Replies

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.)

Hey SuzyQue,

You are right, the poor example of some is not a good reason to proscribe an entire group.

However, with regards to a male-only priesthood, this has been the universal tradition of the Church (Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic) for as long as we have records. Christ ordained 12 Apostles, and they were all male. The priesthood was established through this group, and it has been all male since that time. One might ask, why?

One argument against an all-male priesthood is that it is unjust, and that it is a fossil left over from a chauvinistic and male-centered first century culture.

However, if there were ever going to be Christian priestesses, the first century was the time, as many other religions of the time had priestesses. In fact, within the culture that Christianity spread, some priestess were quite prominent. One example is the Vestal virgins who were considered sacred within Roman Religious system. The Oracle of Delphi was the most important temple in Greece and was considered to be the center of the world. It was staffed by the priestess of Apollo. As I understand it, the Judeo-Christian tradition was somewhat unique in having an all male priesthood. It's something that made it very distinct from the surrounding cultures, including that of the Greeks and Romans, so it's difficult to pin that tradition on a sexist mindset. Christ Himself was not afraid to break taboos--he spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, he challenged the Pharisees, he broke laws of his society (healing on the Sabbath, for example,) and defended his Apostles who did so as well (picking grain on the Sabbath or not undergoing a ritual purification before eating.) Nonetheless, he choose twelve apostles all of whom were male.

Another argument is that it was simply too dangerous for women to be out traveling during the time of Christ. Since this is no longer the case, according to this logic, it should be possible to ordain priestesses today. However, there were women who followed Jesus around, including his mother and Mary Magdalene, so it's hard to substantiate that argument either.

So how can we understand this tradition? As far as I can tell, the theology of gender is poorly developed, so it's challenging to do. It's easy enough to demonstrate the arguments against an all male priesthood are flawed. It's more difficult to say with certainty why the tradition exists. It's often the case that Church traditions are carried out and not fully explained until they are challenged. Such seems to be the case now with the theology of gender, and the conversation has really only begun to develop in the last 30 years.

One starting place is the point in time immediately before human beings were created. An all powerful God could have created us anyway He wanted. He did not need to make male and female, we could have reproduced asexually, or we could all have been "dual gendered." But God chose to create us in His own image as male and female. From that we infer that there is a purpose to our gender, a meaning to it. It is not somehow interchangeable or irrelevant, and if I understand Jesus' saying on marriage, there is something extremely important about the union of man and woman in marriage.

Now as Christians, we do not believe that one gender is inferior to the other. There have been many extraordinarily holy men and women who are recognized as tremendous examples of the Christian life. Within the Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions, quiet a few women have been recognized as Saints. Mary, in particular, is held to have been especially favored by God. There are also women such as Catherine of Sienna and Therese of Lisieux who are recognized as Doctors of the Church, an extraordinary level of recognition. Within the Church, women have organized and run important religious communities and orders, they have founded hospitals,orphanages, and schools. So why not have women in the priesthood?

The answer is tradition. We inherited, from the early Church a sensus fidelium, a sense of the faithful as to what Christianity consists of or how it should look, from the earliest days of the Church, Christ showed special solicitude toward many women, and singled many out as models of extraordinary faith. We Catholics believe that He gave Mary to us as our Mother, he commended a Samaritan woman for her great faith, and decreed that the story of Mary Magdaelen's love should be told wherever the Gospel is preached. Christ is the ruler of the universe. He was completely free to do whatever he choose, and was surrounded by many extraordinary women. But he did not ordain any of them. Nor did his apostles, although women clearly played an important role in the early church, at least one even owned the house were mass was said. We see the Apostles greet many important women in the early Church with respect and something approaching deference. One of the Apostle John's letter's is addressed to a woman and appears to have been written solely for her benefit. Yet there were no ordinations. We might postulate a number of theories as to why, but all we know for certain is that there were no priestesses in the early Church.

We do not believe that the priesthood is a right--rather it is an extraordinary calling. We believe, moreover, that gender does matter, that men and women have different tendencies and different roles. In the case of the all male priesthood, it's a tradition that appears to date to the time of Christ. Within the Roman Catholic Church, the question was raised back in the 1960's as to whether women might be allowed to serve as priestesses within the Catholic Church. After about three decades of intense discussion and debate, the Roman Catholic Church ruled that it did not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood.