|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Equality Lite" for Women in the Church
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I'm not sure if this thread belongs in purg or DH, so move it the DH if it needs to be there. I was wondering if it is possible for those denominations that have ruled out the ordination of women to give women positions of authority that amount to an equality with men in all senses other than those of celebrating certain Liturgical Rites reserved to men. The language I used in this discussion applies to a Catholic way of thinking, although movements to do precisely what I am talking about seem to be occurring in other denominations like the Seventh-Day Adventists (although there is open debate in that denomination about allowing the ordination of women, unlike in the Catholic Church).
For the RCC, what I am talking about would involve major revisions in Canon Law (which the Pope is at his liberty to change whenever he pleases, as long as he does not do anything contrary to Church doctrine). Positions like being the Chancellor of a Diocese, which are already occupied by women in some places, would become the de facto administrators of a diocese and the male bishops would retain their "reserve powers" of having a final say controlling the diocese, but would rarely if ever exercise them, as with modern constitutional monarchies - except that the notion of a constitution that limits episcopal power is foreign to the Church. Custom, rather than any constitutional restraints, would allow all the important decisions to be made by a woman if she occupied the top lay administrative position in the diocese. Similarly, top positions in the Roman Curia in the Vatican could be occupied by women, and the position of Secretary of State of the Holy See could be like a "Prime Minister" of the worldwide Church, and would have powers similar to the Chancellor of a Diocese. The Pope would be a symbolic leader of the Church but in practice all important decisions would be made by the Secretary of State of the Holy See. Women could vote in Papal Conclaves - does anyone know if whether Cardinals have to be at least deacons is part of the unchangeable definitions of a General Council or whether it is an issue merely of Canon Law? Also, is the rule saying that Papal Electors need to be Cardinals something that Canon Law also can easily change? Parish councils, in turn, could govern parish affairs, with a lay parish administrator leading them, and the pastor and other priests would still be the only presiders at Mass but would not in practice overrule the lay administrators. Parish councils could elect representatives at a diocesan council, which in turn could elect representatives at a national council for each country, and that in turn could elect the papal electors ("Cardinals") - who elect among themselves a Secretary of State of the Holy See, appointed officially by the Pope. This Secretary of State would then recommend the heads of Curial Departments (ie, a "government") to the Pope, and the Pope would in practice almost always appoint the persons recommended by the Secretary of State.
As for preaching at Mass, if women are unable to become Deacons and thereby to preach homilies, the homily at Mass would come to be a "Throne Speech" of sorts and would preach the Gospel but would not oppose the policy of parish, diocesan, national church council, and Vatican administrators. Since nowhere would there be a canon law saying that the Pope, Bishops, and Pastors were not actually in control, there could be no argument that Church Doctrine was being violated. All the existing unchangeable definitions of General Councils and Popes, and of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, would remain in effect - but no new inafallible definitions would be made unless a crisis prompted the administrators of the global Church (perhaps with a certain supermajority of Cardinals backed by supermajorities of administrative assemblies througout the global church) recommend that a General Council convene or that the Pope make an Ex Cathedra definition of doctrine. Maybe in a catastrophic crisis (ie, aliens invade and single out Catholics for immediate vaporization, killing all church administrators first) - the Pope and Bishops might step in and exercise their full powers in order to save the Church.
Finally, there is not necessarily any requirement that these "administrators" be laypeople - they could be deacons, priests, bishops, or religious brothers or sisters - but becasue they could be laypeople, women would have equality of authority in the church in all but name, or as I call it, "Equality Lite."
Is this possible? Is it desirable? Could it happen in other denominations? (Eastern Orthdoxy? Oriental Orthodoxy? Protestant Denominations that do not ordain women? What about non-trinitarian denominations like the Latter Day Saints?)
Does this thread belong in Dead Horses?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
This seems like a fairly elaborate sham. Who are you thinking would want this? I can't imagine either women who want to be ordained would care for a mock separate but equal status and I doubt their opponents would care for it either.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
The only possible purpose of this is as a stepping stone to see what happens. And as such it would be a procedural move rather than one of principle.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This seems like a fairly elaborate sham. Who are you thinking would want this? I can't imagine either women who want to be ordained would care for a mock separate but equal status and I doubt their opponents would care for it either.
