Women priests say 'no' to women bishops at any price

Women in Britain can become Prime Minister but not bishops. Canon Lucy Winkett, pictured here, Precentor at St Paul's, is among the 700-plus women who've sent an open letter today to the Church of England's bishops stating that they want  women bishops, and the time is right to have them now. But they do not want them at any price. And legislation to introduce 'safeguards' to 'protect' traditionalists is a price they are not prepared to pay. Read the full letter below. Women and their supporters in Wales took a similar stance, and the result was the defeat of their own bill to consecrate women bishops. A similar outcome is looking rather likely for the Church of England, it seems. The photo was taken at a service last year to mark the anniversary of the start of the Falklands War, the conflict that prompted the extraordinary clash between Church and State, in the persons of Margaret Thatcher and the late Robert Runcie.

Statement to the House of Bishops regarding the Single Clause Measure as outlined in the Manchester Report, issued today by Watch.

From:  Women Clergy undersigned

We welcome the work done by the Legislative Drafting Group outlining ways forward for the Church with regard to the consecration of women as bishops.  As ordained women, from amongst whom some of the first generation of women bishops may come, we wish to make our own contribution to the current debate.

We believe that it should be possible for women to be consecrated as bishops, but not at any price. The price of legal “safeguards” for those opposed is simply too high, diminishing not just the women concerned, but the catholicity, integrity and mission of the episcopate and of the Church as a whole.   We cannot countenance any proposal that would, once again, enshrine and formalise discrimination against women in legislation.  With great regret, we would be prepared to wait longer, rather than see further damage done to the Church of England by passing discriminatory laws.  In this, we support the recent principled stand taken by the Archbishop and Bishops of the Church in Wales.

After 21 years of ordained ministry and 14 years of priesthood, many of us have much experience of building trustful relationships with those unable to accept the priestly ministry of women.  In the Anglican Communion overseas, women take this experience into the episcopate, which leads them to invite other bishops into their Dioceses or Episcopal areas to ordain, confirm and take other services when required.  Bishops should be trusted to act wisely and behave with dignity, and all bishops should work within clear expectations and codes of practice. The language of “protection” and “safeguard” is offensive to women, and we believe the existing disciplinary procedures are enough for women or men to be brought to account if they behave inappropriately. We would commend the good practice over the past 20 years of the 15 Anglican Provinces which have already opened the episcopate to women: none of these has passed discriminatory legislation. 

Discussion of a single clause measure without including the possible arrangements for those opposed,  characterises those who argue for it as somehow “not caring” about those who oppose the ordination/consecration of women.  This is far from the truth.  Strong relationships have been forged on the anvil of profound disagreement and there is ample testimony to the richness of these encounters, to set alongside those situations which have proved painful.  As the broken body of Christ on earth, the Church’s internal relationships should rest on trust, forgiveness, repentance and reconciliation, rather than on protection and an over-anxious reliance on the letter of the law. Work has already been done on a draft proposal of robust and clear arrangements that make the passing of a single clause measure realistic in today’s Church, as well as theologically and ecclesiologically cohesive.

We long to see the consecration of women bishops in the Church of England, and believe it is right both in principle and in timing.  But because we love the Church, we are not willing to assent to a further fracture in our communion and threat to our unity.  If it is to be episcopacy for women qualified by legal arrangements to “protect” others from our oversight, then our answer, respectfully, is thank you, but no.                                             

Comments

[J Pearce]

Brian, I think our understanding of invective differs somewhat.

Where have I said that "groups" do not have the right of assembly? I really don't understand this argument you appear to be deducing and I have to say, that it appears to be based on assumptions you have created, rather than anything I have actually put into writing. I think this is known as the "straw man" ploy?

We both appear to be in agreement about the concept of freedom, but you fail to acknowledge that freedom entails responsibility and as George correctly points out, too much freedom will lead to anarchy. I note that you don't address the examples I posted above, regarding whether you would allow - under the concept of freedom - Sharia law to be enacted in the US. Is the Sharia concept of "rights" as equally acceptable to you as the US legal and constitutional version?

You appear to endorse a worldview where everyone is "free" to behave as they wish, according to their beliefs. But that simply cannot work - society requires "rules", either legally codified or culturally accepted. The arguments we are having are based upon what those "rules" should be. I am arguing that religious "rules" (ideology) are, in particular circumstances, unacceptable - given the context in which they exist.

For example - is it right that the Church implicitly endorses homophobia and misogyny, when in the wider cultural context in which the Church operates, these characteristics are viewed as undesirable and potentially lead to persecution?

Or do you take the stance that any person/group can believe what they want, even if that belief may eventually cause them to act in a manner which is detrimental to another person/group? Because in effect, by defending the less salubrious religious beliefs that abound, you appear to be condoning such behaviour.

I am not in favour of stifling free speech; however, one cannot have a society where people are free to say whatever they feel, unfettered by the wider cultural context in which they exist. Legitimate criticism is a methodology, by which beliefs posited - by amongst others, the religious - are tested and evaluated as to whether they are acceptable within the context they are made.

For example, if I were to loudly proclaim that all gay people are inherently "sinful" and as such, should be treated on that basis, I should expect to have my opinions challenged and to justify them. If my only argument were to be "I believe so because God hates fags", then that hardly amounts to an effective defense, does it? Therefore, whilst I may have the freedom to express such opinions, is it right that I maintain such opinions when there is no evidence to justify or validate them? What sort of a person do I become, when I repeatedly voice such negative, unjustifiable and potentially detrimental opinions?

Am I positively contributing to society? Or am I creating a problem? Can your argument of "freedom for all" justify my position? And should I remain unchallenged when my beliefs may be causing actual harm to other members of society?

[George Parr]

Brian, I cannot speak for JP but based on the wriggling self-serving nonsense you have written so far I cannot contemplate a long futile discussion with you over homosexuality. Your arguments appear to border on the childlike Brian.

However, the marginalisation of human beings is generally accepted to be at best a sidelining or at worse a reduction to pariah status of others, usually through prejudice and by a like-minded set. Some Christians, Brian, choose to marginalise homosexuals by claiming they are unworthy, ungodly and even in some cases possessed by evil spirits. One regular contributor on these boards claims, ridiculously, to invoke God on a personal basis to transform them into pious heterosexuals.

If you have a problem with understanding that women are marginalised and discriminated against by some Christians, we might as well go back to the beginning and start again.

You erroneously accuse me of setting up 'rules'. You confuse issues of marginalisation by associating them with my point over the legislature. Since you raise it, by allowing unelected bishops to remain in the wholly undemocratic House of Lords, the government continues to marginalise all other religions in favour of Anglicanism.

I remain depressed that you are unable to decide where I stand on these issues. My position is not in the least equivocal. For me the church has no right to set moral standards that ignore either the law, or which erode human rights. If, in choosing its leaders it reflects an institutional prejudice, either against homosexuals or women, since it claims to be integral to society, I would oppose it.

So YES the church does have the right to choose its own leaders, but NO it does NOT have any form of opt-out clause over the human rights generally supported by law and accepted by the wider society. If women were discriminated against in any other form of employment there would be a case to answer. Imagine turning down an application for management on the grounds the applicant was female, or proposing an inquiry to deternmine whether or not she was a lesbian.

