Women in the Church

BBC link

Not sure how much this will be reported outside of the UK. The Church of England (not catholic) has voted last night by a very narrow margin (6 out of ~400?) not to allow women to be Bishops although they are already minsters of lower tiers.

Can someone explain this to me as an athiest it seems very odd - and would be illegal discrimination apart from the get out clause that states being a bishop isn't a job. Apparently. Even though it has a salary.

What does a bishop do anyway? Why do they get to hear god's voice as men, but women don't? Note that the head of the church is of course the current Queen. so She can get special instructions, but the bishops don't?

Anyone want to offer some explanations as to why women should have an equal role in yoru church?

Women bishops: Church has 'lost credibility' says Rowan Williams (BBC)

Women bishops vote for Wales call (BBC)

Perhaps some of those who voted read the scriptures literally:

1 Corinthians - Chapter 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:
for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1

Even closer than that. There were 3 "houses" that voted (Bishops, Clergy, and Laity) and each required a 2/3 majority to succeed. The Bishops voted 44:3 in favour, the Clergy 148:45 in favour, and the Laity 132:74 in favour. But the Laity vote was 6 short of a 2/3 majority.

3

That's a scandalous piece of scripture. Reflecting its times, of course. But I very much doubt that it influenced yesterday's vote! Even the die-hard reactionary "Forward In Faith" movement would not have dared to quote it, I think.

>4 Tid: doubt that it influenced yesterday's vote
You are probably right, but it would only have needed about 3% of the laity to take a literal view of Paul's pronouncement to swing the vote.

It's interesting, I think, that the leaders (bishops and priests), who are often portrayed by some of the atheists in these LT conversations as the ones who are leading the gullible flock astray, voted pretty overwhelmingly for the more progressive option. It was the laity who held it back (although even there it was still a sizeable majority, but falling just short of the 2/3 needed).

Some media articles suggest it was a tactical vote and that even some of those who favour women bishops voted against because they disagreed with some of the details of the legislation rather than the principle of it.

Being an athiest, you might not get this. But we believe that God created man and woman for different roles in society. That's why we are anti-gay marriage. We aren't "haters" or "bigots," but we don't want people to lose the value and meaning of a family- which is a mother AND a father. Another related issue is abortion. But let's focus on why women can not become priests. Ordination of a man is not just giving him ability to function as a priest; it permanently, spiritually, MAKES him a priest. He can hear confessions, consecrate the Host, efficiently recite prayers of absolution, that sort of thing that non-priests can NOT do. And Christ specifically said that only men should have that right, not because he was prejudiced towards women, but because he wanted to keep men's and women's roles in society clear. And since it is against God's laws for a women to be ordained, a woman who received "ordination..." Well, it would be invalid, and the woman would continue to administer sacraments and such ineffectively, thus sinning. To change the way the Church has functioned for 2,000 years would be a doctrinal change, and those are not to be permitted.
God Bless.
(ps, keep in mind I am a girl, too. And this is just what I believe. My mom doesn't force me to think like this, and I go to a very liberal public school. But this is how I CHOOSE to think)

>7 adriennef: But adriennef, the Anglican Church has already had women priests for many years, a decision made by voting just as this one on bishops was. Why do you think they voted to allow women priests but not women bishops? I'm not an atheist, incidentally, but I'm not an Anglican.

7

"Christ specifically said that only men should have that right"

Can you tell me where in the Bible that is, please?

I don't usually visit this group as LT for me is a respite from work, which is for me being a (female) priest in the Church of England. But I commented on yesterday's vote on my thread in the 75 group and someone pointed out the existence of this thread.

A little further clarification. The vote was not about whether women can be bishops. This was (finally!) agreed in principle in 2006 with the necessary 2/3 majority vote in Synod, and in 2008 it was then agreed to proceed with drawing up legislation to enable this to happen. But at the same time it was agreed to ensure that arrangements were made to allow the minority who don't/can't accept this development to continue as members of the church. Since then, draft legislation has been rumbling its way slowly through drafting and consultation processes, has been overwhelmingly supported at regional level by 42 out of 44 diocesan synods and then came back for final approval by General Synod.

The legislation contained a certain amount of compromise to try to accommodate the few who don't think women can/should be bishops. Basically it was trying to square a circle and reconcile the irreconcilable. Most of those who voted against the legislation were probably those who don't agree in principle about women bishops, and who certainly argued that not enough provision had been made to keep them on board and 'protected' from the presence of women bishops in their church. Some however, it is not clear how many, voted against because they felt that too much concession had been made to the anti group and/or that the proposed legislative compromise was muddled and unhelpful. Those in favour mostly agreed that it was a bit muddled and not ideal, but felt it was the best we were going to get and were prepared to go ahead with it.

Despite my personal frustration, anger and sadness at yesterday's outcome, I am glad to be part of a church where major decisions are not simply imposed from above by bishops or clergy, but require significant support from lay members as well as ordained. I am even glad to be part of an organisation which does not simply say 'good riddance' to those who disagree with its decisions (tempting though it is), and works hard to accommodate a diversity of views - even though both of these characteristics result in extremely frustratingly drawn-out decision making processes. But for this system, slow though it is, to work properly, requires the elected representatives to be truly representative. What yesterday's vote highlights is how unrepresentative the lay members of Synod are; the overwhelming majority of ordinary church members are in favour of women bishops and can't understand why that did not immediately happen 20 years ago once women were admitted as priests. The relatively high proportion of lay Synod members who are against this move is not representative of the general position.

>10 gennyt: Thanks, gennyt. That's very helpful, and clarified some of what I mentioned having read in the media (>6 John5918:).

I was going to ask you why you think laity voted against (or at least didn't reach the 2/3 majority), but you have also clarified that.

Could you give us some idea how the representatives in the House of Laity are chosen? Who are they?

Dark Ages 1 Women 0

#11 "Could you give us some idea how the representatives in the House of Laity are chosen? Who are they?"

Subject to correction from someone who actually knows! radio last night was implying they are appointed/elected for life from the district congregations. They aren't representatives though and don't have to listen to the district congregations when voting (as it appears they didn't). I've heard some discussion that the sort of person who is likely to have the time and motivation to want the role is probably such that they are, in general, less flexible of opinion, and more outspoken about their idea of what is right, than the average churchgoer.

#10 - thanks for that. I didn't know and the media certainly haven't made it clear, that women bishops are approved of in principle, and that only the details of the process need the confirmation.

Woman bishops? female bishops? bishops? bishopesses?

#11, #13 Some Lay Synod members are ex-officio or co-opted, but most are directly elected from the 44 regional Dioceses (a diocese is the regional area over a which a bishop presides). At least 3 are elected from each diocese, more in some cases if they are larger dioceses. To be elected you have to be a practising church member in a church in that diocese, and be over 18. The people who do the electing are themselves part of a more local level elected body called a Deanery. Each local church (parish) elects representatives onto a Deanery Synod, and the Deanery lay members elect the General Synod lay members. This happens every five years - it's not a lifetime appointment, thank goodness!

One problem is that the Deanery electors usually know very little about the people standing for election, who are sometimes deliberately vague about where they stand on controversial issues. The point about the nature of people who are likely to have the time and inclination to stand for election is also part of the problem.

Woman bishops? female bishops? bishops? bishopesses? I hope we will soon be at the point where we can simply say 'bishops' and it be irrelevant whether the bishop is male or female. It simply means one who has oversight (episcope).

While my church has a separate female title for sacerdotal ordination (i.e. priestess); our bishops are bishops regardless of gender. In the 19th century, though, female bishops were called "sophias," which I find somewhat charming.

ETA: Yes, I belong to a precocious church that has had female bishops since the 1800s.

>10 gennyt:, 14: I was pointed to this thread the same way as Genny. Thanks, Genny, for all of this explanation!

So what about ordinary parishoners' votes. Church-going friends of mine have said that that were asked to vote. Does their vote count for anything, or is it just a facade?