The reason I am proposing this is that:
a. Pope John Paul II said that although the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church has infallibly defined that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, women and men are equal in dignity and that equality in dignity must be reflected in the roles women play in the Church. He probably would not have agreed with the system I propose, and would think that equality in dignity did not require equality in the roles of authority one can occupy, but I think to even get close to equality in dignity you need at the very least something like I am proposing, if not women's ordination.
b. Pope Francis has gone further (at least in the style of his words) than JPII and BXVI by saying that although the door is closed on discussing women's ordination, that we really need to get women into more positions of authority in the Church. His spokesman said it is unrealistic to talk about female cardinals at this time, though. The Holy Father probably just means that women should occupy higher positions in the Curia, and in the administration of dioceses, and that women should be consulted by pastors, bishops, and the curia more frequently. I am saying, though, that if we can't talk about women's ordination, in order for the vast inequality in terms of what weight a woman's decisions (and I mean women being born now, not the BVM and female saints) can carry in the Church compared with male bishops and the Pope to be addressed, we need to think about a system like I am suggesting. It may seem like a farce but, if you're not going to ordain women, how else are you going to make women not seem like second-class members of the Church?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
But it does still make women seem like second-class members of the church. So what's the point?
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But it does still make women seem like second-class members of the church. So what's the point?
The point is to work within a certain framework: in the RC case, the teaching is that the Church couldn't ordain women even if she wanted to. I'm not arguing with that framework but asking, within it, how far can we go towards making sure that a woman in the Church can have as much authority as any man can. If ordination is off the table, I would like to know exactly what is on it.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
if you're not going to ordain women, how else are you going to make women not seem like second class members of the Church?
You can't.There is no way of putting lipstick on that pig. Without a long impossible-to-hide history of institutional sexism this wouldn't even be an issue.
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Women having 'as much authority as any man can.' is precisely what is not on the table as ordination is off it. It's like saying 'how can we give women as much authority as any man in parliament but being an MP is off the table and they cannot cast a valid vote, but given that ... ' Without deep historic institutional sexism the question doesn't make any sense, with deep historic institutional sexism shaping the very playing field there is no prospect of women having as much authority as any man can.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It may seem like a farce but, if you're not going to ordain women, how else are you going to make women not seem like second-class members of the Church?
This gets at the whole underlying premise of this thread; that there's some as-yet-unthought-of formula where women can seem to be the equals of men within the Church without actually going to the trouble of making them the equals of men within the Church. As near as I can tell, it's an assertion that the problem isn't that women are second class members of the Church, but rather that this is an image the Church doesn't want to project.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It may seem like a farce but, if you're not going to ordain women, how else are you going to make women not seem like second-class members of the Church?
This gets at the whole underlying premise of this thread; that there's some as-yet-unthought-of formula where women can seem to be the equals of men within the Church without actually going to the trouble of making them the equals of men within the Church. As near as I can tell, it's an assertion that the problem isn't that women are second class members of the Church, but rather that this is an image the Church doesn't want to project.
Look, I support women's ordination and I think that the full recognition of women as being made in the image of God, as being baptized and made members of Christ's Body, and as equal in dignity to men is impossible without women's ordination. I am heretic in the eyes of the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church because I believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church has actually not infallibly defined that the Church has no authority to ordain women, despite what John Paul II and later popes may have written about that.
I am merely being pragmatic here. If Francis says we should allow women to occupy positions of greater authority in the Church, what specific reforms can be made within the context of Catholic doctrine? I'm not going to stop supporting women's ordination even with the threat of excommunication (I may already be excommunicated for being in a gay marriage) - but in my opinion I'm still in the Roman Catholic Church (I'm still giving her my time, talent, and treasure) so working within her system - including what is currently claimed to be infallible - to achieve reform that works towards equality without getting there is not in my idea selling out. There are people who support equality for women but out of loyalty to the Church will not go against anything that is said to be infallible. These are people who are often more involved and influential in the Church. We need their support to get reforms made in the glacial workings of the Vatican.
