 |
| Pic: Fr Ray Blake's Blog |
I thought I was beyond shock in the woman bishop campaign until I read the article in the London Evening Standard here under the headline "Women bishops debate reaches the royal family".
Admittedly a minor Royal, nevertheless the implication of royal approval is clear but how crass. Julia Ogilvy, daughter-in-law of Princess Alexandra of Kent, has "taken up the cudgels by interviewing 12 female Christian theologians for Women in Waiting, to be published by Bloomsbury in March". She writes:
These are her 12 female "Christian theologians": Lucy Winkett, Sheila Watson, Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Vivienne Faull, Elaine Storkey, Jane Williams (wife of Rowan), Sarah Coakley, Alison Elliott, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Chilton Knudsen and Helena Kennedy.
I don't know what criteria were used to draw up this list but any list that includes Katharine Jefferts Schori must be suspect from the outset unless it is a list of women who have brought the Anglican Church to her knees.
Women deserve success based on merit, the same as men in secular employment, but the priesthood is not a secular job to be filled using secular criteria. There are many women of outstanding ability, a fact illustrated daily through the medium of television but that is no reason for admitting them to the priesthood. The Church is not society yet encouraged by the buffoon Baldry, see here and here (Q3 Col 1225), Dave cannot wait to see women bishops in parliament, not for their contribution to debates but simply because they are women bishops, another feather in his cap to add to his same-sex marriage trophy. That is the whole basis of the women bishops movement. It is another 'want', a fact well illustrated in another article for the Telegraph here under the headline "Women bishops: Today I'm proud to be a member of the Church of England".
Jemima Thackray roars off with:
"Today I am proud to be part of the Church of England. I don’t care what former Archbishop Lord Carey said this week about the church ‘being extinct in one generation’. I don’t care what kind of negative spin some parts of press will inevitably put on today’s vote in favour of new proposals on women bishops. I don’t even care that these proposals are potentially unworkable in practise. I can still say that today I’m proud to be an Anglican". What Lord Carey had said was that 'the Church of England will be extinct in one generation'.
If Ms Thackray doesn't care that the church of England" will be extinct in one generation many do, including all those women who despair at the ignorance, or is it deceit, of those who claim to speak for them. Last year after the women bishops legislation failed under the agreed procedures there was another headline on the Virtueonline blog here, "UK: Half of women bishops opponents in Synod were women". They were pilloried for their actions because their beliefs did not fit in with modern, secular norms. Why should they? They understand Christ's message. The others don't get it but we all are having to pay the price of their ignorance - or of their deceit. No matter if the church fails, some will have pointed hats to keep as souvenirs.
For women and men who do care I have just received an encouraging letter from The Society. Check here and keep the faith.
Tedious anti-women rhetoric yet again. What on earth makes the priesthood so special that only men can do it? What? Answer that. Why is being a priest the only vocation/calling/job on earth that only a man can do? Seriously, what? Give a convincing argument to that simple, well-meaning question.
ReplyDelete@littlequeerme if you are so theologically illiterate that you still don’t understand the arguments then I suggest, in all Christian charity, that you p*ss off and read a blog which is more to your liking.
DeleteWhy ?
DeleteBecause the man that was nailed to the cross said so.
littlequeeeryou, you are obviously a troll or a simpleton which probably means you're the alter ego of ++Bazza.
You're certainly both equally theologically challenged.
It is really quite simple liitlequeer. Of course women can 'do it' as you put it but you ask the wrong question. You will need to read the Bible to understand why serving in the priesthood falls only to men.
ReplyDeleteWell little queer I was just about to start tapping my keypad when I now see that the answers have been presented .It is improbable that any person with any association with the Church does not know the arguments presented in this sad and destructive matter. But I will just say that Jesus chose his Apostles who were men. Jesus did not ignore or reject women and there are many passages for you to read to explain this to you. Key and central in our faith is the Eucharist. The priest represents Christ at the Eucharist ,and to introduce a woman at the altar simply introduces confusion and we will most certainly lose sight of the basic Truths of our faith. I was stopped in the street in Cowbridge ( don't live there) last week and ask to take part in a survey. One question was "what does it mean to me that Jesus came to save us" or something like that. I replied it means to me that Jesus was God incarnate: he became Man, not a woman and there is thus the risk in seeing a woman representing Christ. How are children ever to learn the faith and embark upon a lifetime of exploring the Trinity in the face of confusing presentation of Christianity. Let us teach them that the Icon for women is the Virgin Mary,and what an honour that is .Yes I am a simple soul and a woman.
ReplyDelete