![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tree_and_leafNuns and gay-rights groups make common cause.
Although it's not entirely surprising that progressive changes emerge precisely in difficult situations, because they force you to ask what's really essential to what you believe and how you express it. For instance, the first ordination of a woman as priest in the Anglican communion, that of Florence Li Tim-Oi in the diocese of Hong Kong in 1944 was a response to the very great difficulties with the faithful faced as a result of the Japanese invasion, which makes it even more irritating when conservatives talk about women's ordination in terms of a grab for something illicit because, in the selfish modern fashion, a wish to self-determination trumps tradition and principle.
This line of argument is, in itself, probably connected to the Madonna/ whore dichotomy, since I've heard it argued, more or less in so many words, that no woman could have a genuine sense of vocation to the priesthood, since campaigning for women's ordination involved being loud and pushy and rebelling against the ecclesiastical status quo, and good priests are not thus. Funnily enough, this does not seem to disqualify any of the male priests or thinkers of the Oxford Movement, who also got into a lot of trouble for promoting a vision of what it means to be a priest and do church that didn't fit the ecclesiastical principles of their day from that category. But of course, smells, bells and tat is a matter of high minded and important principle, whereas wishing to live out a vocation in the service of God's people in word, sacrament and the care of souls, is just ego-centric, ambitious feminism and/ or political correctness gone mad (™) I sometimes suspect that there's a certain type of man that doesn't believe that women are really people, ordinary human beings - devil or angel or a useful domestic animal, but never an equal of the average sensual sort of man (there are, doubtless, also women who share this view). A woman can't be a priest, by definition, because she's not fully human?†
DISCLAIMER: I am aware of the fact that there are other arguments against the ordination of women, though I don't agree with them. I am also fully aware that the Oxford Movement was not merely a campaign for ecclesiastical tat for all, even if I've met Anglo-Catholics who gave that impression, and even though I do have a slightly dubious enthusiasm for nose-bleedingly high Masses myself....
† Yes, I've been reading Sayers and 'The Human Not-quite Human'...
Although it's not entirely surprising that progressive changes emerge precisely in difficult situations, because they force you to ask what's really essential to what you believe and how you express it. For instance, the first ordination of a woman as priest in the Anglican communion, that of Florence Li Tim-Oi in the diocese of Hong Kong in 1944 was a response to the very great difficulties with the faithful faced as a result of the Japanese invasion, which makes it even more irritating when conservatives talk about women's ordination in terms of a grab for something illicit because, in the selfish modern fashion, a wish to self-determination trumps tradition and principle.
This line of argument is, in itself, probably connected to the Madonna/ whore dichotomy, since I've heard it argued, more or less in so many words, that no woman could have a genuine sense of vocation to the priesthood, since campaigning for women's ordination involved being loud and pushy and rebelling against the ecclesiastical status quo, and good priests are not thus. Funnily enough, this does not seem to disqualify any of the male priests or thinkers of the Oxford Movement, who also got into a lot of trouble for promoting a vision of what it means to be a priest and do church that didn't fit the ecclesiastical principles of their day from that category. But of course, smells, bells and tat is a matter of high minded and important principle, whereas wishing to live out a vocation in the service of God's people in word, sacrament and the care of souls, is just ego-centric, ambitious feminism and/ or political correctness gone mad (™) I sometimes suspect that there's a certain type of man that doesn't believe that women are really people, ordinary human beings - devil or angel or a useful domestic animal, but never an equal of the average sensual sort of man (there are, doubtless, also women who share this view). A woman can't be a priest, by definition, because she's not fully human?†
DISCLAIMER: I am aware of the fact that there are other arguments against the ordination of women, though I don't agree with them. I am also fully aware that the Oxford Movement was not merely a campaign for ecclesiastical tat for all, even if I've met Anglo-Catholics who gave that impression, and even though I do have a slightly dubious enthusiasm for nose-bleedingly high Masses myself....
† Yes, I've been reading Sayers and 'The Human Not-quite Human'...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 12:50 pm (UTC)OTOH, seeing the struggles of some Protestant churches with the issue makes me rather glad that my church settled the issue in the early 19th century. The big question for the Unitarian Universalist Association is how having a majority female clergy (which we do - it's almost 60/40 at this point) will change things....
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 05:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-17 02:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 12:52 pm (UTC)It's so good to see that there are local Christians doing positive, useful things in China - so many of the Christians I encountered there were hectoring, intolerant, hellfire-and-damnation missionary types from abroad, who were giving the religion as a whole a thoroughly bad name.
(I hope none of this offends - as a non-Christian it's hard to tell sometimes! At least, it was meant in an entirely positive spirit).
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 04:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-17 02:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 07:03 pm (UTC)How long, why, etc.?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-16 12:27 pm (UTC)I taught English while trying to bring my Chinese up to scratch (amazingly, it worked!)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-20 11:00 pm (UTC)(I lived in Beijing for most of 9 months and spent another month or so traveling.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 01:03 pm (UTC)I'm quite fond of high masses myself, particularlty when the partcipants don't take it all too seriously.
