on misogyny or (even worse) what seem to me to be an almost heretical assignment of gender to God. But the conversation has gone on for literally hundreds of postings on this and at least two other topics. And involved me buying and reading three books on the subject, one recommended by some FiF people here, yet which confirmed my feelings about them.
quote:
Which will, I?m afraid, mean another massive exodus, because we will have women bishops whether we want them or not, and it won?t matter a **** who ordained them.
Maybe. But I strongly suspect that (probably not so massive) exodus, if it happens, won't be paid for by the Church of England the way the last (not all that massive) one was. Some accomodation will be offered to those who remain and those priests who choose to leave will have to simply leave under whatever terms and conditions apply to priests who resign their incumbencies in the normal way.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
Flossie, I can see that your upset by the action your Vicar and your PCC have taken: an action through which you feel excluded from your church.
I would ask that you understand that this is precisely the feeling of exclusion that those who label themselves as ‘queer’ feel when they are also not welcomed within church. Particularly when you label them as sinners because of sexual orientation or gender difference.
InclusiveChurch is about welcoming everyone into the fellowship of God’s family. It is often seen that the Resolution from Lambeth I.10 would support such an exclusion, but if you look at the clauses clearly that is not the case. There is a thread on the subject at IC started by me.
The pain and anger that you are expressing is understandable, please learn from it and see how others are equally feeling the same by the exclusion they feel from the church, too.
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
I cannot imagine a more dangerous or 'incestuous' relationship. I cannot see this as being good for the revd. married couipel nor for the church they serve.
Why ?
quote:
I thought we had truly got away from the vicar's spouse as the (previously) 'unpaid' curate.
I don't see your point here. If clergy marry each other, they are both paid for the work they do. No hint there of unpaid curates.
Dear Lady,
I do not think it is good for there to be two clergy in the pastoral set-up who are married to each other for these reasons.For the congregation there may be difficulties of pastoral oversight if, for example, there is a need to complain or bring up a problem with one to the other. Although one would expect any loyalty of clergy working together, it is sometimes the case that a senior cleric has to deal with problems caused by a junior colleague. If the two are married, it may well be that parishioners feel unable to raise such a matter.
Also, I do not think it good for their home-life, given the intensive nature of such work, that both are bringing home the issues and problems from the same source.
I have no problems with clergy being married (or indeed being in a civil partnership) but I do not think it is good for them to be working together in a parochial rôle toegther.
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
quote:
What is this about fathers passing on tradition ? If we are talking sociologically, it is actually always the mothers that do that. Hence the importance of being born a Jew!
Sorry. The evidence doesn't support you 100% there (we're talking about Christians for starters... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) Look at the Dead Horses thread on homosexuality, where I've posted links to David Voas' recent research on Christianity in the UK. That's evidence that fathers are significant in passing on the tradition. We're not talking about the passing on of the Jewish tradition here, which is different. A female Jewish philosopher recently explained this to me; something to do with having a law saying that Jewishness was passed on through the mother in case there was a problem with fathers being persecuted or killed. However, I'm afraid I can't remember exactly her reasoning. Nevertheless, she was suggesting that it was a specific law passed within the Jewish community, not a sociological trend that was happening by itself. The contemporary Christian case I'm talking about is different, because it doesn't relate to any laws passed within the church (we don't pass laws like this), but is about a sociological trend that happens.
It may well be, LotL, that I am looking at the area in which I work and am writing it large.
But there are the mums, often with children with multiple fathers, often long gone from the scene, with males who are hanging around. I do not see much evidence of fathers passing on much by way of tradition, except by poor example of how not to take responsibility, never get a job, live of the dole and the black market, and manage always to have a mobile phone, money for fags and beer, and time to spend with you mates bemoaning what a shitty deal you’ve got.
Sociologically—maybe I should be open to the argument—that that might be a tradition that is being passed on… ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Ruth W, you have obviously not read what I have posted.
I've read everything you've posted. Obviously.
quote:
I do not think women are second-class.
I didn't say you did. I said I wouldn't attend a church which regards me as second-class. Individuals who don't regard women as second-class may belong to institutions which have policies which treat women as second-class.
quote:
In fact I think we are much better than the blokes. (Sorry, chaps.)
Sexism is bullshit no matter which sex it's directed at.
quote:
And Ruth, I think it does matter whether or not there was a rush, because if the cost of women’s ‘rights’ is a non-existent church, then I think that’s a heavy price to pay.
Clearly a non-existent church has not been the cost of women's ordanations. (It's not a matter of rights, IMO; I agree with dyfrig on the damage done to our understanding of the incarnation if we do not ordain women.)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
The first was hearing about the loss of 600 clergy. I had to find out why they had all gone – surely they could not all have been grumpy old misogynists? I have read all the theological arguments for and against, and I am sure they have been gone through at length, but based on further developments I have become convinced that departure from scriptural teaching and the tradition of 2000 years has caused unprecedented division and strife, the probable side-effects of which were not given sufficient consideration at the time.