I forgot where it is, but the New Testament contains the greek word for deaconness, meaning that at least some women were "ordained" in the early church. (I used the "" because we are not really sure what ordination entailed in the first 20 or 30 years of the church. Granted the leaders in the core areas (Jerusalem, Antioch) were mostly men, but Paul writes to couples who are in some way responsible for "House" churches. (A household could include 30 or 40 people, including servants, and other hanger oners.)

Women bishops: PM 'very sad' at Church of England rejection

Of course, for many of us it is very sad that this is said to be a matter for Parliament at all.

>20 jbbarret: Cameron warns priests of turbulence after church votes no to female bishops (Guardian)

The stage is set for a clash of wills between church and state...

>21 John5918: That link reports Chris Bryant, a Labour MP and a former Anglican priest, said the failure of the vote had caused many to call into question the future of the 26 bishops in the House of Lords.

Many more of us have been questioning that for a very long time.

In the USA a woman bishop leads the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is the American wing of the Anglican Church. The Church of England is considered the "Mother Church". Interesting considering women bishops were not approved and England's Church is our "Mother Church." Anyways, the United States and other countries vote democratically with three bodies of representatives casting votes: laity, priests, and bishops. It seems the laity did not approve the change to allow women bishops by a wide enough margin-something like a 2/3rds approval was needed. There are women priets in England. Unfortunately, England is behind other nations like the US in allowing women bishops. Hopefully, this will be rectified within a few years. How unfair that women can serve as priests but not bishops. Ministry can come to men and women and I lament this decision but look forward to a brighter future soon in the Church of England.

Could the ban on female bishops split the Church of England?

In this link Guardian columnist and Anglican priest Giles Fraser says Tuesday's vote could be disastrous for the institution and could even put at risk the Church of England's privileged position as the established state Christian church.

He also quotes Ben Bradshaw MP as making similar comments.

This seems to be too much to hope for in the near future, but anything that brings this possibility even remotely closer is welcome news.

#7: But we believe that God created man and woman for different roles in society. That's why we are anti-gay marriage.

It's obvious to me that some people are going to happier, saner and more productive members of society in a stable relationship with someone of the same sex then they are alone or or in a marriage with a person of the opposite sex. Either when he created man and woman for complementary roles in society, he did so poorly in some cases, or his intentions were more subtle and complex then you understand.

we don't want people to lose the value and meaning of a family- which is a mother AND a father.

Part of my problem with this is that Jesus also said something about dealing with the rod in your eye before the spec in your brother's. Jesus was clear in his objections to divorce, where as he said nothing about homosexuality, but most people are more interested in getting a divorce then married to someone of the same gender, so divorce gets downplayed and gay marriage gets upplayed.

A lot of those clergywomen at the vote count reminded me of French and Saunders when they do the old men sketch, sorry if this is offensive to anyone, it's not meant to be, but there seems to be a certain type.. ? I have posted the link to show their appearance only, please watch only the first few seconds or with the sound off to avoid any confusion regarding my intent. I do not think that they look any more manly than French and Saunders do in the sketch, but there seems to be some movement away from traditional femininity amongst them which is almost uniform. I do not want to create an "elephant in the room", but there seems, to me, to be something of interest here, (this topic is, essentially, revolving around gender). I do not want to be controversial, i am not even sure what i am trying to say.

http://youtu.be/NMoaNYv94os

>25 by @prosfilaes, Fabulously said.

24 Could the ban on female bishops split the Church of England?

Sure hope not! The Pope seems to be out to recruit the disgruntled socially conservative, and the RC Church has a surfeit of those, IMHO! {;> Seriously, my hopes for women clergy resides with Anglicans and Episcopalians, and so this was sad news indeed.

>28 margd: Yes, many of us left-footers are sincerely hoping that we won't get another influx of the more reactionary ex-Anglican clergy!

>29 John5918:: I can see your concerns, along with the last lot you got Ann Widdecombe as well. Enough to bother anybody.

>30 jbbarret: We also got Tony Blair, for different reasons, but just as bothersome.

>31 John5918: Like many others, I'm not sure what was going on there. With Ann Widdecombe it was a straightforward difference of opinion with CofE that prompted her conversion. Tony Blair stated the more positive reason of joining his wife in Catholicism. But Cherie believes in the supernatural powers of crystals, and such like. I had always understood that such superstition was at odds with Catholic beliefs. Am I wrong?

>32 jbbarret: Well, I suppose crystals are at odds with traditional Catholic teaching, but we're a broad Church!

Ha, superstitions at odds with Catholicism, the most self-servingly syncretistic of all religions? NO such thing.

How do you feel about female priesthood and oversight within the RCC, John?

>34 LolaWalser: Won't happen in my lifetime, I'm afraid.

I suppose you've all heard about the time that Pope John Paul II had a direct visitation by the Holy Spirit and so he took the opportunity to ask a few questions. "Will we ever have to allow married priests?" he asked. "Not in your lifetime," replied the Holy Spirit. "And women priests?" Same response, "Not in your lifetime". "And will we have another Polish pope?" "Not in my lifetime!" replied the Holy Spirit.

Wow, Polack jokes from the Holy Spirit!

I can't wait for a Croatian pope myself.

I don't usually visit this group as LT for me is a respite from work, which is for me being a (female) priest in the Church of England. But I commented on yesterday's vote on my thread in the 75 group and someone pointed out the existence of this thread.

Thank you so much for dropping by. I hope everyone is nice to you here. If not—and, frankly, probably not—I beg forgiveness on that score.

For my part—I am a Catholic—while I appreciate the gender-equality principle at stake, I have a certain sympathy with the Anglo-Catholic objection to the ordination of female bishops. That is, while I don't agree that "women shouldn't be put over men" or whatever (the evangelical argument), I can see the Anglo-Catholic objection to messing with the communion of the bishops, creating a class of bishops whom some within the church don't recognize as bishops to all, who in turn create priests who, because only a bishop can ordain priests, aren't priests to all, who in turn provide sacraments that aren't sacraments at all. That is, in order to keep the church "together" the proposal made mincemeat of the Anglo-Catholic understanding of ecclesiology, and ended their "sacramental assurance." I wonder what you think of this argument?

Second, I grieve because steps like this move the church farther away from reunion. Fifty years ago, at Vatican II, everyone thought we could iron out the major theological differences and union was possible. Huge progress has been made on that score. But now it wouldn't matter a bit if this was obtained, as the social and sexual issues present an entirely new problem which by its very nature can't really be resolved, and we'll have to wait for Catholics (not to mention Orthodox!) to accept female priests and then bishops, which I hazard won't be for centuries, or for Protestants to change their mind and dump their female priests and bishop, which simply will not happen. No, what we'll get instead is a slow trickle of disaffected hyper-conservative Anglicans and Episcopals turning Catholic, a process that can only delay union still further, as their whole presence in the church is contingent upon it "holding the line" on the issue. As someone who thinks restoring communion between Christians is a fundamental duty, it's depressing.

As a Catholic, I suppose I have a "bias toward sticking-together." There is much that, in my heart of hearts, I believe the church should do, and if I were pope and king I would do it. But I know I am not pope or king, and I know that that's probably a good idea. I accept the structures of the church and their responsibility to teach and make decisions, even if those teachings and decisions go against my conscience. Further, I also know the church would not support my "agenda," and if it could be forced through anyway on a simple majority, would split the church. I think if I were Anglican, I'd worry about that too. But perhaps, if I were Anglican, I wouldn't have the same bias toward unity. What do you think?

37

"I can see the Anglo-Catholic objection to messing with the communion of the bishops, creating a class of bishops who some within the church don't recognize as bishops to all, who in turn create priests who, because only a bishop can ordain priests, aren't priests to all, who in turn provide sacraments that aren't sacraments at all."