*goes off to hunt down some more sayers*
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 05:17 pm (UTC)I mean, I also know antis who are not like that, but they tend to express themselves more moderately (and without the faint undertone of disgust at the thought of icky girls defiling the altar....)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-20 11:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 01:41 pm (UTC)I am not for the ordination of women, and others have explained this way better than I could. You (general you) can reduce the explanation to "women don't have penises" if you would like, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 02:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 02:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 04:15 pm (UTC)Of course I do agree that 'rights' is a red herring; but there is a duty to follow God's call, whatever that may be. One may say 'the Church has ruled that this particular call cannot be legitimate for that person, therefore it is not legitimate', and it's logical/ consistent for an RC - but it's not a line of reasoning I find satisfactory. I expect it's my inner Protestant coming out...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 04:20 pm (UTC)And yeah, hurray for the via media.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 05:19 pm (UTC)Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that it was, but I see I have expressed myself clumsily. No offence intended, and I hope none taken.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 05:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 05:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 05:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 07:00 pm (UTC)Like tree and leaf, this is one of the areas where my inner Protestant shouts most loudly! But I agree that the submission to the Magisterium viewpoint makes internal sense (what I'd really like, of course, is for the Magisterium to
change it's minddevelop a new doctrine of female priesthood! :P )(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-17 02:51 pm (UTC)Also, to be perfectly frank: the Church is not ordaining enough priests anywhere in Western Europe or the United States. As a practical matter, the next Pope (or the Pope after that) will not have much of a choice but to allow either married clergy or female clergy. The Church cannot exist without clergy, and there simply won't be any within the next twenty years.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-17 03:10 pm (UTC)Oh, married clergy will come sooner or later (actually, some exist already - ex-Anglicans who walked out over women's ordination and were allowed to keep their wives when they were consecrated as R-C priests. But that's much less of a big deal - there are fairly large cultural and ideological blocks, but in terms of church law, it's very easily sorted. It's discipline, not doctrine (indeed, IIRC it's under the authority of the relevant arch-bishop rather than needing anything decided higher up). Indeed, the biggest problem is very probably that you'd have to pay your priests rather a lot more if they're expected to be able to feed a flock of hungry mouths. But I don't expect to see a female RC priest in my life time, if ever.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 02:12 pm (UTC)Which was surely far more about non-consensuality and abuse of power? (as someone reasonably non-frothing points out in comments.) After all, early Christianity is full of stories of virgin martyrs who refused the lecherous advances of pagan governors, or just pagan prospective spouses, etc, but heterosexuality has never therefore been defined as An Abomination.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 05:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 03:40 pm (UTC)I am inclined to believe that you're right, and that this applies to quite a lot of fields (and also probably to people in other groups as well as simply male/female, although the male/female element is a distressingly prevalent one). I sometimes think that sheer lack of imagation is responsible for a lot of wrongs.
I love Sayers 'Are Women Human?' essays. The one with the skit on the manly Botany professor leads me to think that she would have appreciated Egalia's Daughters (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Egalias-Daughter-Satire-Sexes-Translation/dp/1878067583/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203089733&sr=8-4), which at root is all about the radical notion that women (in the book menwim) are also complete human beings.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 04:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 05:39 pm (UTC)I sometimes think that sheer lack of imagation is responsible for a lot of wrongs.
I think that's probably true, unfortunately.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-16 12:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 06:58 pm (UTC)Sometimes I could really give up humanity!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 07:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 09:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 10:10 pm (UTC)Gwyneth: maid
Jade: farthingale/bustle
Joan: matron
Rose: dinner lady aka maid
WossherfaceinNewYork: bunny girl
Gwen: policewoman
Tosh: getyourtitsoutfortheladsAUblouse (less fetish than usual; just waiting for kimono)
Martha: maid
Tish: maid
Lisa: tin bikini/chain mail
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-16 10:08 am (UTC)But yes, it's beginning to look as if Rusty will only let women play in the Whoniverse if they're pretty, young, and occasionally reminded of their place in a fairly brutal manner.
Sarah Jane Adventures seems to have avoided this, at least, though I haven't seen the whole series.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-16 10:29 am (UTC)And yes: the bodycount is pretty high overall, of course, but I think the women cop more than their fair share of nasty deaths: Yvonne, Alt-Jackie, Lisa, Suzie (twice), Jade, Mary...the girlfriend in Love and Monsters
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 10:49 pm (UTC)(and I always read the distress at losing her more as distress at losing, rather than distress at losing her - though of course there were elements of that too)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-16 10:14 am (UTC)and I always read the distress at losing her more as distress at losing, rather than distress at losing her - though of course there were elements of that too)
Likewise.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 09:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-15 10:44 pm (UTC)By contrast, having recently dipped a (female) toe in a very male work enviroment, I can honestly say how incredibly welcoming the men were in that industry. Much more welcoming, in fact, than women usually are towards men coming into "female" careers! So I don't think that the problem lies with *men*, but more with the way groups and subcultures define themselves, and how they relate to each other and to the mainstream. Perhaps all small groupings, like the gay sub-culture, encourage a certain dismissiveness towards particular other groups?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-16 10:02 am (UTC)more with the way groups and subcultures define themselves, and how they relate to each other and to the mainstream. Perhaps all small groupings, like the gay sub-culture, encourage a certain dismissiveness towards particular other groups?
*Nods* I think it's certainly relevant in some way that the only theological college I've heard horror stories about how unpleasant it was to be a woman there is also one where the dominant culture seems to revolve around lace, pink gin, giving each other girl's names and generally being screamingly camp; I suppose an actual flesh-and-blood woman might well be seen as distrupting the corporate performative identity! (I should add that the horror stories come from people who were there ten years back, and that I believe it's changed a lot and for the better since. On the other hand, judging from Facebook, Mirfield, which still doesn't take women, still seems to have a lot of that element - but then I suppose that by excluding women, they're selecting for that element anyway.)
britney spears and kevin federline sex pictures p8
Date: 2008-02-24 01:16 pm (UTC)thank you
Date: 2008-04-06 11:05 pm (UTC)Re: thank you
Date: 2008-04-07 08:09 am (UTC)