Others have commented on the meat of your post, but I didn't want to let this pass.
For a member of the Church of England - whose origins lie, in part, in the fires of the Reformations - to describe the paid retirement of 200 or 400 or 600 priests as "unprecedented division and strife" is to show an extraordinary lack of awareness of your own history.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Good heavens! What is the female equivalent of the word ‘misgynist’, I wonder. However do you cope with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Or are they female too? No, don’t answer that one!
Personally, I think you've completely missed the point. I don't hate men, I certainly don't hate Jesus and I also don't hate the lovely bloke sitting next to me. It's nowt to do with hate, and all to do with me and my comfort. There are things about my life that affect my spirit that I will not talk about with many people, particularly men. Having a female priesthood drew me to the Anglican church and finding a female priest with whom I connected was instrumental in my conversion.
And although you did say not to answer, I will. I don't give the Divine a gender. It seems rather limiting.
quote:
I’m only kidding, ananke, don’t get cross with me! I hadn’t been aware that people actually avoided churches because they DIDN’T ordain women! However have we managed for the past 2,000 years?
Now you are aware. We managed for the past two thousand years because we weren't quite so advanced. We thought it okay to give women no rights and abuse them willy-nilly. I'd like to point out the huge huge migration AWAY from churches as possible proof - I know that a lot of people actively avoid most of the organised religions because they are so anti-women and so reluctant to accord human beings the respect they deserve.
quote:
You can hardly expect me to be sympathetic to your view, when it is the one that will be ousting me from the Church into which I was baptised over half a century ago. Judging from what is happening in some parts of the Anglican Communion you could one day find yourself being very lonely in your dream church, or are men allowed in too? If they are not, it will very quickly die, as producing children takes a man and a woman (God's idea, not mine).
Again, you misunderstand me. Ordaining women isn't the same as not ordaining men. Simple as that. I also never said men were't welcome - simply that there are things that I (and others I know) prefer/will only speak to a woman about. You are certainly welcome in my church (although if you continue to hold the idea that my spirit is somehow lesser, I'll probably continue snarking...) and you are also most welcome to avoid the paishes with women priests. However, should the female priesthood be rolled back, you will deny me the choice to worship in a manner I see as respectful.
I was baptised last year - a choice I made as an adult. A choice I made knowing that should I be called to the priesthood, I will be accepted. A choice I made knowing that my spiritual side will not be judged inferior, or better suited to less masculine pursuits.
Also I made that choice knowing that my Easter Service was made up of seven women singing a capella. And finding joy in that instead of blaming my priest's genitals for driving away so many pious men.
quote:
My very favourite quote is from Mother Teresa, who, when asked what she thought about women's ordination, snapped 'women have other things to do!
That's so utterly stupid. I am finding it had to start pointing out what is wrong with that. Do you think maybe pointing out to Mother Theresa that her work would never ever ever result in joining the decision makers within her church would have pissed her off? Or possibly that she was DOING those things that traditionally women are relegated to doing that ensure the survival of the church, but little recognition.
Or maybe that her view might have been wrong?
--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.
A Perfect Circle - Magdalena
Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Mother Teresa was not infallible!
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
Ken, I am sure you are right, but just read this little snippet from the March 1998 edition New Directions (or Nude Erections, as some like to call it) to see what devious methods have been used to reach this state of affairs in at least one province:
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE INABILITY of the proponents of the ordination of women to take 'No' for an answer has been further illustrated by recent events in the Anglican Province of Central Africa. Four years ago the subject was debated in the General Synod of the Province and soundly rejected. The Archbishop, an enthusiast for the innovation, responded to the Synod's decision with the promise 'We'll be back...' And back, like the proverbial bad penny, they came.
In the unscrupulous way of these people, the motion before the recent Synod in Harare (February 21-23) had been altered from its predecessor. Now instead of hoping to enact legislation for the whole Province, the intention was merely to give authority to individual dioceses to act when and as they wished. Provincial autonomy had become Diocesan autonomy.
From ten in the morning to three in the afternoon the debate raged. Contrary to the Archbishop's (understandable) desire for a mere show of hands, the final vote was taken by secret ballot and in houses. It lost 19-15 in the House of Laity. Voting figures in the Houses of Clergy and Bishops were not yet available at the time of going to press - which probably indicates that they were even less favourable to the Archbishop's position.
The question being asked in the Province, and further afield, is: 'How many more times will he dispute with the Holy Spirit?' And in what revised form will the legislation next appear? Parochial autonomy is presumably not an option, even for Walter Makhulu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And this from Fr Geoffrey Kirk, Chairman of Forward in Faith, from his opening speech to the National Conference which is going on at the moment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church of England, you will remember, moved to the ordination of women to the priesthood in a curiously atheological fashion. The House of Bishops issued a paper about the scope of the proposed legislation before it produced GS 829, its slim volume of theological reflections. We had hoped things would be better this time round.