In maintaining these distinctions churches paint themselves as risibly elitist, with their male-dominated hierarchies caring more for their own positions than those they minister to. Their overt 'maleness' and untenable positions on sexuality and morals do not reflect the cultures they claim to serve, whilst deeming themselves to be a necessarily spiritual part of them. So NO the moral standards of the church cannot be chosen through random interpretation, any more than any other institution. Opting-out of the democracy in which it exists is not an option.

[Brian]

J Pearce,

I am not a sensitive flower. I am just pointing out that you are being somewhat hypocritical. Don't use invective and then say its not, and then condemn others for using it. Simply put.

You said: "The Church assumes political power, i.e. it assumes that not only can it enforce ancient misogyny and homophobia upon those who voluntarily choose to enter its hallowed portals, but it pretends to political power outside of its own sphere. The Church assumes to be able to lecture and moralise all peoples, not just its adherents."

So are you saying that a politically powerless group has the right to assembly and believe what it wants but a politically influential group doesn't? And who decides which is which? Let me guess...its you!

This is the problem with your position. Either you are in favor of freedom or you are not. You can't condescend to give the witless peasants freedom to cheer for Sheffield Wednesday over Arsenal but not to assemble to elect a male only bishop.

You said: "But it doesn't - unlike the US, we don't have a historical separation of Church and State. The Church can and does abuse its position within British society because its political influence is more (theoretically) unfettered than in the US."

Now you are making a good point. I have always said that the best way to kill the church is to establish it. Religion is vibrant in America precisely because there is no established religion. I have no problem with disestablishing the CofE (not that its my call). If I were a Bishop in the CofE I would be screeming for disestablishment. Entanglement with the state only leads to death.

You said: "Also, if you believe in freedom so strongly, then why are you so sensitive to critical appraisal of Church policy and religious ideology?"

Again, you misunderstand me. If you were a member of the CofE (are you?) and you wanted to vent your opinion, go ahead. If you are not a member of the CofE and you want to criticise it, I say go for it.

However, if you want to use the government to enforce your view of political correctness, which judging from your posts and that of George you seem to favor, then I will excercise my right to challenge you.

Also, if you want to have a theological discussion on whether homosexual behavior is "good" or not, or whether the Church should have female bishops, I am open to that as well.

But be aware that if you try to buttress your position by stifling freedom (e.g. rules against "hate speech," etc.) then again we shall be at odds.

It was very disturbing to read about two Christian ministers harassed by the police for handing out tracts in one of your "no-go" muslim areas. They have the right to hand out whatever they wish as long as they are not forcing people to take one.

Many of us look at people in favor of restricting free speech as bullies, for just like a bully they pick on those who don't really fight back (i.e the Christians) and leave alone those who know they will fight back (i.e. the Muslims).

Cheerio!

[Brian]

George,

You said: "Brian, it seems to me that yours is an extremely odd position."

I don't know what is odd about freedom of religion, speech, and assembly.

You said: "What are you advocating some sort of Brian constructed anarchy, in which there are no rules only yours?"

This makes no sense. Are you equating freedom with anarchy?

You then said: "Simply put: I have no argument with religious beliefs up to the point where they either challenge the law or are used to justify the marginalisation or discrimination of others."

Whose rules are these? Who decides what is "marginalisation" and what is not? You, of course. So your comment that I am going by "my rules" is silly.

You said: "Your mad club is represented in the legislature, forms a major part of the education system in this country - seeking to proselytize and is extremely vocal over pursuing one-track issues of morality that affect everybody."

Isn't this a great example of marginalisation? A "mad club" is represented in the legislature. How horrid! Off with their heads!

You see, when you marginalise, that is ok. When you think somebody else is marginalising, you sound like those "moralising" Bishops that you complain about.

Again, physician heal thyself.

You are still equivocating, which speaks volumes. Are you or are you not going to state that the Church has the right to select whom she will for leadership and to set her own moral standards?

You need to answer this question for all to see.

Rule Britannia!

[J Pearce]

Brian, I didn't realise what a sensitive flower you were. I do apologise. I got accused of being a murderer not long ago, by a Christian, no less.

Where have I said I want to stifle free speech or association? I agree that a "private" club should be able to set its own "rules", but we aren't talking about the NBA here, are we? The Church assumes political power, i.e. it assumes that not only can it enforce ancient misogyny and homophobia upon those who voluntarily choose to enter its hallowed portals, but it pretends to political power outside of its own sphere. The Church assumes to be able to lecture and moralise all peoples, not just its adherents.

Which is why the likes of George and myself challenge it. If only the Church kept its rules and regulations to itself, that would be a good thing. But it doesn't - unlike the US, we don't have a historical separation of Church and State. The Church can and does abuse its position within British society because its political influence is more (theoretically) unfettered than in the US. I would absolutely welcome a similar separation of jurisdiction in the UK, but it ain't gonna happen for a while - because the Church and our ruling classes are so closely intertwined.

Also, if you believe in freedom so strongly, then why are you so sensitive to critical appraisal of Church policy and religious ideology? What you appear to be proposing is moral equivalence, as if all moral continuums are equally valid. But in reality, society cannot function without some genrally agreed moral axioms. Would you defend the rights of freedom of paedophiles? To be able to conduct themselves as they wish, as long as it remains within the confines of their own organisation? I really don't think so.

In this regard, should society as a whole tolerate ancient restrictive religious practices? Would you condone implementation of Sharia law in the US, for example, stoning adulterers to death, on the same grounds you defend Christianity? I assume not. In much the same way, I don't condone and strongly condemn the more absolutist elements of Christianity and their inhumane attitude towards women and homosexuals.

[George Parr]

Brian, it seems to me that yours is an extremely odd position. I cannot see how you can associate the issues of my apparent denial of free speech, with a genuinely-held aversion to prejudice and discrimination. What are you advocating some sort of Brian constructed anarchy, in which there are no rules only yours?

Simply put: I have no argument with religious beliefs up to the point where they either challenge the law or are used to justify the marginalisation or discrimination of others.

Your logic is woefully ambiguous. The 'setting of standards and conduct' you refer to is not achieved in isolation. It is not restricted to a few members of a mad club designed to promote string collecting, or sparrow worship. Your mad club is represented in the legislature, forms a major part of the education system in this country - seeking to proselytize and is extremely vocal over pursuing one-track issues of morality that affect everybody.

Your 'logic' might equally be acquainted with a non-religious group formed to promote all manner of unacceptable lawbreaking, prejudice and discrimination within society; one in which dissenters are regarded as either killjoys or impinging on free speech or suppressing the right to practice any amount of bizarre beliefs.

[Brian]

J,

Who the heck is David Smith?

You said: "Please illustrate with quotes where I have used invective."

Lets see...there was:

"Therefore, that would go someway towards explaining your paranoid hypersensitivity regarding race."

So I am paranoid, but to you I am sure this is not ad hominem.

This one was good:

"Brian, all I can say is that either you have the brain the size of a planet, or you know 7 people at most."

