Theretsof had some concerns about what he perceived as sexism in JustinH’s post.
A bunch of comments seem appropriate, but I’d like to ask Justin to explain his thinking before I get into them.
In the interim, two nits worth picking:
[li]It’s Episcopal, which is a useful word for a Catholic to know, since what it means is “pertaining to a bishop.” My church got that name by formerly being the Protestant Episcopal Church (i.e., a church from the Reformation that retained the authority of bishops). E.g., the National Episcopal Council has nothing to do with the Episcopal Church; it’s the gathering of Roman Catholic Bishops.[/li]Celebrating Mass and administering the sacraments is a relatively small part of a priest’s work in terms of time spent; administrative and particularly pastoral care tasks take far more.
I shot off, and somewhat apologize. Many things that justinh have said in the past have upset me, and if it had been said by anyone else (besides WB) I probably wouldn’t have reacted the same way. Also, for the record, I appreciated justinh’s response on the other thread.
I don’t understand many things about many faiths. This issue is one. I’d love to hear rational discourse on it. Since I am totally unknowledgable on the subject, I’ll probably only read
From the historical side, my guess would be that the issue simply never came up in the first 1900+ years of Christianity. (Since the 1970s, I have seen sporadic “investigations” into the early and medieval Church that turned up claims that women were (briefly, in scattered locations) ordained priests or that some abesses or other women were invested with priest-lite powers. I’m afraid that I have found none of those claims persuasive.)
My WAG is that two or three traditions came together to cancel out any notion of women priests.
Christianity arose from Judaism, where the women did not even enter the sacrificial area of the temple and, as worship moved into synagogues, they had no public role in those rites, either. (This would be the source of Paul’s admonition that women keep silent)
There was a strong tradition (probably borrowed from Jewish observation of some Canaanite practices) that equated women in religious services to temple prostitutes. (The Vestal Virgins of Rome and some (perhaps most) other groups clearly did not match this image, but perception is stronger than reality. In addition, religions in which women had power generally segregated the women from society–as happened with the Vestals. In Christianity, as the priesthood developed, the priests and bishops were called from and lived among the people. The rumors of women having priest-like authority all focus on the period when monastic orders began to emerge, and women found segregated communities in which they could gather.)
Once these traditions had been established, they would have required some fairly strong counter-force to overcome. (A movement as early as 120 would have had 80 years of “but we don’t do that” to overcome.)
In Roman society, women had rather more rights than we tend to think they had, but it was still a strongly patriarchal society, and there was probably no strong movement anywhere in the church to overturn the initial impetus.
My personal belief is that women are excluded from the priesthood purely as a cultural/historical accident and that, at some point, they will be ordained. It certainly will not be soon (and it will very likely cause some degree of schism when it occurs).
Nice answer, honest and thoughtful. But there were some errors in your first paragraph, from both churches’ structure. The following is true for both Catholic and Episcopal “staff”:
The Sacrament of Holy Orders transmits the authority given by Christ to the Apostles and handed down through the apostolic succession of bishops, to perform specific works for the church. All clergy are ordained as deacons. Most then go on to become priests, normally after a short “on-the-job-training” period. Some feel called to be deacons only, and stop there. (In the Roman Catholic Church, a married man must stop at deacon, in the absence of extraordinary permission, I believe from the Vatican.) From among the priests, a bishop is chosen to oversee a diocese. In each case, an additional laying on of hands is done.
Some people feel called to devote their lives to Christ through vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. These are technically called the “religious” (meaning, “under a rule of life”). Some of these are ordained, some not. These constitute the religious orders: Carmelites, Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits, etc. Those who perform active in-the-world ministries are merely referred to as (lay or religious) brothers and sisters; those whose work consists of contemplative and intercessory prayer are monks and nuns. Franciscan and Dominican brothers, with a special call to evangelism and radical poverty, are called friars. While some of these may be deacons, priests, or even bishops, it does not “go with the territory” – they are laymen with a particular rule of life. [Several orders include a “Third Order” – originated by St. Francis of Assisi – where laymen and laywomen in the world take quasi-monastic vows and live a personal rule of life, written for their specific needs (e.g., a married woman would vow to be chaste to her husband, not celibate)]
Laymen may baptize in emergency situations; deacons may baptize in the absence of a priest. Deacons may proclaim the Gospel and the dismissal at the Eucharist, lead a Communion service (not a Mass) in the absence of a priest and administer communion, and usually may preach. I think they may preside over a marriage, but am not sure. Priests may celebrate the Eucharist, anoint the sick, absolve of sins in confession, and in limited rare circumstances administer confirmation. Bishops ordain to holy orders, are the normal ministers of confirmation, and may pre-empt everybody else at any service they are at. (I.e., if the Bishop shows up for Mass, he gets to celebrate if he so chooses.)