Archdeacon Judith Rose’s motion asked specifically for theological reflection; the Rochester Commission deliberated long and consulted widely. It produced a report which has generally been thought, on both sides of the argument, to do full justice to the positions taken. Forward in Faith and the Catholic Group in Synod produced weighty papers for that Commission and met with its members. We also produced Consecrated Women?, which our last Assembly received with acclaim, which went on to be a UK best seller, and which has been translated into Swedish. Ours was a conscientious attempt to inform a debate which we then hoped would be broad and deep. I refer you to motion 2004/09 at last year’s Assembly moved by Fr Robin Ellis.
The hopes expressed there have sadly proved to be ill-grounded. No sooner had the Rochester Report been presented to the Synod than moves were afoot to pre-empt the debate by the preparation of draft legislation. In two powerful speeches Bishops Geoffrey Rowell and John Hind tried to insist that the work done should be honoured by serious consideration. They were voted down. The decision in July to proceed to legislation did not only foreclose the theological argument about women bishops; it even foreclosed the argument about whether to foreclose the argument. The Archbishop of Canterbury assured the Synod that the two processes – debate on the principle and preparation of the legislation - could run concurrently. But no one for a moment doubted which competitor would win the race.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not sound like the work of the Holy Spirit to me. Just because it is THERE it doesn’t mean it is necessarily RIGHT.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
Just reading back through the last page, I see that there are yet more unseen posts (apart, that is, from my embarrassing double posting. I blame one of my cats, who likes to loll over my keyboard whilst I am trying to type, and I think it was in the process of ejecting her that my part-post got posted.) Nothing to do with the wine …
Josephine, are you orthodox Orthodox, or just orthodox? If you are orthodox Orthodox, well, I was under the impression that the Orthodox did not ordain women. It is of great concern to me because that is where I shall be looking once I have to leave the C of E for good. One of the statistics from Christian Research is that the Orthodox Church more or less maintains its numbers – doubtless because it doesn’t introduce divisive innovations such as tinkering with the liturgy and making everybody say daft things, ordaining women, and consecrating practising homosexuals.
Yes, I can see that I am a little incoherent – I don’t actually ‘do’ clever – most people on these boards are doubtless cleverer than me, but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be heard. What I am really referring to is the status of Bishops, who I believe should be exemplary – NOT divorced and remarried, NOT practising homosexuals. That’s all. Just read the Consecration of Bishops in the 1662 BCP. It would frighten the living daylights out of me if I were disobeying some of those promises.
Those of you who keep banging on about being treated as second-class are IMO missing the point entirely. I'm a woman and I don’t feel second-class just because I can't be a priest. I might not be Mrs Brain of Britain but I am valued by my family and my colleagues, and I have many friends. This sounds like chips on shoulders. Priesthood has nothing to do with superiority/inferiority/sexism – call it what you will.
And ananke, if I wanted somebody to pat my hand I’m sure I could find other people to do it – it is not my view of the role of a priest. And ‘rights’??? Who has a ‘right’ to be a priest? We are here to serve, not to demand our rights. I am quite touched by your story, and am glad you have found fulfilment, but really, to talk about lesser spirits … All this sounds like sentimental … (can’t think of a suitable word that is polite enough to post here). I do not want to hurt you – just for the record, I NEVER set out to deliberately offend anyone – but judging from some of the posts, the Church has become something quite different to what I have grown up with. I just can’t bear touchy-feely.
Allie, I have great difficulty with your posts. In all my years of churchgoing I have never come across anyone being excluded from church because of being gay. I have in the dim and distant past had a gay vicar (in those days he was called a ‘bachelor’) who was very much loved, and have known many gay priests and laity. I have a gay family member, and currently one young gay friend, but there have been others in the past. So I don’t want to hear any cries of that hoary old chestnut ‘homophobia’ because it doesn’t exist in my life. But I do not accept Inclusive Church’s Declaration of Belief. I think it is dishonest, linking sexual behaviour to gender and race. There is no ontological proof of ‘orientation’ and much evidence that sexual behaviours can be changed. To my mind, it is the height of cruelty to lead gay people in to physical, moral and spiritual danger in that way. And I can’t help wondering , once they have got their way and installed the odd openly-practising homosexual Bishop, what other ‘sexual orientations’ are in the pipeline.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Flossie -- If I were you I'd take a break. Your postings are growing less reasonable by the moment.
Okay, okay, I'm going. I only came onto these boards to defend the poor rugby-playing priest who was only, after all, doing the job for which he was ordained, and said nothing in his posts that was not classical Anglican teaching which was once upon a time taught by every Anglican priest.