This one is a keeper:

"I cannot see how any religious male who is in favour of denying women ordination, can defend themselves against the charge of being sexist ingrates perpetuating a medieval fallacy."

Since I am against women's ordination, I am a sexist ingrate.

And your latest: "That seems much akin to sticking your head in the sand, ostrich-style, when faced with a situation you'd prefer not to face."

I am now a bird.

I guess in your world these are not "invective."

The dictionary states the following:

Main Entry: 1in·vec·tive
Pronunciation: \in-ˈvek-tiv\...of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse.

On another issue, I originally said: "And you misquoted me."

You responded: "No. I copy pasted your precise words. That is not misquoting."

Again, the dictionary states "Misquote: verb, to misrepresent, twist, distort, pervert, muddle, mangle, falsify, garble, misreport, misstate, quote or take out of context"

I like the last part of the definition, to take out of context. You did not cut and paste my whole quote, only that part with which you hoped to score a point.

But this is getting tedious. Lets focus on the issue, or actually two issues: womens' ordination and homosexuality.

If a group wants to promote both, then fine with me. If a group wants to promote one and not the other, again vive le difference! If a group rejects both, that is fine with me as well.

I don't know why it bothers you so much if a group disagrees with you. If you think they are medieval, fine...then they will soon pass away into obscurity.

The other issue which does bother me is you seem, along with George, to want to stifle freedom of speech and association. That is why I post. Freedom is a fragile thing, and you cannot say you are "promoting" human rights when you want to somehow restrict the rights of a voluntary group to set its own standards of conduct and organization.

You both seem to deny this, but then you make statements such as George did about "'Believing what they want' is an inaliable right, and wholly different from practising discrimination, unless believing in discrimination is what they want."

So its ok to believe in something but you are not allowed to practice it. This is not freedom at all.

Cheerio!

[Brian]

George,

You said: "No-one is attacking the rights of persons to assemble or to follow their religions..." and then you say: "Under the law that the majority accepts, marginalising homosexuals or discriminating over gender is not an option."

Which is it? You cannot affirm both. Can a voluntary religious group set its own standards for its leaders or not? I don't understand why you are not clear on this point.

As far as "moralising bishops and cardinals" are concerned, they have a right like anybody else to express an opinion.

I really don't understand what you have against free speech and association.

Cheerio!

[J Pearce]

Brian! Are you actually David Smith in disguise? You have failed to address any of the points I have been raising and instead have decided to try and defame me. Where shall we start?

"Is invective part and parcel of your dialog?"

Please illustrate with quotes where I have used invective.

"Ad hominem never wins the day."

Please illustrate with quotes where I have levelled ad hominem insults at you.

"You have no right to tell people what they must or must not do in their private lives or in their own assembly."

Please illustrate with quotes where I have done this.

"And you misquoted me."

No. I copy pasted your precise words. That is not misquoting. What you actually mean is that the quote is out of context, but then, if I copy/pasted entire posts just to ensure context, then my own posts would take up several pages. Any reader can go back and re-read the entire quote in context.

You will note that I also illustrated my argument with actual examples where the Church has actually discriminated against groups of people, as well as individuals. And an individual is also usually a member of a group, are they not? Whereas, you have merely denied the argument - but without any substantial evidence to buttress your denials.

That seems much akin to sticking your head in the sand, ostrich-style, when faced with a situation you'd prefer not to face.

If anyone is "grasping at straws" Brian, it is you, with this transparent attempt at subverting the argument by engaging in thinly disguised personal attacks. The D. Smith-approved style of obfuscating arguments by being pedantic over the language used is a tired, but well worn formula on this blog, it seems.

If you can't win the argument, slate the opposition, right? A very Christian thing to do, obviously.

[George Parr]

Brian, you do not understand what 'ad hominem' is. People who are defeated by an argument generally resort to complaining about the way it is expressed.

No-one is attacking the rights of persons to assemble or to follow their religions, simply the inability of some members of faith groups to observe the human rights of others. In short hiding behind selected interpretations of texts plucked from the sands of time is not good enough.

And yes you are right, clerics or other members of sundry religions do not have the right to tell others, who are not members of their assembly, what they should do or think. So moralising bishops and cardinals, appearing in the media, ideally might address their own followers, and not continue to make pronouncements designed to influence everyone else, having assumed through historical precedent that their perspective is either relevant, right or required.

Under the law that the majority accepts, marginalising homosexuals or discriminating over gender is not an option. Claiming piety in a variety of ways does not automatically present society with a credible opt out or describe a special case.

'Believing what they want' is an inaliable right, and wholly different from practising discrimination, unless believing in discrimination is what they want.

If that is your position Brian, you can expect tireless opposition, robustly expressed.

[andrew holden]

Brian admonished me:

"But be careful of "private" revelation and confusing your own personal wishes with that of Christ."

Indeed - but I also admitted "I could be wrong." In the end we all have to make up our own minds aware both of our own limitations and those of our tradition.

[Brian]

George and J Pearce,

Is invective part and parcel of your dialog? You both use terms like:

"their backward-looking and dogmatic positions"

"rabidly argumentative over issues that challenge their rigid views"

"The only ecumenical effect your plan might have will be clearly to identify bigots, whilst thinly disguising those who remain secreted in the broader church"

And these were the nice quotes.

In my experience, people who use these terms are those who have been defeated by argument and resort to name calling. Ad hominem never wins the day.

You talk about "human rights" but as I said a basic human right is freedom of assembly and religion. A voluntary association of adults should be able to set its own standards of behavior.

A Chelsea fan club does not have to admit Manchester United fans, or in the good ol' USA, no Yankees fan need to join Red Sox nation.

You have no right to tell people what they must or must not do in their private lives or in their own assembly. This is not advancing human rights but quite the opposite. For today its womens ordination, tomorrow it might be something else.

And you misquoted me. I said that the Church discriminates between good and bad behavior, not groups. I also said that in practice this was not always the case. Again, selective quoting is an indication to me that you are grasping at straws.

If you want to join the Church, you need to accept her creed. If you don't, then don't join. Its as simple as that. But let them believe what they want.

Cheerio!

[Brian]

Andrew,

You said: "Actually, no I follow Christ - and I'll go where He tells me."

Very admirable. But be careful of "private" revelation and confusing your own personal wishes with that of Christ.

[David Cohen]

"I am assuming you are an American, Brian. Therefore, that would go someway towards explaining your paranoid hypersensitivity regarding race."

Or yours, JP!

[J Pearce]

Brian,

I baited the trap and you bumbled right in. I have not once stated, or even inferred, that physical differences in racial groups are indicators of racial superiority. That is YOUR inference and you have stated it. This is clearly a manifestation of what is known as "projection", where an individual projects their own less appealing personal traits onto someone else as a means of denigrating that person.

I am assuming you are an American, Brian. Therefore, that would go someway towards explaining your paranoid hypersensitivity regarding race.

I have not said that women as a group are better than men. I have qualified the statement by suggesting that there are some tasks which women, as a group, are equally - if not more - suited. This is a commonsense understanding of reality, free of the stifling Stalinist interpretations of PC (which you seem to enjoy wallowing in). Again, I will qualify this statement by noting that there are, as always, exceptions to the rule.

