Female religious leaders

[Jnyusa]

Congratulations, Prim!

That sounds like a truly gratifying experience.

Jn

[Primula Baggins]

Thanks, Wampus and Jn. It was both gratifying and meaningful. Unlike you, Wampus, with all the amazing teaching and leading you do, I have no call to the ministry—it's not my gift, I'm just a helper and organizer—but it is wonderful to belong to a church that brings everyone in to help, even with the important things.

And I know I'll be around in 2010, but this just struck me because it's the first occasion I've had to actually plan that far ahead, and it felt odd for a moment and then very good.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Jnyusa]

Can someone explain to me what's going on with the Episcopelians?

(I thought this question could belong in this thread because the churches that are seceding are saying it's not only because of homosexual ordinations but also because of female ordinations.)

I get why they would secede if they're absolutely opposed to the authority of this female bishop here in the US, but why the heck are they joining the Anglican church of Nigeria? Why can't they have their own bishopric, or join Canterbury or something? Transferring tens of millions of dollars of church property to Nigeria is like a bad internet joke, and the necessity of it completely escapes me.

I was also reading on an Anglican website that some Anglicans are afraid the Roman Catholics will grab up the seceding Episcopelians before the Anglicans can close the deal. That sounds ... very strange to me.

Thing is, one of the leades of the secessionist movement was interviewed on NPR a few weeks ago, and although I had my own thoughts about his purported reasons for all of this (and I think I posted them here in one of our threads about homosexuality), what strikes me most in retrospect about the interview is that he managed to say absolutely nothing about the two issues likely to have the most profound influence on his church as a result of this action: lawsuits over all that property, and the fact that some bishop in Nigeria will now govern the Episcopelians in Virginia.

Jn

eta: the guy in the interview was from Texas but I presume the same conundrums will apply there.

[WampusCat]

The conservative Episcopalians do not want to be attached to the U.S. church because of its approval of a gay bishop in New Hampshire and its growing acceptance of gay civil unions. Some also have a problem with female clergy, but that's definitely a second-tier issue.

They want to align with the bishop of Nigeria because they believe that is where orthodox Anglicanism is being preserved. The Anglican churches in Africa are far stronger and more vital than those in Europe or America. Almost all of them vigorously oppose homosexuality, and many bar women from ordination (but not all; there are many women priests in Uganda, for example).

Transferring allegiance to the bishop of Nigeria is totally against church law, of course. Bishops aren't supposed to start or take over churches outside their own territory. In this case, the conservatives think their move is justified. The churches' relationship with the bishop isn't exactly control; it is more a matter of oversight.

I am Episcopalian, and I am torn on this whole matter. I think the conservative Episcopalians are wrong in their opposition to gays and women leaders, but I do not wish to impose my own beliefs upon them (although they would gladly impose theirs on me). I would prefer it if we could stay together as a denomination, finding room for a variety of opinions. Opposing views serve as a necessary counterbalance. But if they are determined to control the denomination and enforce their view of orthodoxy, it is best that they split away.

[Jnyusa]

The Anglican churches in Africa are far stronger and more vital than those in Europe or America.

Thank you for filling in those blanks, Wamps! This amazes me that the Anglican church would be stronger in Africa than in Europe, especially in England.

Would it be impossible for these breakaway churches to simply establish their own bishopric here in the US? That seemed to me the most logical way to go. I was also suprised to read that the main church, (?) the central body, actually claims ownership of the individual church properties? I understand how this works with the Catholic Church but I guess I never thought about it before where other churches are concerned ... anyway what I read was that some churches had broken away in the past and had gone to court to keep ownership of their physical location and the courts ruled against them. This seems so odd to me because it's the congregations that build and maintain their churches, isn't it? It's very likely that these people will have to physically pack up and move to a different location.

Listening to that Texas bishop on the radio, I really had no idea how complicated an issue this would be for all the people trying to worship in these different parishes.

There's a sort-of similiar situation going on with one New York synagogue right now, where the congregation is splitting over a theological issue, and they are having to go to court for disposition of the physical property. But there's no overhead body involved that owns something that other people built. The people who built and own it are having to divvy it up among themselves.

Jn

[Primula Baggins]

Congregations own their churches in the Lutheran church and many others.