To the best of my knowledge, no woman is eligible for Holy Orders (deacon and up) in the Roman Catholic Church, although the early church did have deaconesses. The Episcopal Church went through an emotionally charged foofaraw 20-27 years ago, including theological and church-tradition disputes, that resulted in women being eligible for all offices.
To be honest, I had some getting used to to do before I was comfortable with a woman priest presiding at the Eucharist. But it is a quite different experience, and if you go into it with the idea of learning something from it, I think you’ll find that your spiritual life is enrichened by hearing Mass said by a woman priest. To me, the women priests I’ve known bring a different “flavor” to it than the men, and often they seem to put more meaning into the words of the celebration than many male priests do.
Where do the nun’s whats fit in? (Unless, of course, you meant “nuns” as in the plural of nun.)
Formerly? Or do you mean formally? IIRC, the official name of the Episcopal Church here in the US is “The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States.”
Anyway, those who adhere to that faith are called Episcopalians; the church is referred to as the Episcopal Church, and for some reason one of the Methodist bodies is The Methodist Episcopal Church.
theretsof, the orders of religious sisters/nuns and (vowed-but-not-non-ordained) religious brothers/monks are not part of the “hierarchy.” The hierarchy is the Pope on top, followed by the Bishops, who are assembled in a number of entities according to what job they’re being tasked with, some at Vatican Level, some at national level (Roman Curia, College of Cardinals, Synods, Episcopal COnferences, etc.). Each country’s Episcopal Conference is the governing body for domestic Church affairs. Countries are divided into dioceses, dioceses into parishes. Episcopal Conferences and Dioceses have various bureaucratic offices attached to them to handle specific operational matters (Superintendent of Catholic Schools, Board of Catholic Charities, etc.). A Bishop, often one of several assigned there, runs the diocese; a Priest, almost always one of many, runs a parish.
Holy Orders, as such, are Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, in order of increasing requirements and capacity to perform sacramental and apostolic duties, as Polycarp described them.
Members of the orders of religious brothers/sisters and of lay ministries such as Opus Dei at a particular location are required to be obedient to the duly appointed local authority (the Bishop) in their operations at that location; but each Order has its own internal hierarchical structure, with abbots/abbesses/priors, superiors, superiors-general, depending on the Order. Some orders and lay ministries, like the aforementioned Opus Dei and the Jesuits, have their superior-generals report directly to the Pope. Others simply have the church’s “blessing” to exist as entities and carry out their good deeds.
It’s worth pointing out that there is no more fullness of Holy Orders than that of the episcopacy. The Pope has no more “punch” than an auxiliary bishop in a remote mission territory - both are bishops, from a sacramental standpoint, period.
Obviously, from an administrative standpoint, the Pope’s position is a bit different.
Indeed. My choir sang at an Anglican service in Ealing when we visited England last year, and it was celebrated by a woman – I can definitely see what you mean. It was a really cool experience.
Theretsof,
I have said things before that upset you? pray tell what?
I am just suggesting that there is a great resistance to changing the priesthood to allow women. At the same time there is a great need in the community. The church as responded by giving more power to deacons, allowing women as Eucharist ministers. I know some people (women mostly) who will not take communion from a woman. I dont have any problem with that at all. I see a solution as making women deacons.
Polycarp,
Thanks for your thesis. informative as always. I didnt see a correction to any errors I had made in my description of the deacon’s role. Unless deacons have always had that power and just not exercised it in my diocese. Until 5 years ago I had never seen a deacon. Priest did all the work. A parish our size would have had 3 priest but ours has 1. and he is getting worn out. so the needy suffer.(he spends a half day a week at the local prison which bothers me but thats another subject.) he used to have a Nun but they are in short supply now also. so now he has a deacon. But its not a full time job. he needs a full time deacon (male or female) to help him out. but wouldnt a full time female deacon be the same as a nun?