Regarding judging by "the group". I have clearly stated, in reference to the concept of stereotyping, that judging people by their group membership is an instinctual human cognitive behaviour. I have not placed any value judgment on it, except to say that the process can have positive and negative repercussions. Do you actually read my posts?

Finally, this is a real beauty:

"The Church does not discriminate…"

Oh really? Tell that to women who are disallowed certain office within the Church hierarchy. Or homosexuals - who in this country, have recently had to face a Church-organised political campaign to restrict their legal rights. Indeed, you might even consider the upcoming Lambeth conference, where a cadre of certain Orthodox Christians are threatening not to attend, because an attending American cleric has married his gay partner.

I have to say Brian, that you may, quite possibly, be the first Politically Correct Christian I have ever encountered. Cheerio, indeed.

[George Parr]

Brian:

Some members of the Christian church demonstrate, on a regular basis, their backward-looking and dogmatic positions. They appear rabidly argumentative over issues that challenge their rigid views, to the point where their own faith communities take serious issue with them; witness the latest urgency to find common ground, where little or none exists in order to preserve the composite. Since there is no factual evidence surrounding many of these issues, 'right' or 'wrong' depends on a mix of interpretation, involving the way in which these issues have been written about over centuries, and a personal point of view, often involving stereotyping and prejudice.

So what's your excuse Brian? I argue from a position based on furthering and maintaining general human rights, for which, curiously, I am pilloried by some Christians. It's very easy for those, for whom 'human rights' irritatingly interferes with their medieval notions of preventing moral turpitude, to describe them equally as a sacred cow. It's fairly hollow, but for this reason and others I believe, like many Christians, that tolerance is an alternative to thoughtless entrenchment, which leads only to stasis on a grand scale.

You of course appear to think that the answer is to laminate into even more layers of piety, forming yet more religious groups, where those Super Christians content to resist calls for an end to discrimination over gender and sexuality can exercisie their social prejudices in a modicum of peace. Unfortunately, they will still exist within the society they seek to discriminate against and will draw the same criticisms they actually care very little about escaping from.

The only ecumenical effect your plan might have will be clearly to identify bigots, whilst thinly disguising those who remain secreted in the broader church; albeit a heavy sigh of relief might possibly be heard at Lambeth.

[George Parr]

Andrew, I know this. I was trying, fairly unsuccessfully, to put the issue into the context of Brian's seemingly dissimulated position over groups and individuals. I agree that the discussions for themselves do not surround rank.

Regards.

[andrew holden]

Brian,

"You can stay or leave, that is up to you."

Actually, no I follow Christ - and I'll go where He tells me.

"But be careful that you don't confuse your "love of the church" with your love of your own views that you want to foist upon her."

Again, no they are the views I've been brought to (actually originally I had quite a trad-Evo line on these matters) after considerable study, prayer and reflection. Furthermore I have no wish to 'foist' them on anyone. I sincerely hope that by its own process of study, prayer and reflection, as well as the Windsor listening process, that the Church will adopt them. If not well I certainly won't be leaving the Church or trying to eject those who disagree - rather unlike the Gafconites who seem to me to be behaving like spoilt selfish children who must get their own way, or else.

No, I'm committed to staying in the Church even if it doesn't always see things my way - after all I might be wrong. If that kind of humility were more widespread we might have a lot less schism, don't you think?

[Brian]

Andrew,

You can stay or leave, that is up to you.

But be careful that you don't confuse your "love of the church" with your love of your own views that you want to foist upon her.

;)

[Brian]

George,

You said: "What's this, the Special Christian school of irritating empty rhetoric?"

Again, I quote the Bible "Physician heal thyself!"

:)

[Brian]

George,

I am not "censuring" your speech or "lecturing" to you. I am disagreeing with your speech, something much different.

I uphold your right to express it, however odious. But methinks you would not necessarily extend the same courtesy to me as I may be engaging in "hate speech."

You said "Where's the tolerance or acceptance?" And yet you have said things like "It is nit-picking of the worst kind, designed to mask rigid discriminatory notions" and "The reason that Christian faith communties are shrinking is simply because their 'traditional teachings' ignore human rights, discriminate against women, appoint different values to people because of their sexuality and try to insist that guilt and fear are value-laden concepts" and this "So YOU close the door Brian, and thoroughly separate your self-righteous, argumentative and backward-looking members from the society they make little or no attempt to integrate with, but seek to affect morally."

This is the problem with your position. You demonize those whom you oppose, and paint with a "broad brush" Christianity. Yet when the tables are turned, you have an awful tendency to whine.

In response I quote from the Bible (gasp) "Physician, heal thyself!"

:)

[andrew holden]

"....women are clearly as capable of holding high rank as men."

Indeed, yet even I, as a supporter of the ordination and consecration of women have to point out that rank has nothing to do with it.

The church doesn't simply pay lip service to a different organisational stucture it's crucial to its very essence. Bishops are not Lords or Bosses (well they certainly shouldn't be!) but servants of the servants of God.

The issue, for opponents, is not that women are somehow inferior to be Bishops (and/or priests) but that its as impossible for them to exercise such an office as it is for me to have a baby.

I don't, of course, believe this - but it helps to attack the right target.

[George Parr]

Brian, you have not read J Pearce's post properly. He clearly differentiates over the social and cultural factors regarding black people and draws distinctions. Any inferences are based on a framework designed to assess facts, not group denunciation in the way homosexuals or women are judged, found wanting and demonised by some Christians. You have clearly not understood his point. Equally your laboured remarks over individualism and the choices of women to be treated fairly, flying in the face of tradition, present a false dichotomy and are a triumph of obfuscation.

The wider point is that women in the church are not in position to be judged as individuals, because as a group they are marginalised because of their gender. Unless you believe in pre 1960s gender stereotyping, or whacky theories of essentialism, women are clearly as capable of holding high rank as men.

'Do try and keep up'
'A real lack of understanding'
'Let's try to pay closer attention shall we'
'You really do need to deal with your anger'
'I didn't say that at all. Do try to keep up'

What's this, the Special Christian school of irritating empty rhetoric?

[Brian]

J Pearce,

From your post:

"The comment "judging by the group" was a direct response to J Pearce's ranting about how "women" as a group are better then "men" as a group."

"This is untrue. I inferred that certain social traits closely associated with women (as opposed to men) would enable them to perform equally competently - if not more so - in clerical roles currently denied them by the inherent sexism within the Church."

I rest my case.

As far as group think is concerned, you can certainly make objective statements like "blacks as a group do not score as well on tests as whites" or "blacks have won more athletic contests than whites" or some such thing. But to infer from this some racial superiority or inferiority shows a real lack of understanding. You fail to factor in environmental and cultural factors. Your statement that "So this suggests that as a group, blacks possess the physical traits that enable to perform more athletically than whites" is rather chilling. A social darwinist would be proud of you.

You said: "You seem to uphold a position where you want to deny the facts in favour of some quasi-PC fantasy where everyone is judged as an individual."