450 years ago Latimer and Ridley chose to die horrible deaths rather than renounce what they believed in. What a contrast to some of our current bishops, who cannot even uphold Christian marriage. A young priest comes along with a perfectly reasonable argument and is treated in a scurrilous and shameful way by a number of posters. I would have thought somebody would have come to his rescue.
Thank you to those who have treated me with courtesy, and for the lovely letters I have received.
And with that - pouf! - she was gone.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
PS: If anyone would like to make unkind comments now that I have gone, or try to dig up any dirt, feel free!
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Anyone other than me get the feeling that "Flossie" and "Rugby Playing Priest" may be not unconnected with each other outwith these august boards?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Hi Alliebath,
thanks for your reply.
I think one way to deal with your objection to married priests working in the same congregation is to face the fact that in certain cases (as in my church), they are not the only clergy there. There are others.
Have you come across any specific examples of problems in this respect ?
Re: good for home life, etc. I suspect this concern is best left for the clergy themselves to decide.
quote:
Sociologically - maybe I should be open to the argument - that that might be a traditino that is being passed on...
Absolutely. I think you have hit the nail on the head there; men behaving badly pass on a bad example to their sons, and aren't much help to their daughters either. It's a perfect illustration of why the Christian community needs Christian male role models.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Anyone other than me get the feeling that "Flossie" and "Rugby Playing Priest" may be not unconnected with each other outwith these august boards?
RPP vanished when it transpired that he had only deigned to come over from Anglican Mainstream to convert the heathen. Flossie's first post included the phrase: "we at Anglican Mainstream are a sad lot".
You didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to work that one out.
Incidentally Erin's post a couple of pages back included the warning: Anyone who goes over there to start a board war is toast. Just in case anyone needed reminding.
[ 26. October 2005, 15:10: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
I think you have hit the nail on the head there; men behaving badly pass on a bad example to their sons, and aren't much help to their daughters either.
Don't women behaving badly also pass it on?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Ken,
yes they do. I was focussing on men as role-models for their sons.
I'd second what ananke said about ordained women. I've had pastoral care from ordained women that I consider priceless. Without it I don't know where I would be, as I simply did not feel I could talk to a male priest about certain things. Ordaining women means that women have the theological training to give other women pastoral care. That's very important.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Josephine, are you orthodox Orthodox, or just orthodox? If you are orthodox Orthodox, well, I was under the impression that the Orthodox did not ordain women.
I'm Orthodox, and that's what I said -- we don't ordain women.
But you said that the male-only priesthood is a matter of obedience to Scripture, and I was disagreeing with that point. And you also linked homosexuality, remarriage after divorce, and women priests, and I don't understand how those three topics are linked.
quote:
Originally posted by Lady of the Lake:
I've had pastoral care from ordained women that I consider priceless. Without it I don't know where I would be, as I simply did not feel I could talk to a male priest about certain things. Ordaining women means that women have the theological training to give other women pastoral care. That's very important.
In the Orthodox Church, I have been the beneficiary of pastoral care and advice from women monastics. It is indeed important to have women who have the training and spiritual maturity and insight to do this. But they needn't be priests.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
[QB I only came onto these boards to defend the poor rugby-playing priest who was only, after all, doing the job for which he was ordained. [/QB]
He was ordained to be an arse?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
Ordaining women means that women have the theological training to give other women pastoral care. That's very important.
This is one of my problems with the way the ordination of women debate has been conducted in the CE. Theological training and pastoral care are not things that go with ordination. They belong to baptism. All the baptised should receive some sort of theological (in the widest sense) education and all of us are called upon to be pastoral. I worry that there are real clericalist assumptions underlying the whole debate.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Allie, I have great difficulty with your posts. In all my years of churchgoing I have never come across anyone being excluded from church because of being gay. I have in the dim and distant past had a gay vicar (in those days he was called a ‘bachelor’) who was very much loved, and have known many gay priests and laity. I have a gay family member, and currently one young gay friend, but there have been others in the past. So I don’t want to hear any cries of that hoary old chestnut ‘homophobia’ because it doesn’t exist in my life. But I do not accept Inclusive Church’s Declaration of Belief. I think it is dishonest, linking sexual behaviour to gender and race. There is no ontological proof of ‘orientation’ and much evidence that sexual behaviours can be changed. To my mind, it is the height of cruelty to lead gay people in to physical, moral and spiritual danger in that way. And I can’t help wondering , once they have got their way and installed the odd openly-practising homosexual Bishop, what other ‘sexual orientations’ are in the pipeline.
I am not sure what you mean by ontological proof about sexual oreintation, Flossie, because there is enough scientific research to show that people are straightforwardly just male and female, and there are enough psychological investigations as well as physical investigations showing that there are a vast array of differences in gender, sexual awareness and arousal and even thinking. Most of the evidence presented against is actually old hat scientiically.