That makes it seem a very clear-cut issue (or "clear-cut confusion" as you've outlined it!). However, it has never been clear-cut. From this website: http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/morris4.asp :

"This survey gives some idea of the growth of monastic exemption and of the great number of women’s monasteries that held independent jurisdiction. It gives an idea of what this jurisdiction entailed: abbesses with independent jurisdiction had all the duties of a bishop with regard to ecclesiastical and civil administration in a diocese, which in their case was called a “separated territory.” The abbesses had spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, which in Canon Law was termed nullius diocesis or praelatura nullius. This status did not entail a priestly ordination, even though abbesses had a form of ordination."
Not only exemption from episcopal authority, but in turn, the abbesses had jurisdiction over all the churches, priests and laity within their territory. So if women in certain medieval positions had exemption from episcopal authority, then the Anglo-Catholic conservatives aren't even acknowledging the Roman Catholic tradition of the power of abbesses, or have conveniently "forgotten" it.
Yes, women have never been able to celebrate Mass or ordain priests, but within the Church of England, half of that was empowered to women who, as priests, can celebrate Holy Communion. That - if you go by the significance handed down from The Last Supper - is more important than the ordination of priests.

Women bishops farce has crippled church's fight against gay marriage, MPs told

In this link Sir Tony Baldry, the Tory MP and Church Commissioner ... said that it would be viewed more like a “sect” than the national church because it appeared so far out of step with mainstream opinion.

As an outsider to this (neither British nor CoE) I'm baffled on a couple of fronts:

1) Isn't Elizabeth already head of the CoE? How then can women be allowed to be priests AND be allowed to be head of the institution - and yet be denied access to the middle positions?

2) Doesn't the CoE still get automatically get seats for its bishops in what's left of the House of Lords?

Seems to me that the EU should sit up and take notice if women priests are denied equal access to those seats in government simply on the basis of blatant gender discrimination.

> 37 I'm with you on preferring reunion over more splintering, but at what cost? Would we tolerate slavery to preserve the union of states?

>37 timspalding: and >41 margd: I also struggle with the unity question, and with how far one goes to preserve unity. There are no simple solutions.

>40 AsYouKnow_Bob: AsYouKnow_Bob :

I suppose I'm a bit ahead of you on a couple of points, being British and having grown up as a member of the CofE. But there my advantage ends, and I may well be baffled by far more than you are.

Certainly the answer to the first part of your Q1 is yes.

And the answer to your Q2 is yes, 26 of 'em.

But as for the EU getting involved, Parliament would have sovereignty on this. And it is Parliament that is currently reviewing its options, and may or may not have a crack at it.

An extract from one of the press reports:

The Church of England – along with other religious organisations – is exempt from equalities and employment legislation. That doesn't mean, of course, that its non-religious jobs – secretaries, for instance, or clerks – are not covered by the legislation. But it is able to discriminate on the grounds of sex in its choosing of deacons, priests and bishops. Critics of the exemption have long feared it could come under scrutiny in the event of the female bishops legislation failing in the synod despite receiving widespread approval elsewhere. Last year, the Labour MP Frank Field tabled an early day motion calling on the government to remove all the church's exemptions relating to sex discrimination if such an event came to pass.

As I have noted above, there is a positive aspect about all this. The possibility of disestablishment and the removal of the automatic right of 26 bishops to seats in the House of Lords becomes a tad closer with each of these debacles. I just regret that I will not live long enough to see the conclusion.

40

The sovereign is the automatic titular head of the CoE, but has no priestly abilities (cannot celebrate Communion or ordain priests, etc)

37 Fifty years ago, at Vatican II, everyone thought we could iron out the major theological differences and union was possible.

Even then, it was really much too optimistic. Despite huge convergences of understanding and approach between the RCC and other churches, in which the vernacular mass probably played a pivotal role (at least as far as non-Orthodox churches are concerned), the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (with the Marian dogmas) remains an insuperable sticking point for all non-Romans, and renders institutional union inconceivable. John XXIII opened the windows, but Pius IX had already slammed the door shut less than a century before.

So members of general Synod should not look over their shoulders towards Rome. As gennyt notes, the decision about Anglican women bishops has already been made, both theologically and synodically, even though the Church of England locally has failed to legislate for it; and as far as Rome is concerned, the orders of all Anglican bishops are null and void anyway (even though Apostolicae Curae was refuted by the Anglican archbishops).

As for the Orthodox, they might allow a woman bishop, as long as she was a nun with a big beard and a bass voice.

(That I am concerned with the issue at all suggests to me that my heart is still Anglican, even if my head is agnostic.)

#40: The sovereign is the automatic titular head of the CoE, but has no priestly abilities (cannot celebrate Communion or ordain priests, etc)

Does the sovereign have veto power over proposed promotions to bishop? (What does it mean to be 'titular head' if the position has no authority over the Church?)

Most of the Sovereign's powers are latent or delegated. The Queen appoints bishops on the advice of the Prime Minister, whose advice she is conventionally obliged to take. The only Prime Minister to exercise the Crown's delegated veto in living memory is Margaret Thatcher, who is said to have vetoed a preferred candidate for Birmingham, and possibly one for London.

>46 AsYouKnow_Bob:: What does it mean to be 'titular head' if the position has no authority over the Church?

There is a page on "Queen and the Church of England" on The British Monarchy website:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandtheChurchofEngland.aspx

I take the "Supreme Head" to mean that after the Reformation the appointment of bishops/archbishops would be chosen by (and from) the English establishment rather than having people imposed by Rome or having to seek Rome's approval. I expect the monarch once took a more leading role in the choice than now when as #47 myopicBookworm says the Queen takes advice from the government of the day. Also ecclesiastical law hearings would be heard in English courts with no appeal to Rome.

>49 PossMan:: the Queen takes advice from the government of the day

The Queen takes advice from the Prime Minister who in turn is advised by the Crown Nominations Commission, which is a church commission made up of bishops, clergy, and lay members of the church.
So with the exception of extraordinary cases, such as outlined in #47, the first choice of the church is appointed.

So if the CNC is going to persist in sending a gender-discriminatory list of prospective Bishops up to the sovereign, how much of constitutional crisis would there be if HRH said - "Sorry, this list is obviously discriminatory and thus illegal: try again."?

>51 AsYouKnow_Bob:

That would be a rather good way out of the problem, actually, although it wouldn't be illegal it would just not be satisfactory. I suspect many of the opponents would accede to this act of a traditional prerogative, although I may be wrong.

#51 - technically not illegal. It's not a job it's a calling. That makes it all ok. Apparently.

Would be interesting though!

It's not a job it's a calling.

Yeah, I get that part of it - but it's the "automatic seat in parliament" part of the blatant gender discrimination that causes further problems.

The other solution would be to deny the CoE its seats in the House of Lords until they shape up....

>54 AsYouKnow_Bob: There is no "automatic seat in parliament" for newly ordained bishops. Were the vote to have gone the other way and women ordained as bishops, they would still not gain a seat in the Lords unless, or until, their diocese were Canterbury, York, London, Durham or Winchester (the five "great sees"), or until such time as they become one of the 21 longest serving bishops of the remaining 39 dioceses.

ETA total number of dioceses.

>51 AsYouKnow_Bob:
I don't know "how much" of a crisis that would be, but it's not going to happen in the foreseable future. Although theoretically possible for the monarch to take such a stand, it is not the way our present Queen does things, as is evident in any study of her past 60 years.

It is more likely that a Prime Minister might take such a stand, and would most likely only do so after consultation with the Queen, who may or may not agree with such a course but would not interfere with it.

There are also MPs on both sides of the House deciding what their next options are. These options are not entirely clear. Ben Bradshaw vociferously proclaimed that the Church is answerable to Parliament, and stated that he had asked the clerks what options were available to deal with the problem.

At least one MP has suggested action along the lines suggested in #54 and not allowing any new appointments of bishops to the Lords.

Rather than "until they shape up", until the earth starts spinning in the other direction might be a more suitable timescale.

>55 jbbarret: I suppose if you wanted to reduce the role of bishops in the House of Lords it would make sense to stick to what you call the "premier" sees and perhaps to reduce the rest. After all if one included the suffragan bishops the number would be quite large. As for the role of the Queen although constitutionally she follows the advice of her ministers I sometimes wonder, and perhaps we have no means of knowing, what her views on many matters are, whether she expresses them in her many meetings with ministers, and whether she has any "behind-the-scenes" influence. And I am thinking here of all areas of political life and not just those areas related to her position as Supreme Governor.