Again, you need to read more closely. I never said that everyone is judged as an individual, but that everyone SHOULD be judged as an individual. Am I to infer from your comments that you are saying that we should judge by the group? If so, it proves my point about this whole exchange.

The Church does not discriminate, or should I say, individuals in the Church should not discriminate against anybody EXCEPT for their behavior. I hope you are not against this notion, because it is the foundation not only of the Church but of law. The practice does not always reflect the theory, of course. But I am sure you yourself have done things that went against your own code of conduct.

This is why we have the concept of forgiveness.

Cheerio!

[George Parr]

What a litany of generalisation and contradiction Brian. If your unnamed jurist example holds water, and freedom of speech is meaningless without the ability to express other than mainstream thoughts, why are you censuring mine? If you are confusing hate speech with the current obsession of being politically correct, you have no chance of lecturing anyone over tolerance, acceptance or understanding.

So just how much credibility do you think you have earned by making the wholly general statement that "the problem with most Europeans is that they seem to have this notion that everyone has to be in lock step with the latest orthodoxy"? What unequivocal rubbish. That may be your uninformed opinion Brian - try telling it to the 27 member states comprising 500 million people. What 'orthodoxies' do my posts embrace in order to define 'enemies'. And, never mind the predilections of Tom Cruise, do you think that referring to the Germans as 'the SS' is a polite or acceptable way of being inclusive, in a world torn apart historically by violence, fuelled by statements like that? Where's the tolerance or acceptance?

So, in your thoughtless example of like-minded people forming groups, I take it that you have no objection to being surrounded by Islamicist militants peacefully seeking to impose laws that you do not want? Do they enjoy the same right, in Brian world, to form a group in which murmurs of latent volatility form a backdrop? At what point do you stand up and oppose them, having adjudged a possibility of mayhem to be on the horizon. Perhaps you just sub-divide amoeba- like, into even more chattering groups discussing interminable nonsense.

Moreover, in terms of mayhem, the peaceful but vocal composite that I belong to, which tends to oppose hypocrisy and whacky social policy based on some people's notions of devils, gods, guilt, sin and discrimination, should cause you no problems whatsoever.

'The church' does not exist in isolation and its rigid social policies and culture of guilt and perceived morality impacts considerably upon the society it inhabits. Since this is the case it simply is not good enough to pretend that closing the door on these people is an option.

So YOU close the door Brian, and thoroughly separate your self-righteous, argumentative and backward-looking members from the society they make little or no attempt to integrate with, but seek to affect morally.

Unfortunately you will still have to abide by the democratic laws that award women, homosexuals and others inalienable human rights. Institutional violation of those lawful rights, through dogged adherence to policies of sexual and personal discrimination, will continue to be robustly opposed.

[andrew holden]

"If you think the Church is violating somebody's rights, then just resign. Nobody is forcing you to belong. If women think that the Church is hopelessly sexist, then quit and form your own group. Its very simple."

That's certainly one way and 'the Church' has been fractured by it over the years.

Another perfectly reasonable way, for those who love the church and hate to see it so disfigured, is to stay in and try and change things. And indeed the Church has changed its mind on many things over the years - and often set the agenda for society in general to change too.

Sadly, on issues of equality and inclusivity, the Church now lags behind society. That's no reason to give up the struggle.

[J Pearce]

Brian in response to George:

"The comment "judging by the group" was a direct response to J Pearce's ranting about how "women" as a group are better then "men" as a group."

This is untrue. I inferred that certain social traits closely associated with women (as opposed to men) would enable them to perform equally competently - if not more so - in clerical roles currently denied them by the inherent sexism within the Church.

Brian, can I suggest that before you rant against George with various allegations, you actually read and understand the points being made? You clearly have (deliberately?) misunderstood the thrust of my argument, at least.

In regards to the supposed arguments about individuals and groups…what point exactly are you trying to make? My point is simple - women are capable of leading roles within the Church. They are prevented from taking these roles by the dogmatic inheritance of iron age sexism. The dominant, sexist patriarchy that unambiguously exists within Christianity denies women equality. Which part of that don't you understand?!

Interesting points about blacks vs whites. My understanding is that there are obvious cultural and social factors that affect black educational achievement in the US - but there are also studies that show cognitive abilities differ between racial groups. Are we to censor this data for the sake of PC? Are blacks stronger than whites? Other studies show that as a group, blacks conform to certain physical types that whites do not. Is it racist to say this? Well, look at the evidence - the majority of 100 metre world record holders over the past decade have been black. So this suggests that as a group, blacks possess the physical traits that enable to perform more athletically than whites.

This is not "speciousness" or "selectivity". It’s a banal rendering of the known facts. When the facts change, so do I.

You seem to uphold a position where you want to deny the facts in favour of some quasi-PC fantasy where everyone is judged as an individual. The point with Church dogma is that it operates in precisely the opposite manner - it organises people into specious and arbitrary labels ("women", "homosexuals", "Jews", "secularists") and proceeds to discriminate against them on that basis. If you are indeed in favour of the Church, then your argument against my points are effectively arguments against current Church dogma and practice.

Do make your mind up.

[Brian]

Dear Mr. Parr,

There is not much in your last post that requires a response because there is not much of substance. It is a rehash of your demonizing of your opponent using words like "nitpicking," "discrimination of the worst kind,"straitjacket of rote learned dogma," etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.

The only exception is your statement "Are you saying that you approve of hate-speech?"

One of the great US jurists once said of free speech (and by extension, free thought) is that it must include "freedom for the thought we hate." By this he meant that if freedom of speech and thought applied to only those notions that the majority of people agree with, then freedom of speech is really meaningless.

You also need to understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

The problem with most Europeans is that they seem to have this notion that everyone has to be in lock step with the latest "orthodoxy." People who deviate from this are considered as somehow enemies deserving ridicule, of which your posts are ample proof.

For example, Germany. It seems that Scientology is verboten now, and so they give Tom Cruise a hard time about making a movie. What utter nonsense and silliness. I am not a Scientologist by any stretch of the imagination or even a fan of Tom Cruise, but the SS over there need to get a life.

Remember, what you term hate speech today might be the correct speech tomorrow, and you might find yourself being persecuted when things change.

One other cornerstone of freedom that many Europeans and sadly, even Canadians forget is freedom of association. Like minded people should be allowed to associate and form groups if they so choose.

If I want to form a group that hates soccer (your football) then we should have that right. As long as they are not causing mayhem, they should be able to believe and think as they choose and they should have the right to make their own rules on who should belong and who should not.

If you think the Church is violating somebody's rights, then just resign. Nobody is forcing you to belong. If women think that the Church is hopelessly sexist, then quit and form your own group. Its very simple. Don't let the door hit your derriere on the way out.

Cheerio!

[George Parr]

Brian, what a productive weekend you have had! Your argument over tradition and bishops makes absolutely no sense. It is nit-picking of the worst kind, designed to mask rigid discriminatory notions. There is no ambiguity over the rights of women to be treated as fairly as men.