If you just read your own words about the way you describe a homosexual bishop, you must surely see how homophobic it is. You do not need to be academic or brainy to read that. By denying people who are born in a certain way acceptance into a community of faith and love is to dent Jesus love. I have to honest and say your writing is homophobic.
I find it interesting that you quote Ridley and Latimer—I belong to the Tyndale Society, by the way—yes, they were willing to be persecuted for their faith, and they were excluded by a church that claimed centuries of tradition and authority and which was not willing to change. The greatest irony, of course, is that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury at the time(Pole), was himself hounded and attacked for being a heretic, too.
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
I would agree, O seeker after the genius of gin, that everyone who is baptized should have a good and thorough training in theology (small ‘t’). Everyone ought to be able to interpret the world and their own experience, the bilical and church traditions, history and contemporary society through theological glasses as it were. We often fail as the Church (broadest paintbrush) in telling people more than nice stories from the Bible, which neither challenge nor engage.
Yes, women can serve in many ways wuthin the Church, and have done so unnoticed for the two millennia of Christianity. The 5,000 men at the feeding of the five thousand, the only disciples mentioned are male (with the exception of Mary of Magdala), and at least Luke mentions there were women. There were women ordained in the early church—there are graves of presbiterae, and some were even married!
I do not think Mother Teresa is a good example of women in the Church for mvery many reasons. I am happy with people m like Eglantine Jebb, who founded Save the Children Fund, Hildegard of Bingen, Margaret Kempe, and Ethelburga.
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
[QB I only came onto these boards to defend the poor rugby-playing priest who was only, after all, doing the job for which he was ordained.
He was ordained to be an arse? [/QB]
It seems to come easily to most of us.
P
[ 26. October 2005, 23:01: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
Allie, I don’t really care what labels you want to pin on me. You are mistaken, but there you go. What I think, or what you think matters not one jot in the overall scheme of things. I mean, who really gives a toss what bishops get up to in private? We have had homosexual bishops since time immemorial, and even a homosexual Archbishop of Canterbury. It is what they do in public that matters, and what Inclusive Church is after is to gain permission for those in the ordained ministry to live publicly as practising homosexuals. Otherwise, why add ‘sexual orientation’ onto their Declaration of Belief? I mean who would know, or care? You might as well say ‘favourite colour’. If people remain celibate, it is nobody’s business but their own what their ‘sexual orientation’ is.
Inclusive Church should really rename itself Divisive Church. I have seen a tremendous amount of damage being done where parishes have signed up to this organisation, dividing congregations and even families. One family I know barely speak to each other because of this.
I will just reiterate what I said earlier – that openly practising homosexual bishops will just be a church-emptier, as we have seen in ECUSA where well over 40 ,000 have left since the Gene Robinson consecration and they are leaving at the rate of 100 a day.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/print.php?storyid=3080
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anyone other than me get the feeling that "Flossie" and "Rugby Playing Priest" may be not unconnected with each other outwith these august boards?
Mmm … what a delicious thought! You really shouldn’t put unsuitable ideas into the heads of ladies of a certain age. Sadly, though, I fear he is probably 20 years younger than me, and I don’t think he has been married all that long, so not much hope there. Ah well. Callan has it right; we have only met via another forum.
My signature there is this passage from Romans, which seems a little dull compared to some of those on Sof F, but I think should be nailed onto every church door.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Romans 16: 17,18)
Now, I really must go!
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
PS: I missed a bit out.
It suits homosexuals to label people with the word ‘homophobic’ (which actually means ‘fear of the same’, but let that pass).
It depends how you define the word. If you want it to mean ‘fear and hatred of homosexuals’, then yes, I would say use it. If, though, as I suspect most people feel, it is just same-sex sexual activity that they do not like because it is harmful to body and mind and spreads terrible disease, then I would say it is just an unfair ‘victim’ card. It has been hugely successful, though.
I lost a well-loved colleague to AIDS some years ago, and that had a profound effect on me. He had lived in a one-to-one partnership for many years, but they both died.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
It's nowt to do with hate, and all to do with me and my comfort.
Is it? Really? Shudder.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
I mean, who really gives a toss what bishops get up to in private? We have had homosexual bishops since time immemorial, and even a homosexual Archbishop of Canterbury. It is what they do in public that matters, and what Inclusive Church is after is to gain permission for those in the ordained ministry to live publicly as practising homosexuals.
THis is an extraordinary statement! I actually agree with the first part of it - I don't give a toss what bishops do in private. And, as far as I know, most of them aren't having sex - be it gay or straight - in public, anyway.
But what you actually mean, I think, is that you believe homosexuality is a sin, but it doesn't matter if bishops sin, as long as they keep quiet about it.
That's an ... ummm ... unconventional approach to morality.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
It's nowt to do with hate, and all to do with me and my comfort.
Is it? Really? Shudder.
Maybe I need more sleep but what were you rtrying to get across here? It's making no sense at all.