>57 PossMan:
There is a proposal, which for other political reasons has been sidelined (the House of Lords Reform Bill) to reduce the number of reserved seats for CofE bishops in the House of Lords to 12. But it looked like the reduction might be topped up with seats for religious leaders from other faiths. Not much of an improvement if seats are set aside for particular occupations rather than appointments being on merit.

Certainly the Queen's views are made known to ministers, most importantly in her regular (usually once a week) meetings with the Prime Minister. And you are right, we have no means of knowing all her views on many matters. What is clear is that PMs throughout the years have valued the experience which she brings to bear in these discussions on many aspects of political life, whether of national or international significance.

I very much understand the desire to allow female bishops, but I find the notion of sex discrimination at the House of Lords risible. It's the House of Lords! It's an inherently undemocratic, non-representation, throwback body, which also (not incidentally) has no real power. It's like demanding gender equality in Downton Abbey.

The notion of sex discrimination at the House of Lords is not an issue. Such discrimination does not apply to appointments to the Lords except in the case of 'The Lords Spiritual' which is for the CofE to resolve.
Other aspects such as making the House more democratic and representational are matters for such as House of Lords Reform Bill to resolve, which has currently been shelved by the Commons.
The core of the problem being discussed in this thread regarding sex discrimination in the House of Lords would be removed at a stroke by ending the reservation of seats for some of the CofE bishops. It would then be no more an issue of sex discrimination at the House of Lords than is the exclusion of female Catholic bishops (another throwback?).

>38 Tid:: "Abbesses with independent jurisdiction had all the duties of a bishop with regard to ecclesiastical and civil administration in a diocese, which in their case was called a “separated territory.” The abbesses had spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, which in Canon Law was termed nullius diocesis or praelatura nullius. This status did not entail a priestly ordination, even though abbesses had a form of ordination."

That actually doesn't address the issue that Tim brought up at all. Abbesses had administrative authority equivalent to episcopal (both ecclesiastical and civil, which in many areas were practically synonymous) over the territories under their fie, but they did/do not have the sacramental status of episcopal or sacerdotal ordination. (Their "form of ordination" involves monastic authority, which is a different animal.) Canon law has always distinguished between the temporal administrative authority of bishops, abbots, and abbesses, and their sacramental states. If the website you pulled this from (womenpriests.org) is using this to imply that there is/was a sacramental equivalency between abbesses and bishops, then it is simply wrong.

The fundamental issue here is that sacerdotal ordination is performed by bishops and therefore contingent upon their episcopal validity. If a portion of the church does not accepts the bishop as valid, they won't accept the priests ordained by the bishop as valid, and therefore they won't accept the sacraments performed by those priests as valid.

61

No, the point I was making is that abbesses in medieval Christendom had a great deal of power, including exemption from episcopal authority (and as you say - they had some temporal power over the bishops).

This indicates to me that sacramental authority must have been based on some (possibly spurious? or at least 'weight of tradition') scriptural reason for being male-only. The power of abbesses equally clearly indicates that women in the Church could nevertheless hold positions of very great authority, and were demeaned less than they are today by the RCC.

I very much understand the desire to allow female bishops, but I find the notion of sex discrimination at the House of Lords risible. It's the House of Lords! It's an inherently undemocratic, non-representation, throwback body, which also (not incidentally) has no real power. It's like demanding gender equality in Downton Abbey.


...or in the Church of England.

Yes, it's a comically retrograde institution, but the one is equally as irrelevant to the 21st century as is the other. Still, if they're going to persist, then both should be brought up to modern standards.

There was a note in today's Sunday Times that in spite of recent plans to reform the Lords and the need to reduce costs that David Cameron is thinking of creating as many as 100 new Lords. Whilst some members, especially those brought in from commerce/industry, have a wealth of experience I have a feeling there should be an emphasis on quality rather than quantity or just packing the place with party faithful.

63, 64

While I used to agree with you entirely about the House of Lords, Tony Blair's changes have brought in a slightly more Senate-style institution - for example, they tried to add some very humane amendments to the Government's utterly vicious Welfare Reform Bill (the amendments would have helped the genuinely disabled, who are the biggest victims of the Bill). Yet when passed back to the Commons, Cameron and Osborne managed to evade them and the Welfare Reform Bill went through unamended.

Thirty some years ago my dh (who was raised Roman Catholic) was considering getting active in the church again. A friend of his was trying to persuade me to become Catholic.

I didn't. Why? Because of what I perceived as an anti-woman attitude. When we did go to church, we would go to an Episcopal church.

I didn't like what the Roman Catholic Church taught, so I found a church that met my standards.

Instead of trying to change the RCC to conform to the world's standards, just go elsewhere.

Lucky are those who find a church with which they are in full agreement. My takeaway from reading The Reformation is that those that unrelentingly seek such unity will eventually belong to a church of one "congregant". Those who leave can effect changes in the church left behind, though, e.g., the Counter-Reformation--Luther wouldn't have left today's RCC, I bet. I think that Catholics who attend Mass only at Christmas and Easter or who hold back on contributions and those who more actively promote change will likewise eventually get attention of hierarchy. The recently deceased Cardinal Martini is one who seems to have been listening: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/08/31/cardinal-martini-liberal-papal-contender....

(67) @margd, I doubt, also, that few could be in FULL agreement with any church, there will always be some items to which we don't see eye-to-eye with others. However, something as important as women's roles in the church should be a determining factor in whether to attend/join a particular denomination or local church.

>66 fuzzi:: "I didn't like what the Roman Catholic Church taught, so I found a church that met my standards."

In the interests of charity, I will avoid assuming that this reflects the extraordinarily arrogant selfishness that it seems to exude. It seems to me that what you're saying is that your standards determine what the Church should teach -- not the standards of Christ, but your standards. It seems to be a short route from your statement here to something like, "I don't like what some church teaches about giving to the poor or loving my enemy, so I found a church that met my standards."

I hope that this is just an unfortunate use of words on your part and that in reality, you put God's standards ahead of your own -- especially when God's standards conflict with your own.

>69 nathanielcampbell: ultimately, "god's standards" are only known through personal reflection and interpretation, are they not? or are you saying that a person should stay with a church even when it conflicts with their own conscience? That consulting one's own conscience on one's relationship to god should stay within the boundaries dictated by the church you attend? I've known several people who have left congregations because they could no longer in good conscience follow what was being preached. It was always a serious and grave crisis of faith when they did so.

I'd like to hear what Jesus would have to say about the RCC representing "the standards of Christ", I really would.

>70 southernbooklady:: Of course you make a very good point. Ultimately, the individual conscience is the ultimate arbiter on these matters -- and as multiple Catholic priests have advised me (an Anglican-now-practicing-Methodist), it would itself be a sin for me to abuse my conscience and swear to statements of belief that I do not actually believe just to become a Catholic.

But with the primacy of the individual conscience comes the responsibility that it be an informed conscience. You must put the love of truth above any other concern in these matters. Fooling yourself into thinking that your conscience is telling you to abandon truth--because, for example, following the truth is hard--is just as great an abuse of conscience.

The danger with fuzzi's words--and again, in charity I will assume that they do not in fact represent her full and reasoned approach--is that we let our own selfish desires overrule our conscience and then convince ourselves that those desires are themselves the dictates of conscience.

>71 LolaWalser:: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19)

Mind you, I'm not Roman Catholic -- I just study 'em. (I wonder if now would be a good time for the line, "but I play one on TV"?)

ETA: Of course, in the very next verses, Peter denies that Christ will suffer and die, to which Jesus responds: "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."

(69) Excuse my inability to communicate my thoughts, nathaniel. My choosing a church that I thought 'fit' my wants and desires was, indeed, a selfish deed. It was an act of a young 20-21 year old who thought she knew everything.