Fossilization in the minds of those who seek to wrap up their 'beliefs' in 'tradition' is a terrible consequence of religious privilege. But happily since I believe my perspective to be basically rational, there is actually no anger to deal with. You need to deal with your assumptions Brian.

I'm not going to bother replying to the charges of my own terrorism, or comments over outlawing hate speech because, regrettably, none of what you say makes sense. Suffice it to say that to applaud open-mindedness and human rights, rather than the straitjacket of rote-learnt dogma is hardly the province of someone who seeks to demonize and censor.

Are you saying that you approve of hate-speech?

[Kate]

Andrew Eburne: "anti-Catholic abuse".

The most persistent learning exercise of Faith blogs is a coming to consciousness that certain Catholics are always alert to 'offence'. At the same time, they appear unable to distinguish between articulated criticism of the Vatican and "anti-Catholic abuse" which, logically, pertains to reviling or maligning persons, not institutions.

I wonder why that is? Something perhaps, to do with (for a specific type of Catholic) an inability to move on in historical terms. The RC Church lost England a long time ago - get over it. There is an unfortunate resonance of imperialistic ambition in universal claims of 'authority', or even the 'right' not to be offended.

To articulate one's objections to the dogma of an Institution, is merely the utilisation of a basic civil right - free speech.

Objections, and efforts to suppress free speech, are common to both (certain) Catholics and a number of Muslim 'representatives'. Success by either would mean theocratic "dictatorship" and a return to the dark time before evolution and development of Enlightenment thinking led to a sensible, humane division of Church and State.

Interesting that, whilst constantly 'alert' to personal insult, no Catholic appears to regard as offensive, statements declaring that Anglicans "must decide"!

The arrogance and implicit superiority in that omission is quite extraordinary and again, too similar for comfort to Islamic proclamations. At the same time, 'offence' appears to be the province of mainly English Catholics.

I am domiciled in the Republic of Ireland where Catholics speak freely of their experience of a clerical 'dictatorship' which brought misery to so many lives for so many decades.

In Ireland, the RC Church controlled every facet of the lives of the faithful: 1967 was a seminal year with the passage of Donagh O'Malley's Free Education Act - free secondary education for all children. The act was opposed by the sternly orthodox Bishop Cornelius Lucy of Cork and other members of the Hierarchy on grounds that it would take young men away from the land!

Yeah! Young men (and women) ignorant and jobless, fated to emigrate in their thousands to England and America to work as navies and domestic servants. Destitute and uneducated they might be BUT, they were still 'good' Catholics unequipped to question the total and absolute authority of the Church. THAT was the real objection to free secondary education, the development of the mind.

Donagh O'Malley won and Ireland today has one of the most highly educated populations in Europe. Dr Noel Browne did not win: he was a health minister who tried to introduce a limited version of a national health system to Ireland. He was vehemently opposed by John Charles McQuaid Catholic Archbishop of Dublin:

"The state has no competence to give instruction in such matters (sex, chastity and marriage). We regard with the greatest apprehension the proposal to give to local medical officers the right to tell Catholic girls and women how they should behave in regard to this sphere of conduct."

Note the 'royal' "we"! Priests and bishops knew more about the subject than doctors and nurses! Education and Health were both totally controlled by the Catholic church. It is a universal truth that there is nothing the religious enjoy more than controlling other people’s sexuality.

Under JC McQuaid, books were banned, writers were forced into exile, thousands of women died in childbirth because they could not pay for the services of a doctor or a midwife. Children died for the same reason. The majority who reached adulthood emigrated.

Anti-enlightenment and anti-intellectual diktats from any clerical body denies the 'faithful' the right to Free will and free speech. It is for that reason that I am an Anglican and a Protestant - I am free to question authority. The brain after all, is a God-given faculty and like the biblical 'talents' should be nurtured and cultivated.

I am sorry you have taken personal offence where none was intended.

[Brian]

Dear J Pearce,

You said: ""Pea wit". Isn't that a bird?"

Yes, it is a variety of bird that lives in the British Isles. The genus is "Britishnesis" and the species is "Secularis Ignoramus."

Basically, the species is on the endangered list. They do not reproduce much. As a matter of fact, the number of same gender pairs is high and as you can imagine, the reproduction rate is therefore low.

They are being pushed out of their native habitat by "Islamicus Militanis Decapitationis." This species is far more fecund and aggressive. They have a tendency to chop off the head of the native species, which are fearful of them.

There is another species, the "Britishnesis Evangelicus Ferventius" which is multiplying in some areas but under some pressure.

Cheerio!

[Stuart Hartill]

Oh Alan, you beat me to it!
Mind you, I was going to suggest that the reason (given the apparent timing of many posts)might be that many women might be too busy.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr & J Pearce..Legends In Their Own Minds...

[Brian]

Dear J Pearce,

You said: "Sigh…its not difficult trying to find exceptions to rules. If I said every Catholic priest and Bishop had abused children at one point in their lives, then I would be wrong for a great number of them - but correct for a significant other. So does that mean men should not be allowed to take positions of power within the Church, based on the possibility that as individuals, they might sexually abuse minors?"

Sigh...where to begin?

You cannot judge a group of anybody in the abstract. A significant number of people in a group may be bad, but you can only judge a person in that group as a person.

There are a significant number of teachers in the public schools that abuse children. Shall we lop off the heads of all teachers?

You said: "The human mind is not capable of "individualising" every person on the planet, hence the concept of "stereotyping" - which is the cognitive mechanism by which the brain processes information about people by assigning them to group identities which have simplified, identifiable attributes."

You are confusing two things. Classification is necessary for human thought. But using classification speciously and selectively to bolster a position is not.

It is a fact that in the US, most black children score poorly on exams. Does this make them stupid vis a vis white children? Of course not. There are other factors. On the other hand, most of the NBA stars are black. Does this make blacks stronger than whites? Of course not. But I think you can see what happens when you open Pandora's box. Be careful of "studies."

My favorite Englishman once said that there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.

On the specific point of homosexual behavior, the Church like every other institution has the right to define its own behavior standards. If an individual meets these standards, then fine. If not, then he or she should find greener pastures.

If you think this is backward thinking, then fine. By your reckoning, it will be all over in a 100 years anyway.

Cheerio!

[Brian]

Dear Mr. Parr (again),

The point was not that tradition is either good or bad. The point is that it is absurd to argue against tradition and then want to appropriate tradition at the same time.

It is absurd to argue against the tradition of male bishops by wanting to be a bishop. Both are traditional, so to speak. People are being selective about the traditions they want to uphold because it benefits them (being a bishop, walking around with a staff and mitre, being masters or mistresses of all they survey) while disparaging the traditional foundation of that office.

My point is: why bother being a bishop? If the Church is hopelessly evil why not just start your own group and dance naked around the maypole on the solstice while chanting incantations to the goddess?

Oh, sorry, we musn't do that...after all, the druids practiced human sacrifice. That is a tradition that is not so PC.

You said: So in your view being irrelevant has more weight that being relevant?"

I didn't say that at all. Do try to keep up.

You said: "Not that it bothers me. Highlighting the dry types in their insulated cocoons, who argue interminably over dubious manuscripts and mouth prejudice, is one way of 'outing them' as failures in common humanity."