Establishing a new bishopric brings up the problem of apostolic succession, which the Episcopal/Anglican church honors as the Catholic church does (Lutherans don't). A bishop has to be consecrated by another bishop, who was consecrated by another bishop, all the way back and back to Peter. And there are rules about obedience and so forth, so a bishop might be unable to break away from the main church body without ceasing to be a bishop.

So they apparently went and found a bishop still within the main church who would agree to take them under his wing.

[nerdanel]

I think the conservative Episcopalians are wrong in their opposition to gays and women leaders, but I do not wish to impose my own beliefs upon them (although they would gladly impose theirs on me). I would prefer it if we could stay together as a denomination, finding room for a variety of opinions. Opposing views serve as a necessary counterbalance.

For the sake of gays and women in the Episcopalian movement, particularly those who wish to serve as religious leaders, I have been glad to see the splitting off of the most extremely conservative congregations within the movement (and with it, their loss of decisionmaking votes within the movement). If it was widespread fragmenting, I would say that the pace of change was perhaps too fast; but we are talking about a mere handful of churches out of roughly 7200, as I understand it.

There will always be "opposing views" - as I understand it, there are still a handful of congregations in the South that are resisting racial integration. At some point, opposing views that are rife with prejudice are better off fragmented away and weakened. If we are not to that point with regard to homosexuality, we should certainly be to that point with regard to female ordination.

It is particularly ironic to me that they are joining anything - anything - in Nigeria in a split over gays, given that country's ongoing tradition of heinous oppression of gays. In parts of Nigeria, homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment; in other parts, by the death penalty; in other parts, by public flogging. Now, a proposed bill before the Nigerian house of representatives would outlaw any form of association between gay people, whether or not sexual in nature, and even materials deemed to promote a "same-sex amorous relationship," including books, films, and Internet resources. (check Google news for "nigeria" and "gays" for several articles) It seems particularly ironic that United States congregations feel attracted to a church within a country that is considering outlawing a platonic meeting of two gay friends (where religious leaders are either publically supporting this law, or opposing it on the grounds that same-sex relationships should be criminalized, but no more) -- but it sends a strong message regarding how seriously they are taking Jesus' message of love.

[WampusCat]

I agree, nel. The churches are fleeing without carefully examining what they are running toward. Of course, there are some, even in the church, who would be perfectly fine with how Nigeria treats gay people.

If it were just a matter of weeding out the most extreme elements, I'd be far less torn. Let them go! I suspect, though, that this is just the opening trickle to what will become a greater flood. What I've seen since the consecration of Bishop Robinson is that anyone who was the least bit antsy about the idea of a gay bishop ran off to either another denomination or another church that was condemning the act. Some of these people were ordinarily kind, loving and thoughtful Christians, but they were scared by what they see as the slippery slope toward Anything Goes. I mourn their loss. But mostly I just wish they'd open their eyes and hearts and quit making boogeymen out of other people.

[nerdanel]

Well, anyone participating in a purportedly Catholic ordination of a female priest is to be excommunicated, according to the Vatican's latest piece of wisdom. As someone who has long (and sincerely) desired excommunication as a formal means of severing ties from the Catholic Church (including not being counted in their inflated one billion member figure), participating in one of these ceremonies could well kill two birds with one stone. I guess I feel more prone to act with anger and outrage when the Catholic Church continues to engage in this idiocy because of the effect it had on me as a young child not understanding why I couldn't have a female religious leader - and because of all of the other young girls who have and will continue to be affected by this practice. It's harder to chalk it up to respecting "another religion's tradition" when this *was* my tradition - and this was the seminal way in which it alienated me.

Or then again, I could just try joining the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. I'm fairly certain that would get me excommunicated automatically.

On the plus side: "latae sententiae" would make an awesome rank. It totally beats my previous "tabula rasa."

By Phil Stewart

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican issued its most explicit decree so far against the ordination of women priests on Thursday, punishing them and the bishops who try to ordain them with automatic excommunication.

The decree was written by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and published in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, giving it immediate effect.

A Vatican spokesman said the decree made the Church's existing ban on women priests more explicit by clarifying that excommunication would follow all such ordinations.

Excommunication forbids those affected from receiving the sacraments or sharing in acts of public worship.

Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said he thought the decree was meant to send a warning to the growing number of Catholics who favor admitting women to the priesthood.

"I think the reason they're doing this is that they've realized there is more and more support among Catholics for ordaining women, and they want to make clear that this is a no-no," Reese said.

The Church says it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles. Church law states that only a baptized male can be made a priest.