As a much more mature (I hope!) 52 year old, I am very much aware of my faults and inability to always do that which is right. Since I was born again in 2000, I have tried to discern God's will and DO it.

>74 fuzzi:: I suspected as much (which is why I included the several disclaimers that I did). My impression of you has always been that you absolutely abhor any attempt to replace God's will with our own.

Yessir, you are correct. His will be done.

ultimately, "god's standards" are only known through personal reflection and interpretation, are they not? or are you saying that a person should stay with a church even when it conflicts with their own conscience? That consulting one's own conscience on one's relationship to god should stay within the boundaries dictated by the church you attend? I've known several people who have left congregations because they could no longer in good conscience follow what was being preached. It was always a serious and grave crisis of faith when they did so.

This has a somewhat different answer from a Protestant angle as from a non-Protestant (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc.) one. If I may speak for Protestants', their adherence to a given church is largely about their adherence to what it's preaching--and really to what it's preaching at the moment. For Protestants whatever grace there exists in "the church" adheres to no body in particular, but may be found in many. Even if one were to put severe doctrinal restrictions in it—to decide that no true Christian could believe X or Y—the focus would still be on that belief, not the institutions it was associated with.

From the non-Protestant angle, the grace available from the church, and the desire to be part of that, is logically separate from what the church is saying or trying to get you to do. Certainly, the Catholic must believe that the church as a whole is incapable of serious, determined heresy—the church is "indefectible." And he must believe there is a core teaching which does not change and which Catholics must accede to. But that doesn't mean your pastor, your bishop or even the pope himself might be doing or advocating something wrong. Certainly they have all done so, while the church has not ceased to be the church, her sacraments have not stopped being real, etc. In such cases the Catholic has final recourse to his conscience which, as Ratzinger put it "must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority." In theory, holding true to ones conscience might result in excommunication. But no Catholic would want to be excommunicated, and if someone is wrongly excommunicated, the teaching is that they were never so.

nathanielcampbell

I started the "belief" thread in hope, frankly, that we might draw you out on the topic of RCs. You do a very convincing job of understanding us, and your understanding seems both generous and sympathetic, so I'm interested in what keeps your a methodist.

Not being an Anglican, I can't weigh in on the internal aspects of the issue, but I can say that from the outside, I respect a religious organization that includes all human beings in all levels of its hierarchy more than one which doesn't. It doesn't really matter if the reason is that they have a different skin color, have two x chromosomes or have a different sexual orientation.

"Preserving unity" by doing the wrong thing in order to placate a portion of the congregants is a weak rationalization. Would those who want to preserve this unity agree to excluding non-white people from the priesthood/bishopric? If you can replace "woman" with "man of color" and still feel the same, well then at least you're an honest bigot. If you would be outraged if a man of color were treated the same way that women are being treated and yet are willing to see such discrimination continue in order to preserve unity, then I fear you have lost a portion of my respect as well.

69

What fuzzi said was specifically to do with a perceived "anti-woman" attitude in the RCC. Nothing to do with arrogant selfishness. Nothing to do with "her standards versus Christ's". (Unless you believe that Jesus taught we should be anti-women? No, of course you don't.) It wasn't a long post. I wonder how on earth you could have missed the salient point?

We aren't "haters" or "bigots,"

Actually, yes, you are. You just cloak your bigotry in pretty language.

"Preserving unity" by doing the wrong thing in order to placate a portion of the congregants is a weak rationalization. Would those who want to preserve this unity agree to excluding non-white people from the priesthood/bishopric? If you can replace "woman" with "man of color" and still feel the same, well then at least you're an honest bigot. If you would be outraged if a man of color were treated the same way that women are being treated and yet are willing to see such discrimination continue in order to preserve unity, then I fear you have lost a portion of my respect as well.

Well, consider the state of blacks in the Catholic church. While the larger church was largely anti-racist, reflecting its center in Europe, and cognizant of the perfectly multicultural history of Christianity, the American church more often reflected the ingrained racism of our country. Thus the first African-American priest, Fr. Augustus Tolton, had to travel to Europe to become one, and when he came back he was subject to alternating discrimination and help from sympathetic anti-racist whites. Much the same characterized the lives of any number of black priests, nuns and brothers in the 19th and early 20th century. Even so, these heroic individuals didn't leave the church. Do they lose your respect?

I think the key difference is one of outlook. To the outsider, the church is a sort of club one joins because you agree with it and that's that. If you disagree with it, or it does something you consider wrong, the deal's up and it's time to leave. For Catholics and Orthodox, at least, that's not how we see it.

While the comparison is not exact, one might compare the Catholic view to that of a citizen of a country. When the US discriminated against blacks, very few left it. However wrong it was, it was still their country and they felt both owed something and responsible to change it. So they fought against discrimination, demanding that the US live out the meaning of its creed, as it were.

Even so, these heroic individuals didn't leave the church. Do they lose your respect?

But those people weren't willing to do or condone the wrong thing in order to placate a portion of the congregants, which you seem to be perfectly willing to do.

>81 timspalding:

Well, yes they were. They fought against discrimination, but didn't demand that blacks be made bishops or they'd leave the church, etc. They worked for equality by working for it, not by precipitating splits within it.

81: Well, no. They were opposed to the discrimination and worked to change it, no doubt making those opposed to treating blacks as equals quite uncomfortable. They didn't shrug their shoulders and say "fighting this might cause a split in the church so we should just leave things as they are".

Your posts, on the other hand, seem to indicate that in order to preserve "unity" that you're perfectly happy to keep women away from the priesthood just to placate the conservative wing of the church.

>84 StormRaven: Do you think that those opposed to discrimination and who are working to change it, not least the women themselves, are not making those opposed to treating them as equals "quite uncomfortable"? Do you think they're just shrugging their shoulders and saying "fighting this might cause a split in the church so we should just leave things as they are"?

>84 StormRaven:

Well, the fight isn't mine. I'm not Anglican, so everything is at one remove, and colored by a distinctly Catholic understanding of unity. My sense is that many Anglo-Catholics share it, but not so much the evangelical Anglicans. In a Catholic context, I could only say that such a decision would have to be made by an ecumenical council. It isn't a field for local agitation, as it touches the question of church unity so closely.

The comparandum here is probably the case of Fr. Roy Bourgeois, a longtime Catholic priest recently laicized and excommunicated for participating in the ordination of a female priest. (See below for links.) While I have a certain respect for him, illicit ordinations have long been an excommunicable offense in the Catholic church. It's why the super-conservative SSPX were excommunicated, and it's why Fr. Bourgeois was. If one has no stake in such unity or are actively in favor of whatever splits and weakens the church, things might look different.

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/roy-bourgeois-dismissed-from-religious-... , http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/23/religion-catholic-priest-ma... , http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/11/19/ray-bourgeois-priest-w... , http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/roy-bourgeois-man-conscience , etc.

Do you think they're just shrugging their shoulders and saying "fighting this might cause a split in the church so we should just leave things as they are"?

I think some people are doing that, but Tim's own posts seem to indicate that to him keeping "unity" in the church is more important. That's the criticism that is being leveled here.

>83 timspalding: They worked for equality by working for it, not by precipitating splits within it.

I understand what you are saying, but doesn't that imply such people believe change is possible? And don't they still have to contend with the fact that their church, which they decide not to abandon, is still precipitating something very wrong, if not outright evil? So the question becomes, how do you reconcile supporting a church which does this one bad thing against all of the meaningful things it represents to you. I imagine the tipping point happens at different moments for different people. It does not seem very likely, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church will ever ordain women priests (although I admit I'm not too up on internal RCC politics). So if that inequity becomes irreconcilable to you with Christ's message of love, or even works against it, aren't you then obligated to consult your conscience and determine if the church is really the answer you are looking for? And can you really fault someone else for deciding that no, it is not?

I think an analogous situation would be the Continental Congress of 1787, where the "founding fathers"--in the interests of unity-- specifically and deliberately allowed an entire huge segment of the population to remain enslaved. And yes, you can talk about political necessities and feel glad that they created the Constitution we all now live under, but you can't fault the people who point out that initial tolerance of slavery makes a mockery of the notion of "liberty" and "freedom" supposedly enshrined in our laws.