You really need to deal with your anger.

You said: "The reason that Christian faith communties are shrinking is simply because their 'traditional teachings' ignore human rights, discriminate against women, appoint different values to people because of their sexuality and try to insist that guilt and fear are value-laden concepts."

I wonder who is living in a cocoon? Do some research. Which faith groups are growing and which are dying? By your reasoning, the CofE should be brimming over with people. Same in the diocese of New Hampshire. But guess what?

You said: "What on earth difference will ordaining women or homosexuals make?"

So why do you bother to post about it?

You said: Would the constant repetition of 19thC hymns and sundry dull formularies and all the time expecting a different outcome from divine absence, be regarded as insane Brian?"

I agree. 19th century hymns are awful. To quote on of the great Anglicans, CS Lewis...the hymns are the "deadwood" of the service.

Cheerio!

[Brian]

Mr. Parr,

Let's try to pay closer attention, shall we?

The comment "judging by the group" was a direct response to J Pearce's ranting about how "women" as a group are better then "men" as a group. I was pointing out the absurdity of that position because he would not admit that the reverse was true, i.e. that this would allow that "men" in some areas would be better than "women."

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. :)

It seems that PC thinking has invaded England and is taking over rational thought.

You said: "Women remain then, as individuals, equally capable or not, as men - which is very obviously the general point."

Individuals are capable of doing specific things, not groups. That is obviously the general point.

The problem with your point of view is that you want to silence people based upon guilt...using words like "with threats of schism and conversion, to bully, censor and judge the more open-minded members. By attaching large dark clouds of bible-generated guilt, these people are emerging as soft terrorists."

You see, you are making those who disagree with you out to be terrorists. You are trying to demonize and silence opposition not on the merits of an argument but on the merits of you classifying yourself as "open minded" while castigating others as "closed minded" thus trying to stifle the opposition by ending the debate before it begins.

You are doing those very same things that you are whining that the other side is doing.

Soon you will be trying to outlaw "hate speech" as your Parliament is starting to do. "Hate speech" is speech that the other person uses, not me.

PC thinking never lasts. Ask the "comrades" in the Soviet Union.

Cheerio!

[alan]

I've counted. Maybe I've miscounted, but I think it was about 30 comments from men - and only one from a woman.
Perhaps this indicaates that most women are intelligent enough not to be interested in becoming priests.
A pity so many men are not equally intelligent.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Church doctrine and practice can develop if it first passes the test of not being contrary to Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. Once one accepts a mediating priesthood of some of the believers, rather than none or all of the believers, the institution of the priesthood is inevitably identified with Holy Thursday in the Cenacle.

[andrew holden]

"So it seems a shame to me that Andrew Holden should use the current post as a spring-board for anti-Catholic abuse,..."

Nonsense, if it was abuse it wasn't directed at Roman Catholics. In fact it was merely expressing frustration at the nonsensical position of Anglicans prepared to make what the Pope teaches or accepts as authoritative.

I can see plenty of attraction in the comforts of Roman authority (OK so perhaps calling it a 'dictatorship' was going just a bit too far) but if I was prepared to accept it I would become a Roman Catholic rather than hanging around in the Anglican Church formenting dissent and schism.

Apologies for the upset caused.

[J Pearce]

Brian,

Sigh…its not difficult trying to find exceptions to rules. If I said every Catholic priest and Bishop had abused children at one point in their lives, then I would be wrong for a great number of them - but correct for a significant other. So does that mean men should not be allowed to take positions of power within the Church, based on the possibility that as individuals, they might sexually abuse minors?

Of course, not all women display the qualities that I mentioned, but a significant proportion do. So its not "drivel" at all. I'm afraid, however, to inform you that your pie-in-the-sky wish to "take all people as individuals" is, absolutely, drivel. The human mind is not capable of "individualising" every person on the planet, hence the concept of "stereotyping" - which is the cognitive mechanism by which the brain processes information about people by assigning them to group identities which have simplified, identifiable attributes.

As George points out, the Church has been more than happy to stereotype homosexuals.

Of course, this process is open to distortion and negative interpretation, but it exists nonetheless. If you have managed to individualise every person you've ever met, Brian, all I can say is that either you have the brain the size of a planet, or you know 7 people at most.

I don't see how your arguments justify the Church's position regarding the ordination of women, i.e. its continued baulking. The only argument appears to be that its Church dogma. Even our resident Christianity expert Mr D. Smith points out that there is no Biblical evidence to support the "men only" club that the Church hierarchy has become.

In other words, it is iron age sexism codified by the rules and regulations of the Roman Catholic boys club. I cannot see how any religious male who is in favour of denying women ordination, can defend themselves against the charge of being sexist ingrates perpetuating a medieval fallacy.

Ps - "Pea wit". Isn't that a bird?

[George Parr]

Its a strange world you inhabit Brian! The rather wider point is that just because something is 'traditional' - such as male bishops, women as objects, or institutionalized Christian homophobia - it does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate over time. If it did, then anything that lasted long enough to be dubbed as 'traditional'; slavery, the 100 years war, Midsomer Murders; could never be revised, improved or scrapped as an anachronism.

So in your view being irrelevant has more weight that being relevant? Churches wasting their time dancing around their 'core beliefs' are splitting into more irrelevant churches Brian. Not that it bothers me. Highlighting the dry types in their insulated cocoons, who argue interminably over dubious manuscripts and mouth prejudice, is one way of 'outing them' as failures in common humanity.

The reason that Christian faith communties are shrinking is simply because their 'traditional teachings' ignore human rights, discriminate against women, appoint different values to people because of their sexuality and try to insist that guilt and fear are value-laden concepts.

Unearthly sin and repentance, as recipes for mutual and civilised living, are not rational formulae that MEAN anything.

You are right about Islam, and the Christian churches are going to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it. It will be a massive secular backlash that will prevent religious fanatics from pushing us around in the end. What on earth difference will ordaining women or homosexuals make?

Would the constant repetition of 19thC hymns and sundry dull formularies and all the time expecting a different outcome from divine absence, be regarded as insane Brian?