Proponents of women's ordination say Christ was only acting according to the social norms of his time.

They cite the letters of Saint Paul, some of the earliest texts of Christianity, to show that women played important roles in the early church.

Attempts to ordain women priests are highly unusual. But the archbishop of St. Louis earlier this year declared three women excommunicated after an ordination ceremony in his diocese.

Excommunication is usually "ferendae sententiae", imposed as punishment.

But some offences, including heresy, schism, and laying violent hands on the Pope, are considered so disruptive of ecclesiastical life that they trigger automatic excommunication, or "latae sententiae".

The decree says that women priests and the bishops who ordain them would be excommunicated "latae sententiae".

This was the same excommunication invoked against a renegade African archbishop who also broke Vatican rules when he ordained four married men bishops in 2006.

The archbishop, Emmanuel Milingo, made world headlines in 2001 for getting married himself in Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church at a mass wedding in a New York hotel. His union was never recognized by the Catholic Church.

[WampusCat]

Hmmm. So you would seek out ordination in an attempt to get thrown out of church? That's an interesting approach!

I will never, ever understand the Catholic Church's rejection of women priests. The argument that "Jesus only chose men" makes no sense, considering the documented role of women in the post-resurrection, early church era.

It's all about hanging on to power and control, which has nothing to do with the way of Christ.

[nerdanel]

Well, I couldn't personally seek out ordination with any degree of credibility because my theological disagreements with Christianity are insurmountable. My personal preference would be for them to excommunicate supporting attendees at such an ordination as well as the women actually being ordained and the (male) priests assisting them. I would definitely attend an ordination of this sort if I learned one was being held in my area (which is, after all, a usual place for such leftist ideas to be implemented. )

The reason that "Jesus only chose men" makes little sense to me is Jesus' exchange with Peter in which he says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I understand this can be construed narrowly to refer to the sacrament of reconciliation and the forgiveness of sins. However, to me, it only makes sense for Jesus to confer authority this weighty, if given in tandem with the authority to adapt his teachings and lifestyle to new societies, changing times, and, well, evolving standards of decency. Anything else is as flawed as constitutional originalism, which purports to chain us to the past, elevating the ideals and realities of those long dead over our own. We are all products of our times, Jesus-as-human as much as anyone else. For the church to marginalize and devalue as many as half a billion of its members in Jesus' name, restricting their ability to serve a spiritual call they might feel? This is one of those issues in which I am refreshingly Christian, desiring the second coming of Jesus so that he could ream the idiots who use his example to justify such immorality.

I'm sorry. I keep trying to post about this issue in a calmer, more neutral tone, but then I remember pressing one of my parish priests as a kid - "Why can't I be a priest when I grow up? What if I'm called to serve God just like you," and hearing, "You can't be called to serve God in this way" - and I just see red all over again.

[MithLuin]

No, nel, the excommunication would only apply to the bishop ordaining, and of course the woman ordained. Attending would not be grounds for latae sententiae, sorry. However, if you want to work out some agression, laying violent hands on the pope was mentioned in the article . I don't know if that would only apply to a bishop or also a lay person. The last person who attacked a pope was JPII's would-be assassin, and he was not Catholic, so ex-communication would not apply.

I'm not sure what the rules are on leaving the church. I understand that if you are baptized and confirmed, you are considered a member of the church. Even if you don't attend, the church gives you the benefit of the doubt. But if you actively join another community, I think that should mean your ties are cut. So, when you officially convert, you can say they're done with you.

I am okay with religious orders being single-sex institutions, and with ordination being reserved for men. I have never felt that women did not have a voice in the Church, probably because most Catholic churches are run almost entirely by women .

[River]

This reminds me of something my mother said once, about the church she went to as a child. It was a Presbyterian church in a small town back in the 50's and 60's. There was much discussion over whether or not women could serve as elders. Oddly enough, it was the women of the church who finally squashed that plan. Their reasoning? "We run things anyway."

[Primula Baggins]

Speaking as someone who is the equivalent of an elder in my own church, I don't think "wink-wink" "really running things" is quite the same thing as, say, being part of the voting body that controls the budget, makes hiring decisions, and formally determines which decisions are referred to the congregation for votes (and which are abandoned).

But you know that, of course. That 1950s "the women really run things" was a comforting untruth. "Aren't they cute! They think they're manipulating us!"

[solicitr]

Thank you for filling in those blanks, Wamps! This amazes me that the Anglican church would be stronger in Africa than in Europe, especially in England.

