Even as many Catholics watch with concern--and perhaps not a little schadenfreude--as the Anglican Communion at Lambeth splits up over homosexuality, back home in Rome and elsewhere the One True Church is still debating the issue of women and holy orders.
Back in April I wrote here about the issue of women's role in the church as the great unaddressed question of the pope's U.S. visit. In that post I referred to a strong recent essay on women's ordination by Robert J. Egan, SJ, in Commonweal magazine. (Behind a firewall, but again, consider forking over just $25 for an on-line subscription--it is worth the price of admission.) The basis of Egan's essay was a review of the writings of Sara Butler, a nun who once supported women's ordination but now believes it is against Catholic teaching and tradition.
Now Butler and Egan square off in an extended reprise, available on-line here. In light of surveys showing Catholics generally disagree with the Vatican's ban on ordaining women, and the increasing number of conflicts over the topic, such as the Louise Lears episode in St Louis (here and here), this Point/Counterpoint is a must-read.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
At one time priests could be married...and then the RCC decided that was wrong. So who's to say that women shouldn't be priests? The church could do a great deal of good by reinstating permission for priests to marry, AND coming to the realization that women can do just as good a job as a male priest and allow them to become priests. Bingo! the 21st century.
Jim wrote:
"The Ordination of women is simply NOT a part of our tradition and never has been."
There is this illusion that we know what the churches traditions were from AD 300 to AD 1200. The truth is thanks to a lot of "lost records" we don't know.
"For many years until recently, we took the Bible literally"
Pure and utter blarney.
Shurely you did not put homosexuals to death. (Well, then again, maybe the RCC did do that.) Shurely you did not put the victims of incest to death. Shurely you allow the eating of lobster and crabmeat. Shurely you do not deny communion to the disabled. Shurely you do not (still) believe the sun rotates around the earth. Shurely you do not believe snakes and donkeys can talk.
ALL of these things are in the Bible.
You took the Bible selectively, as do all thinking persons.
"Little Bear" writes: "The priests are out on the golf course, riding their motorbikes, going on vacation trips, and the pastoral associates and other women from the parish are visiting the hospitals ... the shut-ins, the nursing homes ..."
Shame on you, "Little Bear," for your insulting and sweeping characterization of priests. What parish are you talking about? Certainly not mine. In my parish, the 3 priests and the 1 pastoral associate share the work along with lay volunteers -- both male and female -- of visiting hospitals, nursing homes, etc.
We appreciate that you have an agenda, but your bitterness is a real turnoff. I hope that others will join me in praying for peace in your heart. As for any priests that you claim have shirked their duties ... who are you to judge them? "Little Bear," I would leave the judging to God.
"Yes, polls indicate that a majority of Catholics would be fine with ..."
Since when did the Vatican ever give a toss for what a majority of Catholics would be "fine" with. That ain't how the machine works, hon'.
Many other polls say a majority of Catholics would be fine with gay people and their relationships, birth control, women priests, divorce and re-marrige, etc.
And similarly, a majority are not "fine" with child-molesting priests nor the bishops who shelter them.
The pope could care less. It's good to be the pope.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.