"“Sexual abuse and pornography are more grave dealings, they are an egregious violation of moral law,” he said. “Attempted ordination of women is grave, but on another level; it is a wound that is an attempt against the Catholic faith on the sacramental orders...”"So, it is understandable that some people have found this gravely offensive. The Vatican are saying that it was just a document covering a, clarifying and tidying up number of things and so it is happenstance that the two issues are in the same document. Fair enough; though it is hard to believe that their PR people ddn't realise that dealing with paedophiliac offenses in a document with other issues would be a difficulty in the making.
A RC acquaintance of mine once said that he though that ordaining women (specifically nuns) would be more likely than ordaining married men. He may be right in arguing that the paying men to support families would be a deal breaker; RC priests are not paid a huge amount; certainly not enough to raise a family on; and (given Vatican teaching on birth control) it would be a huge risk not to have priests with large families -if they only have one or two kids the suspicion would be that they are not themselves adhering to the party line. So ordaining nuns would seem to be a less complicated matter. But then look at what is being said about the matter of ordaining women.
The other side of the matter is to recall that for RCs, the matter of clerical celibacy is not really doctrinal. It is custom codified by canon law. There are churches in communion with Rome, mostly in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area, which were formerly Orthodox (mostly called Uniate Churches) and who continue to ordain married men; they have carried over their Orthodox practice. So there can be no doctrinal objection to married male priests. So from that perspective it may be that married priests would be the more likely: they already have them, it is simply a 'tactical' matter.
What do you think?
And, if Rome changed its mind about women's ordination: where would that leave the debate for some Anglicans?
Bridget Mary's Blog:
4 comments:
Hello Bridget and all,
The Vatican's reasons for maintaining its bizarre stances against women are both deeply ancient and deceptive. I am the proverbial horse's mouth and I am now gifting you with the Vatican's worst nightmare, now realized.
The Vatican is being set up for a much bigger fall than most are expecting. These unfolding scandals and debacles are merely proof of their absolute lack of veracity, before the real controversy is unsealed. Here's an early peek for parties like yourself, who are more likely to make good use of the information.
Finishing the Mysteries of Gods and Symbols
Peace and Wisdom,
Seven
I've just blogged about this here Women’s ministry | Khanya, so won't say more on that at this point.
But I wonder why the media have made such a big deal about the ordination of women, and have not mentioned throwing away the consecrated host and concelebrating with non-episcopally ordained ministers who are not in the apostolic succession?
@ Seven: I guess you know that a lot of us will need quite some persuading, though at least there is a plausibility in talking about the way that prophets were not big on the religious estabnlishments. So we'll see in due course, no doubt; thanks for the heads-up.
@ Steve: that's a helpful link; \i assumed that this would be the kind of position that'd be taken. seems consistent. Thanks for posting a link.
Andii,
Here's another link, not dealing with the isue itself, but rather with the media reporting of it: Notes from underground: Brit media attacks on Catholics sink to a new low, which in many cases was really bad journalism. I was sorry to see the Guardian sink to the level of the London Daily Mail.
It's like saying that because the same court can hear cases relating to traffic offences and domestic violence, that overstaying your time at a parking meter is the moral equivalent of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. plymenc
Post a Comment