I am also interesting in discussing this in the context of other denominations: Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Confessional Lutheranism, the Anglican Realignment, Seventh-Day Adventism, etc. - and also in non-Trinitarian faiths like Mormonism.
I don't want to discuss the merits of women's ordination (although I strongly support it) because my focus is on reform to give women more authority within the limits (ie, infallible definitions or whatever the equivalent is in another denomination) of a given system. It is good and necessary, in my opinion, for people to also push for reform outside of these limits when the limits are untrue and unjust. However, this thread is about working for reform within those limits. (That's why I argue it is not a thread about women's ordination.) Anyone care to discuss this?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I have no dog in this fight, since as a Quaker I don't believe in the ordination of anybody of any gender--but it does seem to me that if "equality light" meant that women were included in the bodies that determine church doctrine (a role heretofore reserved for the ordained) the ultimate result would be OOW...
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Isn't the distinction you're looking at more clergy/laity than man/woman?
If in RC theory, the person preaching the sermon, or assigning priests to parishes, or voting on who is to be the next Pope, doesn't absolutely need to be ordained, then (unless there are very strong arguments to the contrary) wouldn't be the obviously sensible thing to do to consider lay people and thereby widen the pool of talent generally. Obviously lay people include women, but the argument for letting them do these jobs is the same as the one for letting lay people who are men do them - they might have a gift and calling to do them, and there's no reason to prevent it. Arguing for the change on the grounds that it offers a sort of equality that isn't really equal looks like a non-starter to me.
The difficulty of asserting the Church values women equally when it doesn't ordain them remains exactly as it is. However many other important roles are opened to the laity, the exclusively priestly functions like celebrating the mass and giving absolution are never ever going to be trivial ceremonial matters in Catholic theology. They go to the heart of how Catholics are supposed to relate to God. Saying that no woman is ever going to be suitable to perform those functions is always going to be a significant statement about the role of women in the church.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
to give women positions of authority that amount to an equality with men in all senses other than those of celebrating certain Liturgical Rites reserved to men.
That is the very essence of not being treated the same. "Reserved to men" means "not available to women".
To any woman who actually wants the things that are reserved to men, the difference in treatment is detrimental and thereby unequal.
[ 12. December 2013, 08:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Well, there is a history of monastic jurisdictions where the abbess was ordinary (e.g., Las Huelgas, on the western outskirts of Burgos, which once had about 50 parishes), could hold synods, issue letters dimissory to bishops to ordain priests for her, license clerics and -- let any bishop reading this be calm -- imprison disobedient clergy. Although there now seems to be a practice of suppressing abbeys nullius (Muenster SK and Belmont NC have gone down the tubes in recent years), a pope can restore it. As well, women could be easily assigned the rule of ordinariates, where they exist.
While canons currently require that cardinals be bishops, a pope as supreme legislator can dispense with this, as has been done for elderly priests who have petitioned to be spared the episcopate (Avery Dulles SJ, for example)-- as the cardinalate is an office, conceivably the pope could dispense a woman cardinal from the obligation of holy orders. Ditto, I would think, for the titular Latin patriarchates (West Indies or East Indies), although that might be a slightly more difficult argument to sustain (assuming anybody would ever make it, as this would place them in the category of canon law trekkies, and needing to get a life).
[ 12. December 2013, 13:38: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I agree with all of you who say that there is no way to not allow OoW without unjustly disciminating against women and perpetuating gender inequality in the Church!
I also agree with the suggestion that this is about the clergy/laity distinction as well: clericalism is rampant in the RCC and needs to be addressed. The voices of laypeople, male and female, need to be given more importance.
But I'm not for the elimination of Holy Orders and the Ministerial Priesthood. The homily/sermon at the Mass needs to be preached by someone who is at least a deacon (no final word from Rome on whether women can be deacons yet, and no final word is expected anytime soon). Outside of Liturgical Rites, though, any layperson can preach.