You are correct in that the administering of the sacraments is a small part of the priestly activities. So couldn’t a nun help with the other part? well the answer is yes she could. so my question is why allow women to become priest? is it just to give the women power to make them feel good or is it to address a need. Yes there is a great need and the argument is always “change the church to allow woman priest and welcome to the 20th (now 21st) century”. my question is why cant we use the structure as it is and just tweek it a little. this would allow the primary problem to be addressed (help the needy) and stop the internal bickering that is distracting us from our goal. This seems to get back to our abortion discussion doesnt it?
how do you do those neat posting tricks to indent stuff? I was chastised about it so I guess I should learn it.
Whoooooooo boy. The Church of England went through the “women priests” debate only a few years ago, and it’s still going on in some places… my sister, kind of ironically, is a member of “Forward in Faith”, a group within the CofE opposed to the ordination of women. (It’s kind of ironic because anyone attempting to bar my sister from any other vocation on the grounds of sex… well, I’d reckon their life expectancy in seconds…)
Insofar as I understand it, the FiF objection to the ordination of women is based upon the notion of the apostolic succession - that is, that all priests inherit their spiritual authority from the original Twelve Apostles, who were all male. You might argue that they were also all working-class Jews, so the, um, pool of admissible candidates has already been broadened. You might also argue that God can call whomever He wants to His service, irrespective of their worldly qualities. You will get no argument from me on either point, but my sister…
I don’t have the dates to hand, but women were admitted to the diaconate in the CoE sometime in the early 90’s, possibly the late 80’s, and could be ordained as priests from the early to mid 90’s. There were a lot of rumblings about how this would split the Church, but in practice it seems not to have happened. (The CoE has its problems, but mass defections caused by the ordination of women aren’t amongst them). Of course, the next hurdle will be the first woman CoE bishop - which carries with it a whole new can of worms, in that those opposed to women’s ordination will claim that confirmations and ordinations performed by a woman bishop won’t be valid. The CoE has attempted to cope with the demands of the opposition by appointing “diocesan episcopal visitors” (sometimes referred to as “flying bishops”) who can visit a diocese and perform all the official episcopal functions for those people who can’t accept a woman bishop (or a male bishop who happens to be on the “wrong” side on this issue).
Basically, though: it’s happened, there was a lot of debate, and no small measure of resistance, but it looks as though women priests are here to stay, and opposition to them is confined to a grumbling rump of a minority. I’ve attended many services with a woman celebrant; not only does it not bother me, I’ve never heard any complaints from the rest of the congregation. The issue does, though, make for… interesting… family get-togethers. (Sister: “WELL, WOMEN ARE THE WEAKER VESSEL!!” Me: “[sub]yes, sis, whatever you say, please don’t hurt me…[/sub]”)
Theretsof asked where Nuns fit into the big picture. Buried in my marathon church organization post above was this:
Justin, this would answer in part what you’re asking. Our parish has two priests, Jim and Lorraine. She was called as our rector (“pastor” outside the Episcopal Church); Jim, who served on the cathedral staff and is her husband, was called as her assistant as soon as we could afford a second fulltime priest. They operate as a team, except in the very few cases where she has to formally act as rector by church law (preside over the annual meeting, approve a guest speaker, etc.) – and I’m quite sure they discuss any such questions in private before she acts.
If the Roman Catholic Church approved of woman priests (and several posters have noted that some people consider there’s a theological bar to this), then there is no reason why a sister could not be ordained to the priesthood. (Presumably a nun in the strict sense, being officially a contemplative secluded from the world, would not go for ordination, unless to be the priest for her convent. But “nuns” as we use the term loosely – sisters in teaching, nursing, etc. orders – certainly could.) By the same token, however, any woman could, just as any man could now, and subject to the same rules about marriage, whether the ones in place now or changed ones.
