Replies

The Catholic church considers women quite holy - they can be religious, leaders of orders, even saints (and there have been some great female saints who haven't been afraid even to bandy words with the Pope e.g. Catherine of Siena.) They just can't be priests, because there's a theological and ontological problem with a women serving in that particular office. (Note that Christ chose no female disciples, not even his Mom.)

That's why I became a Catholic, even though my family was Episcopalian for six generations (if you don't count one intervening guy who got a wild hair and became a Methodist).

I'm afraid the Episcopal Church in America is too compromised to survive this latest battle. I can't wait around while they duke it out -- I have children to raise and would prefer NOT to raise them in a heretical brothel, thank you very much.

Well, yeah, we'll all have some 'splainin' to do.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I think there's a lot of fuzzy thinking about this topic (including mine, on occasion) and it's an important topic.

I understand that radical feminism and homosexuality have some common goals, and that these groups have frequently worked together. No question there. Here's the problem, as I see it: to say that women can't be bishops/priests/whatevers because the radical feminist agenda, (RFA), has worked in concert with the radical homosexual agenda, (RHA), and therefore, women as a group should not be considered for bishops/priests/whatevers just doesn't work. Are you going to tell me that because Vicke Gene Robinson and his comrades push the RHA, that men shouldn't be considered for bishops/priests/whatevers? Of course not. But that is the same argument you are making against women. There may be reasons for not having women bishops/priests/whatevers, but this ain't it.

And as far as the "theological and ontological problem"s go - we get into a circular argument. We don't have women priests because we haven't traditionally had women priests. Say what?

We don't have women priests because Paul said women can't talk in church. Obviously, this is something that we don't maintain (I'm only talking Anglicans here - I know Orthodox, Catholics, etc. have differing opinions. Even amongst themselves). So we don't have women priests because women can't talk in church, but they can and do talk in church, so..........?

I'm not talking about radical feminists. I'm talking about us. Here, pondering this question. I'm ready and willing to listen.

(And, Torque, I once donated to NOW. I cringe to think of it now. But, in my defense, that was before I understood that abortion and anti-Americanism are their main goals.)