>86 timspalding:

Well, the Anglican example is tough. I'm not an Anglican, so I merely offering up my thoughts on what Anglo-Catholics might think. The situations also differ in that the laity have a formal role in Anglican deliberations—although, in a rich irony, the laity were to the right of the priests and bishops here. In the Catholic church you really couldn't make such a change without an ecumenical council, in which I would not have a a role. But, yes, I consider not splitting the Catholic church to be by their very nature superior to any questions of fairness that might arise with respect to ordinations.

I would add that I'm a lot more concerned about discrimination outside of ordination—against lay blacks or, for example, gays—than about ordination per se. Ordination isn't a "right," but a calling. Anyone who feels called to be a Catholic priest must feel called to the priesthood in something like its current form—an institution deeply based on rules and structures, which involves—indeed requires formal vows of—obedience and submission, and which, currently, does not allow female priests. Such a person must somehow feel called to a mission of disobedience and destruction, like a pyromaniac who feels a higher mission to become a fire fighter.

The situation is different in the Anglican church, where this change has long been anticipated.

>88 southernbooklady: doesn't that imply such people believe change is possible?

Well, I think in the Anglican Church this change is definitely possible. The worldwide Anglican communion already has women bishops. The Anglican Church in England already has women priests. As far as I understand it they have already made a decision in principle to allow women bishops, but the disagreement is about the details of the legislation, particularly the get-out clause for the tiny minority who object. It passed by a massive majority in all three houses, and only failed to get the 2/3 needed by a handful of votes in one house. Although missing it by such a small margin this time round must be a bitter disappointment for those who have worked so hard for change, surely everything indicates that change is not just possible but inevitable?

>77 timspalding:: "I started the "belief" thread in hope, frankly, that we might draw you out on the topic of RCs. You do a very convincing job of understanding us, and your understanding seems both generous and sympathetic, so I'm interested in what keeps your a methodist."

I'm not sure which "belief" thread you are referring to, but this seems as good an opportunity as any, so here goes (I've summarized this lengthy post at the end)...

I was born and raised in the Anglican Catholic Church (http://anglicancatholic.org/ ), which splintered from the Anglican Communion (first ECUSA, then others in the following years) in 1979 after the ECUSA began, among other things, ordaining women. Constitutionally, theologically, and liturgically, it represents in many ways the culmination of John Henry Newman's Oxford Movement, but without the ultimate trip across the Tiber.

What kept the ACC from joining Rome (and what keeps them still, after the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus)? The only principal difference between the ACC and the Roman Catholic Church centers on the extent of papal power and the foundations of papal primacy. Together with the example of the early Church and the practice of its truly ecumenical councils (i.e. councils that didn't pretend that large swaths of Christendom needn't be represented in the universal church -- yes, you can hear the grudge in my voice on this point), the ACC is willing to respect the primacy of the Petrine seat only in so far as it is primus inter pares with respect to the other patriarchates of Christianity. Infallible authority is reserved, not to the Roman Pontiff, but to the universal church as it speaks in council.

I grew up understanding that the catholic (universal) church was not limited to the Roman Catholic Church, which was only one member (albeit the largest) of the mystical Body of Christ. I grew up respecting the legitimacy of the Roman Church and of its institutions and sacraments, but skeptical of its own demands of absolute papal primacy and absolute identity with the catholic Church.

I attended Roman Catholic universities for both my undergraduate (Boston College) and graduate (Notre Dame) education. In the latter instance, my work was focused on the history of medieval theology, a field that is usually only of interest to Roman Catholics and hardcore Anglicans. During those years, and especially during my years studying in Italy and Germany, I was for all intents and purposes a practicing Roman Catholic. Reception of the sacraments became integral to my spiritual life especially in college, as they offered me an anchor-point in those crucial years of self-exploration and discovery. Because of the dearth of Anglican Catholic parishes, the only practical way for me to participate in the sacramental life was in the hands of Roman Catholics -- whose sacramental life, mind you, I fully accept and respect.

It wasn't until late in my freshman year that anybody at daily Mass seemed to notice that I might not be Roman Catholic. However, my orthodoxy and orthopraxis were sufficient to convince even some of the most conservative Jesuits and my fellow undergraduates that accepting me into the patterns of their sacramental life was better than rejecting me.

By the time I entered graduate school, I was very near to placing a foot on the Ponte Sant' Angelo, if you will. Yet, I still couldn't seem to lift it high enough to clear that one stumbling block concerning papal authority. However holy a man I could see Pope John Paul II to be, and however much I respect Pope Benedict as a theologian (I refer to his work, especially on The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure, quite frequently), I simply couldn't get over the fact that Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility seemed at all odds with what I knew about the history and practice of the Church. As much as my study of the Middle Ages was pushing me onto that Roman bridge (as it did several of Newman's friends in the Oxford Movement), I couldn't follow Newman's own impetus from the Church Fathers. Of course, at the time he converted, he didn't yet have to contend with Papal Infallibility as the ultimate extension of that centralizing process, begun in the Middle Ages but vastly accelerated in the long nineteenth century -- and when it was introduced at the Council, he was a vociferous opponent, acquiescing in the end only by privileging the demands of obedience over his historical objections.

Two things changed in grad school to arrest that momentum Tiberinum: (1) I met and fell in love with my wife; and (2) my study of medieval holy women, and above all, Hildegard of Bingen. The first helps explain my move to practicing Methodism; the second has proven a spur to my slow (and still evolving) reconsideration of the place of women in the Church.

My wife was born and raised Methodist, and continued to practice as such at Notre Dame. At the time we met, fell in love, and were engaged, I was, as I've said, very close to finally trudging across that ancient Rome flood. This was cause for tension. My wife had been at the receiving end of some brutally unjust sexism at the hands of "good ol' Catholic boys" at Notre Dame, perpetuating a cultural Catholicism that is out-of-step with modern teaching yet still dangerously apparent. Such vile treatment left deep scars upon any type of ecumenical trust she might have had, and pushed her to embrace more ardently the principals of equity, unity, and identity in the Body of Christ that led the United Methodist Church to begin ordaining women near the beginning of the last century.

For many months during our courtship, and for the first half-year or so of our marriage, we attended two church services every Sunday -- one Roman Catholic, one Methodist. What we learned from those experiences ultimately led to the final solution of settling in together as practicing Methodists. One thing that soon became apparent not only to her but to me, as well, were the double-standards that divided men from women and "Catholics" from "non-Catholic Christians", witnessed every time she would get those "looks" when she didn't go up to receive Communion at Mass. Furthermore, we quickly discovered that she is terribly allergic to incense--even the briefest wiff could have her out the doors in a deep and troubling coughing fit. (That, combined with bad knees and another allergy to the tannins in red wine have led her humorously to conclude that God created her to be a Methodist!)

My own theological concerns with Methodism--of which there were at first many--were assuaged from two corners. First, the Anglican Catholic bishop who married us (we were married in my home parish) had started his ministerial life as a Methodist, and thus was able to help me understand the continuities between orthodox eucharistic theology and Methodist practice. You will recall, of course, that John Wesley was an Anglican priest; and Anglicans have long hewed to an earlier understanding of the eucharistic mystery that prescinds from making the concrete philosophical distinctions that scholasticism demands of transubstantiation. Second, the minister at one of the Methodist churches we attended was a woman. My initial discomfort, however, was eased by the theological excellence of her preaching and the deep and abiding love that characterized her every pastoral act. Only a worldly fool could fail to see that the Holy Spirit truly was acting in and through Pastor Nancy every day.

These experiences reenforced my earlier intuition that the Church, the Body of Christ, is not coterminous with the Roman Catholic Church. I see too much of the Holy Spirit working in the lives of non-Roman Christians (and non-Christians, too!) to believe that they are not a part of the church, one, holy, and catholic. Furthermore, as I have long understood and as my historical training confirms, the Anglican tradition, at least (of which Methodism is, then, a subbranch) is apostolic (my home parish has a chart in a filing cabinet somewhere that can trace the consecrators of the bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church back to the Apostles).

