Church divided: Women bishops an obstacle to unity, Vatican warns

[hyphenate]

Church divided: Women bishops an obstacle to unity, Vatican warns· Decision will harm future talks, says Catholic church

Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent The Guardian, Wednesday July 9, 2008

The Vatican yesterday criticised the Church of England's decision to press ahead with the ordination of women bishops, saying it presented a "further obstacle" for reconciliation between Canterbury and Rome.

A statement released through the Vatican Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity said it had "regretfully" learned of the historic vote, which took place on Monday after a seven-hour debate.

It read: "Such a decision signifies a breaking away from the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the churches since the first millennium, and is a further obstacle for reconciliation between the Catholic church and the Church of England.

"This decision will have consequences on the future of dialogue, which had up until now born fruit."

Cardinal Walter Kasper, who heads the unity council, will reiterate the Catholic position at next week's Lambeth conference.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/09/anglicanism.catholicism


_______________________________________________________________________

Just another reason why the Catholic church and I are no longer together. Male chauvinistic pigs who should be all neutered--in my eyes, at least!

[grannylib]

1. The Catholic Church is itself the biggest obstacle to any kind

of REAL religious unity, anywhere, anytime, with anyone else.

[midnight]

2. Women are powerful.... Women are not going to go away

quietly into the night. God is both women/man. Catholic church is progressing and the vatican will have to move along or get out of the way-Amen.

[crikkett]

6. Amen!

[TygrBright]

3. After all, how can a Church possibly consecrate a Bishop...

... who can't take part in that important part of the holy Consecration ritual, "The Presentation of the Penis?"

Jesus wept.

disgustedly,
Bright

[CatholicEdHead]

4. Remember, this statement goes back to the Church of England schism

On other conservative Catholic boards (and the Vatican), it goes back to the root that the Catholic Church is "THE ONLY" Church, and the official position is Rome will welcome every and all Protestant sects back if they confess and agree again to the rules of Rome.

This is not a new statement or position at all according to Rome's political viewpoint. It does not make it right (even more so with the current group in the Vatican seem to live back around the Middle Ages apec of Roman rule.

Given this position and women's ordination/gay ordination or not there would never be a true reconciliation these are empty words and we will see in a few generations if a future Pope does like JPII and apologizes for Church actions in the distant future.

[Ian David]

5. It's not Pope Ratso's fucking church. What an asshole. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

9. Well, no. He's talking about future unification of the Churches, which is something

that all Christian churches like to talk about between their sniping at each other.

[Ian David]

10. Like China and Taiwan? n/t

[JDPriestly]

7. This is interesting.

It's unmarried bishops who should be a problem for Christians. First Timothy, Chapter 3

1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

. . . .
11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=61&chapter=3&version=9

Somehow the Catholic Church conveniently ignores this instruction.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Like anyone ever thought

that the Anglicans and the Catholics were going to make nice and get back together?

[JerseygirlCT]

22. The RCC likes to talk about it all the time

in that sort of patronizing, "we know you'll see the grave error of your ways and come back to us" way they have.

Likewise, there are a bunch of raving bigots in the Anglican Communion who absolutely are dying to be Catholic bishops - but don't want to risk giving up their current fiefdoms to do it. No gays and no women sounds just dandy to them.

[Peace Patriot]

11. "...since the first millenium," huh? It's interesting how the Roman Catholic Church

always refers back to the Dark Ages for its legitimacy--as if origins in book-burning (the Alexandria Library), witch-burning (skinning alive of the last Pagan philosopher of the Alexandria Library, a woman named Hypatia, in 415 AD, by a mob of Christian monks, on orders of Bishop Cyril, the first bishop to use the word "patriarch" to describe himself), and all the "baptisms by the sword," witch-burnings, book-burnings, burnings of the real gospels, inquisitions, crusades, and pogroms against women, Pagans, the learned, the rebellious, the Jews and others, since then, legitimizes the current Roman Catholic Church, and gives it "authority" to speak for God. On the contrary, this history DE-legitimizes this egocentric, male-run abomination, and any claim they make to being representatives of Jesus, or the descendants of the disciples of Jesus. Would Jesus have approved of all this carnage and brutal repression? Give me a break. It is the signature of the Devil himself. The history of the Catholic Church "since the first millennium" disqualifies these fascist jerks from any "authority" they claim and any "right" they think they have to lord it over other Christians. One gags at even using the word "Christian" to describe them. They are "Christians" the way Bush is a "Christian." They are utter hypocrites.

I was roaming Google for some witch-burning dates, and stumbled upon this book review--of a book that sounds quite interesting.

Reviewing Caliban and the Witch:
Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation
Silvia Federici
Review: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/books/reviews/caliban_colatrella.html

It's about the history of witch-burnings and the creation of capitalism, and their relationship to each other. Did you know that there were huge rebellions of the village peasantry against the "closures" of the Commons (commonly held land)--closures that began occurring all over Europe at the end of the Middle Ages--and that the rebellions were often led by women? Fascinating. I intend to get the book and read it. It connects that struggle with the current global justice struggle.