My point earlier is that infallibility is a bitch. Once you've drawn yourself into a corner with infalliblity, you're stuck, if not for eternity, for at least a few centuries until you develop thinking creative enough to show that you can do the opposite of what was said to be infallible while letting that infallible thing still be infallible.
So, as an RC who knows we're not going to see OoW in my lifetime ![[Frown]](frown.gif) , I want whatever equality for women we can get now. What can be done without running into the infallibility wall (ie, without contravening doctrine)?
I think the fact that women cannot be ordained in the RCC behooves the allowance of laypeople to have roles of greater authority, even if there seems to be no other need to take away certain roles traditionally reserved to the ordained. So what can we do without violating Catholic doctrine?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Augustine: quote:
As well, women could be easily assigned the rule of ordinariates, where they exist.
Let's pause here for a moment to imagine the reaction if a woman was put in charge of the Anglican Ordinariate... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Well, there is a history of monastic jurisdictions where the abbess was ordinary (e.g., Las Huelgas, on the western outskirts of Burgos, which once had about 50 parishes), could hold synods, issue letters dimissory to bishops to ordain priests for her, license clerics and -- let any bishop reading this be calm -- imprison disobedient clergy. Although there now seems to be a practice of suppressing abbeys nullius (Muenster SK and Belmont NC have gone down the tubes in recent years), a pope can restore it. As well, women could be easily assigned the rule of ordinariates, where they exist.
While canons currently require that cardinals be bishops, a pope as supreme legislator can dispense with this, as has been done for elderly priests who have petitioned to be spared the episcopate (Avery Dulles SJ, for example)-- as the cardinalate is an office, conceivably the pope could dispense a woman cardinal from the obligation of holy orders. Ditto, I would think, for the titular Latin patriarchates (West Indies or East Indies), although that might be a slightly more difficult argument to sustain (assuming anybody would ever make it, as this would place them in the category of canon law trekkies, and needing to get a life).
A lay female Patriarch? How would that work? I'm fascinated.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The titular Latin patriarchates involve no work- they're titular!! That of the West Indies tended to go the Archbishop of Toledo as Primate of Spain, or sometimes and most recently to the Archbishop of Madrid. That of the East Indies usually went to the Archbishop of Goa. Both patriarchates are vacant.
There might be some arcane question of precedence in Asian territories of the former Portuguese empire but my wild guess is that it involves impressive letterhead, potentially better tables in restaurants, and confusion about precedence in processions. The two patriarchates of the Indies are relics of colonialism and are almost certainly going to stay dormant.
The other titular Latin patriarchates go to the bishops of Venice and Lisbon; or to the bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople (vacant and likely to remain so). I think that there is a current Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem but couldn't figure out who or if he has ordinary jurisdiction.
This, of course, has nothing to do with the patriarchs of the eastern Catholic churches, who are always bishops and are elected by their own synods.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
For those who are following this arcane and peculiar discussion, there is a Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and it is an ordinary jurisdiction, not a titular one. Accordingly, it can only be held by a bishop, so it's out of the running.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I would imagine that, as no sacramental role is envisaged in a titular patriarchate, that dispensations would take care of it. Still, I'm not holding my breath on this one. I find it hard to think of a more academic question than this.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It may seem like a farce but, if you're not going to ordain women, how else are you going to make women not seem like second-class members of the Church?
This gets at the whole underlying premise of this thread; that there's some as-yet-unthought-of formula where women can seem to be the equals of men within the Church without actually going to the trouble of making them the equals of men within the Church. As near as I can tell, it's an assertion that the problem isn't that women are second class members of the Church, but rather that this is an image the Church doesn't want to project.
Look, I support women's ordination and I think that the full recognition of women as being made in the image of God, as being baptized and made members of Christ's Body, and as equal in dignity to men is impossible without women's ordination. I am heretic in the eyes of the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church because I believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church has actually not infallibly defined that the Church has no authority to ordain women, despite what John Paul II and later popes may have written about that.