As for poor Flossie, I think it's time those arguments get put to pasture. If we're going to play the health card, I'll just go hook up with my dear friend A. Since, if I were a lesbian, I would be at a significantly lower risk of disease, live longer and be of whole spirit and mind...
--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.
A Perfect Circle - Magdalena
Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
That's an ... ummm ... unconventional approach to morality.
Not really. I have too much worrying to do about how I am going to account for my own sins when the Day of Judgment comes to worry about how other people are going to account for theirs!
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
As for poor Flossie, I think it's time those arguments get put to pasture. If we're going to play the health card, I'll just go hook up with my dear friend A. Since, if I were a lesbian, I would be at a significantly lower risk of disease, live longer and be of whole spirit and mind...
Actually, no, ananke - well, it depends. If your friend A is chaste (what a gloriously old-fashioned word), as is required of unmarried Christians, then she stands a good chance of being healthier than her counterpart who gives birth. But for non-celibate homosexual men the picture is rather different, and you will see that it can shorten their lives by up to 20 years.
http://narth.com/docs/defy.html
Poor old-fashioned me, coming under attack because I don’t think that bishops should be setting an example to their flocks which encourages the sort of behaviour that can, and frequently does, lead to depression, disease and early death.
What some of you don’t realise is that, although you think you are cutting edge, you are not. Some of us have been there decades before you – I grew up in the sixties when we were pretty lairy, I can tell you. But – hey – I grew up! Having children does that to you. I brought up four of the little brutes, and now I have grandchildren ![[Smile]](smile.gif) – and this is what life is all about. Perpetuating the species, not ‘affirming’ unstable and dangerous relationships. This type of affirming ‘compassion’ is bogus. Sadly some of our bishops are still stuck in that time warp. This tired old liberalism has really had its day, and should be laid to rest.
Not to any person in particular, but just generally - If you want me to stop coming back, you must stop posting porkies. I have to keep coming to check up on you, and I really don’t want to turn into one of these sad people who sit all day at their computers thinking up nasty things to say to people who don’t agree with them.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Actually, no, ananke - well, it depends. If your friend A is chaste (what a gloriously old-fashioned word), as is required of unmarried Christians, then she stands a good chance of being healthier than her counterpart who gives birth. But for non-celibate homosexual men the picture is rather different, and you will see that it can shorten their lives by up to 20 years.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) talk about a non-sequitur!!
What relevance has the behaviour of homosexual men to ananke's hypothetical lesbian relationship?!
And Flossie, please don't think that people here want you not to keep coming back (or whatever it was that you said) - many of us are interested in what you have to say, even though we don't agree with it for the most part.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I worry that there are real clericalist assumptions underlying the whole debate.
Isn't that bound to happened when you have a male clerical group that assumed to itself the power of defining and defending theological truth?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
But for non-celibate homosexual men the picture is rather different, and you will see that it can shorten their lives by up to 20 years.
http://narth.com/docs/defy.html
What a nasty little website.
And 100% irrelevant to this discussion which is about whether women priests should become bishops, not where men who are already bishops put their willies.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
But for non-celibate homosexual men the picture is rather different, and you will see that it can shorten their lives by up to 20 years.
http://narth.com/docs/defy.html
What a nasty little website.
And 100% irrelevant to this discussion which is about whether women priests should become bishops, not where men who are already bishops put their willies.
NARTH, their basis in pseudoscience, the harm they have caused to gay people and their willingness to distort findings to suit their anti-gay agenda, have been discussed at length on the proper threads concerning homosexuality which are easily to be found on this board. I fully expect Flossie to go and read these threads and reply to the points which have already been made about NARTH's rather strange basis in dodgy psychoanalysis and their poor reputation on the correct threads instead of derailing this one.
I would also like to add that at the moment from her posting record (all on this thread) she appears to be just another single-issue crusader from Anglican Mainstream like Rugby Playing Priest and I'm not sure that this sort of thing is healthy. It smacks of board wars to me. You did read this when you signed up, Flossie?
quote:
8. Don't crusade
Don't use these boards to promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Thanks Louise. I felt certain that you had addressed the NARTH issue on the Homosexuality thread but couldn't for the life of me remember which page it was on and couldn't face trawling through it to find it.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
What an utterly predictable reaction! It wasn’t me who derailed this thread. And I love it when people who cannot disprove evidence just call it nasty. Would you say it was nasty if I produced evidence that smoking kills? Funny how liberals are allowed to be as nasty as they like, but those who disagree with them are soon chased off. I will get blocked soon, I can see that coming, yet I am far more tolerant (and far less unpleasant) than some of the people on this thread. I’ve seen this on other liberal boards. I’m not going onto any other threads, I am heartily fed up with this one. If you don’t like the article I posted (I was merely trying to stop ananke’s attempt to bury the health card) try this one for size, from which ananke can see that various studies show that 75% - 90% of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men, or that 9% of lesbian women (compared with 2% of heterosexual women) were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners.