I think that you (Tim) and I agree very much on the primal importance of unity within the body ecclesiastical -- an insistence that often bothers my wife, who is far more critical of the RCC than I am; she prefers to see variety as its own charism. The crucial difference between us is that I do not think it necessary or even necessarily advisable for that unity to be achieved by making everyone Roman.

Finally, as to the specific issue at hand, i.e. the place of women within the Church: opposition to the ordination of women was, in one sense, an original impetus to the church I grew up in. It pains me terribly when supporters of women's ordination trumpet the example of women from the past -- no matter what you read at womenpriests.org, it is fundamentally untrue that Doctors of the Church like Hildegard of Bingen advocated for female ordination. Indeed, for Hildegard, the male priesthood was a theological necessity, balanced by the prophetic service of female virginity.

Furthermore, a hallmark of modern Roman Catholic teaching on gender is equity in complementary diversity. Yet, the exclusion of women from the hierarchy of the Roman Church has made it dangerously blind to the inequities that persist despite their theological condemnation. (This brings us back to the cultural Catholicism I mentioned above.) One of the most important things I've learned from my wife is that, as a man, there are things about women and their experiences that I simply don't see. The gravity of the sexism that she and other women at Notre Dame faced would never have registered to me, because I simply couldn't see it for it what it was.

Is the solution to ordain women to the priesthood and even the episcopacy? I don't know. There are good theological arguments on both sides of the issue. But even if I don't know what the answer on women's ordination should be, I do know this: the certainty with which both sides assume their own rightness and the other side's wrongness is itself unfounded.

Summary

I am highly sympathetic to Roman Catholic theology, sacramental life, and spiritual practice, much of which reflects ancient, authentic, and continuing expressions of Christianity. Furthermore, those periods of Christian history that I study and teach--origins through the Reformation--are, for the most part, found in continuity today more with the Roman and Eastern churches than with mainstream Protestantism, excepting Anglicanism and its attempts at a via media, from which parts of the Anglican Communion today seem quite intent on departing. (It is a significant failing, I believe, of Protestantism that it has very little historical consciousness. The apostles write their letters, and then history simply disappears for more than a millennium-and-a-half.)

Nevertheless, I was raised in the Anglican tradition and continue to practice within it (broadly defined), for reasons both personal and more fundamentally ecclesiological. I do advocate unity within the Body of Christ, but I think that such unity must respect diversity (I Cor. 12), especially as animated and determined not by human wills but by the Holy Spirit.

There is much that the Roman tradition has preserved that Protestants would do well to rediscover as authentically Christian (especially sacramentality); but there are also aspects of Roman ecclesiology that are dangerously misguided, especially in privileging union with the Roman Pontiff's exercise of supreme authority as the singular hallmark of catholicity.

I welcome the opportunity to get back to you on this post, and really appreciate that you were kind and open enough to write it. For now, I confess I am trying to work and trying to watch my child, while both my wife and I also suffer through miserable head colds. I couldn't manage much more than a grunt. Replying soon.

91 "The only principal difference between the ACC and the Roman Catholic Church centers on the extent of papal power and the foundations of papal primacy"

That, and the no small (to adherents) position on transsubstantiation!

91: Your position sounds similar to mine for much of my life as a liberal High Church Anglican. However, despite High Church leanings, I disagreed with the full-on Anglo-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood that I heard from the hard-line Bishop Graham Leonard. Under the influence of C. S. Lewis, I was hesitant about women's ordination, but was converted mainly by reading Elizabeth Canham's Pilgrimage to Priesthood, and by encountering a female Presbyterian minister (yes, I know, not in valid sacerdotal orders...) who became a friend, and a saintly lay reader with a thwarted vocation to the priesthood. I even got taken to some MOW events, and sang in the choir at the first ordination of women priests in the diocese. My current diocesan bishop is the President of Affirming Catholicism, and that's about where I'd be, ecclesiastically speaking, if I hadn't taken a walk on the wild side.

What is the position of the Anglican Catholic Church on the Marian dogmas (which I have always regarded as an illegitimate Roman innovation)? It would seem a natural home for many of the current crop of Anglican dissenters who refuse to consider moving to the Roman Ordinariate; but in the UK it is a tiny splinter group and I'm not sure if people would take the prospect seriously, or if the ACC could cope with the influx if they did.

(91) Very interesting testimony of sorts. Thank you for taking the time and effort to put all that together for us.

nathanielcampbell at #91:

Thanks for that.

A couple of times I've voiced the hope that LT could do a "What I Believe" thread; these stories are always intrinsically interesting - and it's good for those of us chatting here to learn about each other.

>93 Tid:: "That, and the no small (to adherents) position on transsubstantiation!"

Yes and no. Most really high-church Anglicans will (with various degrees of grudging) admit that transubstantiation is one possible way to discuss the eucharistic mystery, if you limit yourself to using the Aristotelian ontology developed by 12th and 13th century scholastics and also force yourself into having to explain just how the mystery works.

On the other hand, all of those high-church Anglicans will then rush to remind you that the Mystical Body is, well, mystical. Any attempt to explain its ontology with the apparatus of philosophy will ultimately fall short -- and thus it is terribly short-sighted and parochial to insist that there is one and only one acceptable philosophical solution to the Eucharistic mystery. Those popish doctrines are "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrow the nature of a Sacrament, and have given occasion to many superstitions" because they seek to force the sacramental mystery into a man-made philosophical box.

Finally, all Anglicans (and Methodists too!) affirm the Real Presence, which is the dogmatic essence of the sacrament. Philosophical debates about how the Real Presence operates, while interesting and even instructive, should not be made into articles of faith required for salvation. Believing in the Real Presence is sufficient in that regard.

>94 MyopicBookworm:: "What is the position of the Anglican Catholic Church on the Marian dogmas (which I have always regarded as an illegitimate Roman innovation)?"

The Marian "dogmas" are accepted as pious doctrines, i.e. we celebrate the feasts of the Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8) and Assumption (Aug. 15) along with the Roman Catholics, and we even encourage Marian devotion liking reciting the Rosary. (My personal rosary was given to me by my parents at my Confirmation; it had been given to them as a wedding gift by a little old nun who made it by hand.)

The crucial difference is that Anglicans are not required to believe in these pious doctrines upon pain of eternal damnation. They are free to cultivate a personal devotion to Mary or to be skeptical about these "extras" -- for they belong, not to the Deposit of Faith, the dogma of the Church necessary to salvation, but to the pious doctrines developed therefrom.

This is why things like the Marian dogmas and Transubstantion (as I discussed in 97) really do come back to the simple issue of papal authority and, by extension, the demarcation of the Christian faith as coterminous with the Pope's church. The Roman Church spent much of the time between Luther and Vatican II (and less but still significant time since) reducing mystery to systematic statements and increasing the list of things you had to believe in the specific way they defined them.

>91 nathanielcampbell: Thanks for sharing, Nathaniel, and for doing so in such an interesting and well-thought-out manner.

>93 Tid:, 97 I tend to agree with Nathaniel that the nature of the Eucharist is not necessarily a huge problem for many Anglicans and even some Lutherans. Theologians were able to come to some agreement, as far as I can remember, in both ARCIC and Catholic-Lutheran dialogue.

Almost half the lay members who voted against female bishops were women (Guardian)

33 of the 74 General Synod lay members who last week caused the long-awaited measure to fail were women and most of them are affiliated to the conservative evangelical group Reform or the traditional Anglo-Catholic movement Forward in Faith...

the records showed the vote was comprehensively blocked by a powerful combination of conservative evangelicals and traditionalist Anglo-Catholics...

One of the most senior female clerics in the Church of England said a balance needed to be struck between rushing and waiting years for the issue to come up again...

The details also gave succour to critics who say the house of laity has become profoundly unrepresentative. In Rochester two of the three lay members, and one of the clergy, who voted against the measure come from the same evangelical parish.