Oh, it's very true. Anglicanism is dying in England: churches closing, those that remain practically empty. Only 5-6% of Britons are practicing congregants of the Cof E- in fact, Britain now has more observant Muslims (a faith it's much. much harder to leave.....)

Why? Partly because like most of Europe the UK on the whole is post-Christian; partly because the Anglican communion stands for nothing at all any more, just a mushy porridge of platitudes. They might as well be Unitarians.

[axordil]

Prim--

I think back to my days as a believer, or at least someone who went to church, and recall that the power the "church ladies" had was considerable, and unfortunately mostly negative. To wit: the elders and deacons at my little non-denom church were self-selecting bodies. My dad had been an elder since I was maybe 3 or 4, was church treasurer for close to ten years, etc, so I got a pretty good look at how things transpired, even though he didn't talk about it much.

If someone who was deemed inappropriate by the dozen or so middle-aged and elderly women with "pull" was brought up for invitation to be a deacon or elder, they let it be known that they didn't like it, and it didn't happen. The primary grounds for this was their perception of whether the candidate respected them enough. This more or less ensured that the bodies remained "respectful" of them, ie, pliable to their influence.

Eventually a couple of guys who had been, horrors, divorced, came into consideration. And stayed in consideration. And stayed in consideration. They were good enough people that no one wanted to reject them outright, but the doyens didn't like them, so there was never a decision made, only deferral after deferral. By the time it was decided they weren't so bad (read: remarried to acceptable women) they were burned out from trying to serve in ad hoc ways.

But that wasn't what ended up destroying the congregation. That happened when first one, then another minister were forced out by the disapproval of these women, disapproval taking the form of whisper campaigns at first, finally ending up with the church selling the parsonage and substituting it with a housing allowance--which could be discontinued at any time. After the second (or maybe third) had been chased out in ten years, suddenly the church discovered that no one was interested in the job (there was no central authority to "assign" anyone--non-denom, remember?).

That was about when my dad left, retired, moved out of state, and washed his hands of it. I understand attendance dropped by about 60% over a five year period. Eventually enough of the women died that what was left of the church could re-form and move on, but there was maybe a 20 year period where an awful lot of people, mostly young but not all, drifted away and never came back.

This isn't a diatribe against women having power in a church. It's a cautionary tale about what happens when they are not allowed to hold positions with fiduciary responsibility. If all you have is veto power, and that is wielded only through interpersonal influence, it practically guarantees this kind of abuse.

[Primula Baggins]

I've heard of that happening, Ax, but I've never been in a church where it did. I grew up in my dad's churches, and he didn't tolerate any back-door, over-the-fence politicking or manipulation from anyone. And, of course, as well as I can remember, women could be on the council even in the 1960s.

But you're right that people do find other ways to power if they're barred from the usual path. It's human to want to have some control over things that are important to your life.

[axordil]

It's not only religious organizations, either. Any organization where a class of people is de facto or de jure barred from titular leadership roles, or even just the process of selecting them, will select for people within that class who can manipulate those who ARE in those roles, so far as I can tell. I'm thinking in particular about a group like the SCA, where leadership is determined through a physical activity that rewards upper body strength and fast-twitch muscle fibers, i.e. simulated medieval tournaments.

The result is that the system selects for guys who can swing sticks hard and fast, and women who can swing the guys. The results can be good, bad or indifferent, but the amount of interpersonal conflict that takes place between women in the organization, or men on their behalf, is vastly asymmetrical to that which takes place between men (or women on their behalf).

[Crucifer]

The argument that "Jesus only chose men" makes no sense, considering the documented role of women in the post-resurrection, early church era.

For one thing, the first people he chose to reveal himself to, according to every gospel, were two women. He told them to go tell everyone else, i.e. to preach the resurrection, which, we have to admit, is what priests are supposed to do.

Solictr, the Anglican communion in Ireland grew by 18% last year. I wasn't aware of such a huge decline in England. It seems to be isolated. Perhaps because so many people disagree with Rowan Williams?

In relation to the power basing, in my current church, we have one woman like that. We also have her three children (I say children, but the youngest is over 40) who obey her every word. She's slowly being pushed out by our current dean who has managed to get some new people voted to the select vestry (decision making body). This body has for years consisted of "good old protestants" who sat around saying no to anything that involved spending any money at all, unless it was on something that benefited them, of course.