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
If you don’t like this, I have plenty more. They can’t all be wrong. Don’t be in denial!!! I have had personal reasons for having to look up all this information, so am not just being a nosey old bat with a down on people. Some of you will love that idea, though, I am sure, but sorry, it just ain’t so.
I’m not posting on any other boards at the moment, and I’m not crusading. People can think and do what they like, it’s up to them. When people rubbish my posts, though, or query them, I think it is only good manners to try and provide some evidence.
And I'm certainly not stuck on single issues!! It's just that I do have a life, and it is too time-consuming to spend all day on forums.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
Errr, what does any of that rant have to do with the ordination of women?!
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
I was merely trying to stop ananke’s attempt to bury the health card
What's the health issue with ordaining women?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
What an utterly predictable reaction! It wasn’t me who derailed this thread.
Really?
quote:
Next, there is the vexed issue of homosexuality. I am certain that this must be another dead horse, so will make no attempt to resurrect it, but there is no doubt that – like it or not - an openly practicing homosexual bishop is a real church-emptier. The two issues ARE linked, in that opening the door to scriptural disobedience by the ordination of women and remarriage of divorcees just leaves it wide open for other social pressure groups. Anyone in any doubt of this can just check up on Inclusive Church’s website, http://www.inclusivechurch.net/ , read their Declaration of Belief, and check out their comprehensive advice on how to get elected at Synod. I believe that this time around they did not do as well as they had hoped, but once we have women bishops and another exodus of orthodox clergy, how many will be left to say them nay? They are focused and determined, and they will go for the kill, make no mistake. All that will remain then will be for the people to vote with their feet and depart.
Perhaps you've forgotten that you introduced the subject onto this thread by claiming that it was somehow linked, and that despite your claims that you were not going to resurrect it, that that's exactly what you have done and what you are continuing to do. Once again I repeat - this has all been dealt with before on the relevant threads. You are posting on the wrong thread and the sorts of issues you raise have already been discussed at length on the correct threads: Homosexuality and Christianity and Living as a Christian Homosexual where you can find evidence against your claims from sources like The British Medical Journal and where you can find what the various professional bodies and organisations of psychiatrists and psychologists think of NARTH.
I am not going to continue this derail by re-posting all that material and all the relevant references here. This issue does not belong on this thread. You can rant all you like about 'nasty liberals' not being able to 'disprove evidence' but the fact is you're on the wrong thread and until you move your anti-gay fulminations to the right thread there is simply no point in anyone answering you in detail as it will simply lead to a host having to intervene to stop the tangent developing here.
Seriously, read the rules, single-issue crusading is not welcome here - gay or straight or whatever. There are ten boards here and hundreds of threads, if you're not willing to engage with anyone outside of this single thread and single subject then you are not entering into the spirit of the boards. The problem isn't your views as there are several people here who share them, but that you seem to have come here to conduct a crusade on a single issue on a single thread. If you stepped back for a short while and contributed on some of the less-fraught subjects elsewhere you might get a sense for the boards and the people on them and be able to come back to this issue in a more constructive way which would generate less heat and more light.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Flossie. As you post on the Anglican Mainstream forum, I presume you have some idea how these sorts of Bulletin Boards work. The thread you are currently posting on is entitled 'Priestly Genitalia' and pertains to the ordination of women to the priesthood. There is another thread on this board called 'Homosexuality'. It is a good idea if you want to debate whether homosexuality is bad if you post on that thread.
The host of this board will doubtless materialise to tell you this in an official capacity, in due course. Meanwhile, posting lengthy screeds about the wickedness of homosexuality on this thread makes you look inept and slightly obsessive, and as you are clearly not inept, and I will take your word that you are not obsessive, that is a shame and does your cause no good at all.
Just a friendly word of advice.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Thank you, Louise and Callan
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
While the thread title refers to 'Priestly Genitalia' it is concerned with the type rather than the use!
Please take all discussion about homosexuality to the appropriate thread(s).
Thank you
Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
I’m not going onto any other threads, I am heartily fed up with this one.
You also said in your post a couple of days ago that you wouldn't be back, yet here you are. Tell me, are you lying now, just like you lied then?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
this is what life is all about. Perpetuating the species, not ‘affirming’ unstable and dangerous relationships.
First of all, I'd disagree with you entirely. Perpetuating the species may be the entire purpose of life for amoebas and protozoans, and maybe even for frogs and mice, but I don't believe for a minute that it is what human life is all about. I don't think we were created in the image and likeness of God in order to reproduce. If we were, then you'd have to argue that having babies is a moral necessity, marriage would be a bad thing since it limits opportunities for reproduction, celibacy would be even worse, and sterility would be the ultimate tragedy. What nonsense.
And what does it have to do with the topic of this thread anyway? Are you suggesting that women shouldn't be priests because it would take time away from having babies? Or is there some other point?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
A well cut cassock hides a bump beautifully, Josephine!