BBC: Viewpoints: Women bishops - where next?

In the interests of full disclosure, let me say right up-front that I am an active, believing member -- those ought to be the same thing, really, but often don't seem that way -- of two dioceses of the world-wide Anglican Communion, and have been so for a lot longer -- among other things -- than the tiny Anglican Catholic Church has existed. I say this not to boost myself, nor to slap down the ACC, but simply to put a little context around some of this discussion for people unfamiliar with the sometimes nightmare-world of Anglican history, belief, and practice.
Now, as to the broader issue, this whole things grieves me,. It grieves me not merely as the member of this or that sect -- for after all, even a big outfit like the worldwide Anglican Communion -- is, in the global scheme, merely a sect, and quite properly viewed as such, without rancour, by many persons of good will in and out of the Church. It grieves me as a rational person who sees an organization in a terribly self-destructive state when it has so much good to offer its own members and the world at large. Believers and non-believers must, if looking calmly, recall that there are no guarantees for the permanence of any human institution, and the Church of England seems Hell-bent on demonstrating that fact. Believers, of-course, fall back on the notion that the Church is the Body of Christ on Earth -- whatever that may be -- though history -- among other things -- has shown the limitations of that faith in practice.
So, what does all this mean? As is all human endeavours, what is needed is solidarity in things which are demonstrably true, and tolerance in everything else. We could all do well to recall the dictum of Erasmus of Rotterdam, who, when asked who was his favourite Saint, replied at-once, "Saint Dismas (the 'good thief' on Calvary), for he was saved with so little theology."

> 102

Awesome Erasmus quote.

Thank you again for your post, Nathaniel. It's pleasant to read something cogent and non-hostile.

I hesitate to "reply" to your post because it was so personal. Although I disagree on various points, I can't very well disagree with your personal history or motivations. That said, I hope you don't mind me lightly replying, and putting some of my thoughts on your thoughts down, keeping away from your most personal points.

We have travelled some of the same paths. Papal infallibility was one of the considerations keeping me from the Catholic church for some time too, although it would have sent me to Orthodoxy, not Anglicanism.

Infalibility

I would question some of your reasons. First, one can usefully separate out the administrative power Rome accumulated in the Middle Ages, and the theological power as against other bishops, or patriarchs, and in making infallible pronouncements. Pius IX would have no doubt loved to hang onto the Papal States, and do much else, but although the imminent demise of his world was the background of Vatican I, the council restricted itself to the theological concern. The administrative power may--perhaps should--wane again.

(As a digression, the denoument is not without irony. Pius' bete noires, secular government and religious liberty, eventually gave the Papacy the power the Medieval church could never achieve--a monopoly on naming bishops. Having lost a decrepit statelet, the Papacy has won the most the most centralized and unified organization it ever has had! Good things have a way of biting back, perhaps.)

As you know, the formula the fathers of Vatican I came up with was pretty restricted. The Pope is infalliable only insofar as he (1) intentionally pronounces that he is (2) speaking ex Cathedra and (3) defining a doctrine (4) to be held by the whole church on a (5) quesiton of faith and morals. No such declaration may conflict with either tradition or scripture, or, I suppose, he isn't the Pope or, more charitably, only thought he was speaking ex Cathedra.

Again, as you know, this is five hundred miles away from what most non-Catholics think Catholics believe. The Pope is not an oracle; he doesn't know anything the church itself does not already know.(1) The Pope is not perfect, need not be competent and is, as a matter of core doctrine, a sinner like the rest of us--indeed, not a few excelled at sinning. Nor is 99.99% of even what he teaches infallible. Indeed, there's been only one real example of its use since Vatican I!(2) In extent and development, it doesn't touch the work of councils at all. As I see it, Vatican I gives the Pope little more than a last-resort ability to put his finger down on the the stronger side in an ancient and well-developed theological debate.

Lastly, while I have a lot of sympathy with what the resisters to Vatican I said, their dire predictions simply haven't borne fruit. Absolute power hasn't corrupted absolutely. Rather, we are left with an effectively small, almost unused power. Like interdicts, I doubt if infallibility will see the light of day again for 1,000 years. And until the Pope solemnly declares that ketchup is a vegetable, or whatever, I'll continue to feel something here falls short.

Ecclesiology

Having once been under the influence of Orthodox notions, I see the appeal of reducing the bishop of Rome to merely primus inter pares.

But at some point, I find the ecclesiology just breaks and become absurd, or at least depressing. One mustn't proof text, but I can't help feeling that the Orthodox and Anglo-Catholics would rather Christ said to Peter "you will be the first among equals in honor and upon all of you--but, again, with you first in honor only, Peter, so don't get any ideas!--will I build my church." It is, of course, of interest to me that the Petrine passage seems to have taken a while to be deployed in this way, but it's still there, and ought, I think, to be something of a stumbling block to non-Catholics. That the Roman church at times in the early church seems to have exercised a decisive, if non-juridical, suasion also seems clear.

Anyway, what's the alternative principle really? The great eastern patriarchates ebb and flux--with Constantinople and then Jerusalem being added within a few hundred years, then Jerusalem getting metropolitan authority. Then, just as things were getting started, the whole thing freezes at a co-equal "pentarchy" which the Orthodox insist is still in effect. Despite this, the Orthodox proceeded to grant more than a dozen churches complete autonomy, which have become something which really ought to offend any Christian--jealous, ethnic slices of the church of Christ. Meanwhile, again, all but Rome slips under Muslim domination, becomes inward-looking, theologically backward, defensive and desperately static—and hasn't recovered to this day.

That's not, I'm sure you will see, really an argument, but it gets at my feelings on the question. There is something sweet and seductive, but also a little desperate and marginal, in the idea that Rome went wrong in all structural developments, and the rest of the church is holding onto something correct and authentic, but not really doing much with that special rightness either.

I have similar feelings--sweet but desperate--about the Anglo-Catholic "branch" approach, simultaneously so respectful of the past and so novel in its understanding of its meaning. To this I'd add "so British"--reasonable, fair minded, quite above the quarrels of those hot-tempered, olive-skinned natives, and deeply committed to Britain being just as important as anyone else. In 1850 this might have seemed appropriate; as tiny Britain took its rightful place at the head of larger, less industrious nations, it's church--born of a tawdry marital dispute--would take its rigthful place as the smallest but tidiest and—let's admit it—most reasonable and respectable of the three great churches.

Today, the notion just seems absurd to me. In a game of "one of these things is not like the other" I feel that any monkey from Mars would look at the deep history, spread and vibracy of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and then at Anglicanism, and decide that the latter just didn't belong.(3)

The ecclesiology of a "church of Christ" above all the actual churches--most of whom disagree with the notion!--also strikes me as a dodge. It adheres reverently to the fruit of the church's historical ecclesiology--apostolic succession, bishops and territories, ecumenical councils, etc.--and abandons of the tree-trunk of that ecclesiology--that the church is a real institution, with people who are aware they're in communion with each other, and with the prospect of actually having an excumenical council.

Of course, every Catholic today admits that powerful elements of truth and sanctity are available outside the Catholic church. Many outside the church are its own--and Christ's own--just as many inside it may not be. I disagree with nothing you say here—your Pastor Nancy may well be a saint far above many a Cardinal. I wonder if, here, you are colored by pre-Vatican II understandings of the church?

Having trashed Anglicanism--mostly in fun--I'll say that my experiences with Methodism have been uniformly positive. You can get a lot of little details wrong, if you are full of love.

---

1. Read Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus some day. Dictatorships and oracles? The thing has 48 footnotes! It seems positively nervous about its grounding.
2. Promulgation of the acts of Vatican II may qualify.
3. The 20th cenutry, of course, saw Anglicanism spread pretty far. At the same time, however, it's falling apart. Like the British empire, it's demise may be long in coming, but everyone can see it's going to happen.

104

"You can get a lot of little details wrong, if you are full of love"

Which of course perfectly sums up every Christian denomination ...
... every religion ...
... humanism ...

i dont know anything about Christian
i enterd hear and i learn more