I am merely being pragmatic here. If Francis says we should allow women to occupy positions of greater authority in the Church, what specific reforms can be made within the context of Catholic doctrine? I'm not going to stop supporting women's ordination even with the threat of excommunication (I may already be excommunicated for being in a gay marriage) - but in my opinion I'm still in the Roman Catholic Church (I'm still giving her my time, talent, and treasure) so working within her system - including what is currently claimed to be infallible - to achieve reform that works towards equality without getting there is not in my idea selling out. There are people who support equality for women but out of loyalty to the Church will not go against anything that is said to be infallible. These are people who are often more involved and influential in the Church. We need their support to get reforms made in the glacial workings of the Vatican.
I am also interesting in discussing this in the context of other denominations: Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Confessional Lutheranism, the Anglican Realignment, Seventh-Day Adventism, etc. - and also in non-Trinitarian faiths like Mormonism.
I don't want to discuss the merits of women's ordination (although I strongly support it) because my focus is on reform to give women more authority within the limits (ie, infallible definitions or whatever the equivalent is in another denomination) of a given system. It is good and necessary, in my opinion, for people to also push for reform outside of these limits when the limits are untrue and unjust. However, this thread is about working for reform within those limits. (That's why I argue it is not a thread about women's ordination.) Anyone care to discuss this? [/QB]
You are.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I agree with all of you who say that there is no way to not allow OoW without unjustly disciminating against women and perpetuating gender inequality in the Church!
I also agree with the suggestion that this is about the clergy/laity distinction as well: clericalism is rampant in the RCC and needs to be addressed. The voices of laypeople, male and female, need to be given more importance.
But I'm not for the elimination of Holy Orders and the Ministerial Priesthood. The homily/sermon at the Mass needs to be preached by someone who is at least a deacon (no final word from Rome on whether women can be deacons yet, and no final word is expected anytime soon). Outside of Liturgical Rites, though, any layperson can preach.
My point earlier is that infallibility is a bitch. Once you've drawn yourself into a corner with infalliblity, you're stuck, if not for eternity, for at least a few centuries until you develop thinking creative enough to show that you can do the opposite of what was said to be infallible while letting that infallible thing still be infallible.
So, as an RC who knows we're not going to see OoW in my lifetime , I want whatever equality for women we can get now. What can be done without running into the infallibility wall (ie, without contravening doctrine)?
I think the fact that women cannot be ordained in the RCC behooves the allowance of laypeople to have roles of greater authority, even if there seems to be no other need to take away certain roles traditionally reserved to the ordained. So what can we do without violating Catholic doctrine?
They don't need to say anything. The diaconate is one of the three orders of the the ministerial priesthood; what goes for the presbyterate and the episcopate thus applies to it, i.e. ordination is reserved to males.
Female cardinals likewise will never be appointed. The office is reserved to clerics and only men can be clerics. The old phenomenon of lay cardinals that is held up to support such nonsense is fundamentally misinterpreted, either deliberately or from ignorance. The term is a misnomer; lay men who were named cardinals were tonsured into minor orders before receiving the galero.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Stonespring
May I suggest you look up the Diaconal Orders. These are not the same as deacons in the Roman Catholic church, indeed quite often the bodies they belong to are more like religious orders (see Deaconesses de Reuilly). Nor are they Deacons in the Reformed sense, those who look after church buildings and social welfare.
This movement actually developed in 19th Century in multiple Protestant denominations. Some, especially those that did not develop the community aspect, were an attempt at just such a proposal as you are suggesting. Some have developed into religious communities, some are now a sort of permanent diaconate and some have closed. You can see a review of book about the development of Deaconess order in the CofE here.
So tried and where tried uniformly today women are ordained to the ministry.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charlie-in-the-box
Shipmate
# 17954
|
Posted
I'm all for full ordination of women (I was ordained in the United Methodist Church) but separate but equal won't work. They could ordain women as deacons since deacons don't do the priestly functions. Also, historically deacons were sort of like church social workers; helping the widows, orphans, taking out food and money, etc. Might be a start but for many it might be too little too late.
[ 06. January 2014, 06:45: Message edited by: Charlie-in-the-box ]
--------------------
Charlie-in-the-box
http://rosarygirl1962.blogspot.com/
Posts: 55 | From: Island of Misfit Heretics | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