The “Methodist Episcopal Church” hasn’t been around since 1939, Monty, though lots of church buildings constructed before then have signs, cornerstones, etc., that say “Asbury M.E. Church” or something like that. In 1939 the M.E. Church, the separate M.E. Church South, and the Methodist Protestant Church merged into The Methodist Church, which went through another merger in the Sixties to form the United Methodist Church. There are three predominantly black Methodist denominations that are still around that preserve the old name, having fissioned off from the M.E. Church or the Southern Church in the 1800s: the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and the Christian (formerly “Colored”) Methodist Episcopal Church. All these churches are characterized by having General Superintendents called Bishops, hence “episcopal” in their present or historic names. (Their Bishops lay no claim to the authority of Bishops in the apostolic succession, just the task of oversight (episkopé) which makes their general superintendent work appropriately termed as “bishop.”) Since you raised the issue, I’d be curious as to what the LDS understanding of women in the role of clergy and the role and theological status of LDS bishops might be.
Getting back to the issue at hand, a deacon cannot celebrate the Eucharist but can lead a Eucharistic service that omits the “Canon of the Mass” (the prayer of consecration) and uses elements already consecrated by a priest or bishop. And there is Scriptural and traditional ground for women deacons, so it would not be a theological problem for the Roman Church to ordain women to the diaconate. Me, I have absolutely no problem with anybody who feels called to the ministry and has that calling confirmed by the appropriate people being ordained to anything that he or she feels called to be.
Steve, I’m fascinated by the people who refuse communion from male priests and bishops who are “on the wrong side” of the controversy as being “invalid” – you would think, with their theological scruples, they’d realize that they are placing themselves in schism and heresy, based on the Donatist controversy of the fourth century, by doing so. But I guess everybody picks and chooses what parts of theology they’re gonna work with and what they’re gonna ignore. :rolleyes:
Or, turn it around: Why not allow women to become priests?
If (as I speculated) women are only barred from the priesthood because the tradition got started in the first century, what should be the reason for barring them, now, when the world has changed? I understand an emotional reluctance to see the world changed so radically, but I cannot think of a logical explanation for the barring.
To quote a passage from another post, Copy & Paste the passage into the response window, then prefix it with {quote} and close it with {/quote}, substituting [ for { and ] for } when you type it.
{quote}This is a quote.{/quote} becomes
when blocked in by the correct tags.
(For a short post, simply click on the “Quote” icon at the bottom of the post. It will do the quoting automatically (although it will also add tags to change the quoted text to boldface. I would not recommend using the “Quote” icon for long posts, since few of us really want to see an entire long post repeated in boldface. You can use the “Quote” icon, then trim away everything you don’t want to quote, but that seems like a lot of work. When you do click the “Quote” icon, look at the text that is inserted in the reply window: it demonstrates the vB tags needed to quote as well as to use boldface and italics.)
In all fairness to the “anti” lobby, this behaviour is found only on their extremes - often, where there are other issues involved as well. The Church of England does try to be a broad church, but it isn’t able to keep everyone on board.
Besides - it’s the Church of England. We’re all schismatics and heretics. Just ask the King of Spain .
Naah, Steve, the Church of Rome is the one that went astray; we Anglicans preserve the Catholic Church in its pristine apostolic tradition. Just ask any really High Churchman!
Simple answer to “why not allow women to become priests”.
Well, in a sense of scripture…1 Timothy 2:12 can be read to suggest that women should not be placed in authoritive positions such as priesthood.
“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man”
I’m sure the verse is not as simple as it seems, but many churches don’t bother to delve into the actual purpose of the word, they just skim the surface.
The question is why go through the pain. The church has positions called Priest/deacons/monks for men and Nuns for women. Now if you want to give the nuns more duties then fine. Right now we dont have a shortage of people to say mass as much as a shortage of people to give spiritual guidance to the needy. As mentioned earlier the sacramental part of a priest’s duties are minimal.
From what I have experienced the nuns were more “saintly” than the priests. They only served the people without any ceremonial power or duties. Not to say they were gentle lambs. A certain Sister Jonathon swung a mean metal whistle.
Maybe an increased capability would call more women towards the nunery. Its funny but the church always says “you don’t choose that vocation, you are chosen”. I guess it was their way of saying they weren’t going to change to pull people in.