[Andrew Eburne]

As someone who was once an Anglican and is now a Catholic, I have been struck by how difficult it is for Catholics to understand Anglicans - though I think no-one will deny that sometimes that can be difficult even for Anglicans themselves.
But I've been more struck by how little Anglicans understand Catholics, and - with no disrespect intended - how little effort Anglicans make to acquire that understanding.
So it seems a shame to me that Andrew Holden should use the current post as a spring-board for anti-Catholic abuse, cheered on by Kate.
The Catholic Church is not a dictatorship. Please can Anglicans try to understand this. Anyone received into the Catholic Church accepts "all that the Catholic Church teaches". The Pope's authority is above all a teaching authority; and what he teaches is the Gospel message. There's a great example of this in his homily at Nationals Park last month:
'In the exercise of my ministry as the Successor of Peter, I have come to America to confirm you, my brothers and sisters, in the faith of the Apostles (cf. Lk 22:32). I have come to proclaim anew, as Peter proclaimed on the day of Pentecost, that Jesus Christ is Lord and Messiah, risen from the dead, seated in glory at the right hand of the Father, and established as judge of the living and the dead (cf. Acts 2:14ff.). I have come to repeat the Apostle’s urgent call to conversion and the forgiveness of sins, and to implore from the Lord a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Church in this country. As we have heard throughout this Easter season, the Church was born of the Spirit’s gift of repentance and faith in the risen Lord. In every age she is impelled by the same Spirit to bring to men and women of every race, language and people (cf. Rev 5:9) the good news of our reconciliation with God in Christ.' Etc etc.
The acceptance of that teaching has to take place in complete freedom: which is Pope Benedict has said a lot on that subject, and why the Vatican II documents say much similarly - see for example Gaudium et Spes, which I sincerely wish my Anglican friends would take the time to read.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, on the other hand, doesn't have a teaching authority - the Anglican church in general hasn't had one since nearly 150 years ago it tried and failed to prosecute Rowland Williams (no relation!) for heresy. And so in general what one hears the Archbishop of Canterbury speaking about is not the Gospel message, but 'national' issues appropriate to a 'national' church, such as Sharia law or global warning.
It may be that the absence of a tradition of teaching authority is one reason why Anglicans don't understand the issue, and toss words like 'dictatorship' round, and having tossed those words want to remind us of how offended they are by us.
But for Catholics there is no way to divorce authority from freedom. Pope Benedict himself spoke on this subject recently:
“Authority” … “obedience”. To be frank, these are not easy words to speak nowadays. Words like these represent a “stumbling stone” for many of our contemporaries, especially in a society which rightly places a high value on personal freedom. Yet, in the light of our faith in Jesus Christ - “the way and the truth and the life” - we come to see the fullest meaning, value, and indeed beauty, of those words. The Gospel teaches us that true freedom, the freedom of the children of God, is found only in the self-surrender which is part of the mystery of love. Only by losing ourselves, the Lord tells us, do we truly find ourselves (cf. Lk 17:33). True freedom blossoms when we turn away from the burden of sin, which clouds our perceptions and weakens our resolve, and find the source of our ultimate happiness in him who is infinite love, infinite freedom, infinite life. “In his will is our peace”.'
If we accept the teaching of the Church, we do so because in good conscience, in freedom, and prayerfully, we wish to do God's will. Not because we embrace 'spiritual dictatorship'.

[Stephen Marsden]

Ruth

Going back to the letter itself for a moment, it's just struck me as curious that none of the news reports, including yours, has mentioned any other 'names' amongst the signatories. No Dean of Leicester or of Salisbury, for example. No Archdeacon of Lewisham, or of Canterbury, or Buckingham . . . .

Did they sign the letter, do you know?

(I don't know, I didn't see full list of signatories, will try and find out, rg....)

[George Parr]

So then 'pea wit' Brian, what evidence is there that the church 'take[s] people as individuals'? If there was any whatsoever the appointment of bishops and priests would be purely on human merit and the perceived gender 'issue' would not pertain. The obsession with homosexuals as a group of pariahs would equally be eradicated by an evaluation of their individual human worth.

Accentuating positivity in either group is basically unheard of within the jabbering male-dominated councils that convene to discuss such matters. They are clearly treated as problematic en masse. Since you appear to be drawing a distinction, but agreeing that individual women build community and consensus and can also mediate, whilst promoting harmony equally as well as men, you are also exploding stereotypes and exposing prejudices.

Women remain then, as individuals, equally capable or not, as men - which is very obviously the general point.

The continuing stumbling block is contained within the perceived imminence of a dilution of male power, thinly masked by specious claims of tradition and biblical infallibility.

In both the issue of women bishops and homosexuals these are utilised as calculated strategies, together with threats of schism and conversion, to bully, censor and judge the more open-minded members. By attaching large dark clouds of bible-generated guilt, these people are emerging as soft terrorists.

[David Smith]

Chris Gillebrand:
' ..ordination of a women would be acting on his part, ultra vires, as this idea is nowhere found in scripture.. '

Nor is the ordination (aka human professionalisation) of men!

There is no Biblical mandate for making a professional career out of religion. Even St Paul did other work to provide himself with an income and not to be a financial burden on other Christians.

[Chris Gillibrand]

In the Anglican Church, I am indifferent to the ordination of women.

One cannot charectorise it as a great evil in the Catholic Church as it is not going to happen.

[John]

This episode underlines very effectively the intention of the signatories, not only to secure the consecration of women as bishops, but to purge the Church of England of their opponents.

If they are adamant that they won't have one without the other, then fine, let them wait until they acquire a greater understanding of what it is to be CofE - a church which has learned not to permit parties within it to exclude one another.

[andrew holden]

John and George, although I am a supporter of both the ordination and the consecration of women to Anglican orders I have to concede that the point at issue is not sexual equality.

I can't complain that my inability to bear children makes me somehow inferior to women. My role in nurturing the family is a different but equal one. Opponents of women's ordination take a similar line claiming that it's not about status but about function.

I remember one of my lecturers trying to get this across by saying:

"Of course a woman can't be a priest - women can't forgive ANYTHING!"

Biblically, though, I don't find this adds up. "In Christ there is neither male nor female" claimed that alleged misogynist St Paul. Furthermore the nature of priesthood in the Bible is very different between old and new testaments. Christ has wound up the need for sacerodotal priesthood leaving only the priesthood of ALL believers and the functional priesthood or presidency of a church minister at the Eucharist.

Despite the joke above I don't really see any reason, rational or scriptural, to refuse that kind of priestly ministry to women in a society where they are recognised widely as being equal in status to men.

[John Richardson]

In the discussion of this letter, it is very important to be clear what it is and is not saying. The letter is emphatically not a rejection of opponents of women priests, nor does it say no provision will be made for them. On the contrary, it says provision will be made, up to and including appropriate episcopal oversight, provided this is done by a code of practice which is not given legislative form.

I have blogged on this here.

In this respect, it is like more Option 2a put forward in the Manchester Report. It is certainly not the simple, 'single clause', approach the Manchester Report puts forward as its Option 1.

However, as I explain in my blog, the Manchester Report considered what this letter proposes, but declined to pursue it further due to the likely legal problems it would entail.

[Brian]

To George Parr,

You said: "A long but now pointless tradition, even 1900 years of it, does not confer authenticity on a situation."

But that is not the point. The point is that women who want to be ordained show that they only want those traditions that they like...such as the office of Bishop. Isn't that an traditional office that is over 1900 years old?

If you want to disparage tradition, why bother wanting to be a bishop?

You also said that: "It really is little wonder that the Christian church is seen as becoming increasingly irrelevant..."

What is relevant are those churches who try to be "relevant" end up being irrelevant. The CofE is dying at a rate that has a positive correlation to its abandonment of traditional teachings. It is those churches who don't mirror the coventional wisdom and stick with their core beliefs that are growing.

Look at where Islam will be in Merrie England in a few years. It will be the majority religion in less than two decades as the CofE shrinks while it ordains women, homosexuals, and deviates further from the its original message.

A definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again expecting a different outcome.

Cheerio.