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
I am not lying, neither am I ranting, nor am I obsessive, anti-gay or accusing anyone of wickedness. It is me who is suffering the ad hominem attacks here, not anyone else. I am merely backing up my arguments with facts and figures. If some people don’t like them, well tough titty. That doesn’t make them wrong, though. I would like to see someone come up with evidence to the contrary.
The health angle has nothing to do with this thread – as I said, I am merely backing up a previous statement of mine which was contradicted - but the ‘h’ angle does. I am merely trying to point out that, following the consecration of women bishops, when the orthodox ‘opposition’ will have departed for Rome or wherever, Inclusive Church’s next item on the agenda, practising ‘h’ bishops, will be a lot more difficult to deal with. And, as has been seen in ECUSA, this, when it happens (which it will!) will no doubt lead to the emptying of churches in the C of E. All of this I have produced evidence for.
I have been warned by a number of people that there is a considerable amount of unpleasant bullying and intimidation on this thread, and I see that they were not wrong. And I thought this was a Christian site. Well, I’m not that easily bullied. However, as long as nobody else accuses me of lying or anything else of that nature, I shall depart in peace! If not, I shall be back.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
And I thought this was a Christian site.
We should have had a pool going on how long it would take Flossie to say this.
[ 27. October 2005, 17:52: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
If you don’t like this, I have plenty more. They can’t all be wrong.
They can and are.
I find it interesting that you don't consider that telling lies, spreading reactionary hatred and pontificating on issues that one clearly does not understand indicates that one may not be terribly open-minded or be making much effort to be fair and balanced.
Perhaps that's just me.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
I joined InclusiveChurch because of what I perceived as afscist tactics to stop me speaking our against the Christian Peoples Alliance party. My argument was that they had taken a description I use about myself—christian—and politicised it in a particularly narrow way. Since joining IC I have seen that the kind of attack I had politically was the tip of an iceberg from a concerted but vociferous (and seemingly ever-growing) minority who seek to claim the voice of Christianity and Christ himself—or at least the Holy Spirit. Flossie and her skillfully crafted ‘I am just a silly-billy and all of a fluster but then:wham *invective* wham—are an incredibly worrying phenomena. because they lie.
But back on topic. I think it was thirteen years before the vote to approve the ordination of women to the priesthood that the matter was both debated and resolved in favour before the actual vote on the practice. For thirteen years (or whatever the length of time) those who were opposed were either living in a world of make-believe or (mea culpa) deliberately staying within the C of E to earn there length of service for the most ‘take the money and run to Rome’. There is either ordanined ministry or there is not. Since the Church of England has accepted (and called it apostolic) Ordination, there cannot be any difference theologically between being accepted in any of the degrees of ordained ministry, unless on individual and personal grounds with regard to a specific individual (gender being irrelevant). So once again, this is a total nonsense of polity and politicking rather than based on any sound theology or even doctrine (I am not always sure the two are necessarily the same).
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
Good morning. Me again, changing my mind (no, sorry – lying) once more.
Actually, I have a small something to impart, to anyone out there (and I know there are some) who are genuinely interested in the fate of the Church of England. I heard second-hand (via my husband, actually, who unlike me has never been known to lie) so hearsay only, for any lawyers who are waiting to pounce, that he was told by a Roman Catholic with whom he had a long conversation yesterday that this guy’s church, having received a slow trickle of disaffected Anglicans for some time, was now receiving them in a steady flow – three families in the last two weeks alone. Now, I don’t know where this guy lives, (my husband never asks all the right questions) nor whether all these incomers were from the same parish, diocese or whatever, which is a probability, so it might be an isolated case, but if perchance this were the case up and down the country it could have dire consequences for the poor old C of E. The reasons given for their defection have been apparently pretty varied – some obviously over women bishops, one because they didn’t trust the Archbishop of Canterbury (no reason given) and others because they didn’t want gay bishops. So it seems some people are way ahead of me, and instead of wasting time posting on forums where nobody wants to listen they have simply upped sticks and gone. There were other reasons given but my husband couldn’t remember them. He couldn’t even remember this guy’s name, otherwise I would have been on the phone first thing. Doh! I would genuinely like to know if any RCs out there have had similar experiences, or otherwise.
Wouldn’t it be sad if all these lovely lady bishops had to seek alternative employment because the flocks had gone? If I were a wannabee lady bishop I would start working on a plan B now.
Mr Webhost, you have acknowledged that Priestly Genitalia could with a bit of a stretch be extended to ‘use of’ – I have read the rules, but perhaps would be a bit more obedient to them if Rules 3 and 4 were also a bit more assiduously adhered to – if at all, in fact. I do apologise, I was led off the track onto the H issue which I think is important here but which I only wanted to include because of its ability to get rid of Christians. (Much evidence already posted).
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