A quote from the conclusion of the review:

"An extremely readable work, free of academic jargon, but meticulously researched (reading the footnotes is like reading a second, equally rewarding book), this book, at about $16, should be on every antiglobalization activist and feminist bookshelf in years to come. Federici has provided us with an understanding of the rise of capitalism appropriate for and useful to our struggles today: to stop the privatization of everything, to defend abortion rights and stop the use of biotechnology to take human generation out of the hands of women and put it into the hands of capital, to defend nature itself and its animals and seeds from corporate control and from a capitalist paradigm that threatens the continuation of life itself. Enough to recall the great chant of Italian women at marches in the 1970s: 'tremate, tremate, le streghe sono tornate': 'tremble, tremble, the witches have returned!'"

[54anickel]

16. Sounds like an interesting book. Though I tend to equate his use of capitalism with domination and

prefer to use that term. The various "isms" of the world aren't inherently good or bad, but rather their objective to "dominate" and "manipulate" a group to the unfair/injust/inequitable advantage of another group. I prefer to focus on the hidden agenda of any "ism" or movement. Otherwise we tend to get conned into believing a cosmetic surface change represents real change and we end up with "meet the new boss, same as the old boss ( or worse!)".


The "republic" our nation was founded on was based on a domination ideology, but supposedly not for the unfair advantage of one group over the other. Funny how that "under God" in the pledge diverted attention away from that founding principal.

...to the 'republic for which it stands, one nation with liberty and justice for all.

Plato has got to be rolling in his grave as the wheel comes full circle.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Ummm, if I wanted to be Catholic, I'd just join the Catholic Church

two blocks away.

[Book Lover]

13. That is a really good point

What is the ultimate purpose of reconciliation between the two bureaucracies? What is wrong, theologically, with the current situation? (These are rhetorical, Lydia - not directly asked at you!)

[JerseygirlCT]

18. LOL - and it was just statements and stands like the one

referenced in the OP that brought me *away* from the Catholic church and to the Episcopalians.

[defendandprotect]

14. "Women bishops an obstacle to unity" . . .

what he's actually saying is that "women FU a patriarchy ---

and we're holding onto our patriarchy --- !!!"


Anyone calling the Vatican "sexist" in media reports --- ???

[JerseygirlCT]

19. That's about it in a nutshell. nt

[saltpoint]

15. Mary Magdalen is clearly a close confidante of Jesus, if the accounts in

the New Testament are to be believed, and presumably, the folks at the Vatican believe those accounts.

Which puts their theory of "apostolic sucession" under serious strain.

Half the babies born on earth deserve both the benefits of the sacraments and the power to administrate them to others.

The Vatican is wrong. Again.

[JerseygirlCT]

20. Absolutely. nt

[saltpoint]

21. -- --

:hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

17. Well, thank heaven for that, then!

That sort of unity (which in their minds means, getting all those Episcopalians/Anglicans to see things and do things OUR way, and then maybe we'll allow them to be reunited with us), we don't need.

And long past time that the church in England had female bishops. At least our US church is now *led* by a woman! A good step forward, indeed.

[struggle4progress]

23. "Jesus had a penis and so should you" doesn't seem to me a key point of Christian theology

I did learn in Church as a child many decades ago that in fact Jesus had a penis: the context was sanitized representations of crucifixion and the issues of humanity and suffering. I don't really think I considered that very much of a revelation: it seemed obvious enough

What never seemed obvious, and what I have never understood, is the claim that a person's genitalia would affect their ability to understand, live, and preach the gospel. I remember in the late 60s or early 70s arguing with conservatives who were very sure that Christian men should not have long hair. Somehow the "Jesus had long hair and so should you" argument (based on traditional religious art) never persuaded them: the typical response was that styles had changed

[elshiva]

26. Or "Jesus was Jewish so you should be Jewish" or

"Jesus wasn't an American, so priests shouldn't be American."

[Warpy]

24. They seem to think Canterbury wants unity with

(translation: subjugation to) Rome after 500 years of freedom.

If there were ever any Anglican priests who longed for the good old days of Catholic unity, this Pope has likely cured that fantasy.

The smartest thing Henry VIII did during his reign was break with Rome and rid the kingdom of corrupt clergy.

(sidebar: one remote forebear was hanged for objecting to the whole thing)

[struggle4progress]

27. There has been a large ecumenical push since WWII: a number of the

large denominations have moved towards "full communion" with each other, meaning that (for example) they would recognize the ordinations of the other churches

I know the Episcopalians and Lutherans are expected to be in "full communion" soon, and the Lutherans and Catholics have been discussing the matter for years; Canterbury has probably been engaged in conversations with Rome for a long time, too

[JerseygirlCT]

33. Well, I suspect there ARE Anglican bishops who'd be quite

happy in Rome. (Think Akinola et al). But they aren't willing to give up the positions and power they've attained to do it.

The bigotry they like just fine. And they love the subjugation idea - so long as they don't have to do much of it, and lots and lots of people have to subjugate themselves to them.

[elshiva]

25. Roman Catholic Church hierarchy are sexist blips.

At least the American Episcopal church has a woman PRESIDING Bishop (leader of all the other bishops). Yes, I'm an atheist, but it just shows that religious institutions can change for the better sometimes. Do the words "equal opportunity" mean anything to the RCC hierarchy? I know they like to cover it up with a lot of fancy phrases about god, but god is pretty weak so and so if he can't equip women as well as men.

[IndianaGreen]

28. FRAK this Pope and his Byzantine views!

He has reduced Catholicism to the ideology of choice for misogynists, homophobes, and pedophiles.

[Why Syzygy]

29. Hi, IG

you don't remember me but I remember you from DU wayback times.
Always a pleasure to see you.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Eight years is a very long time for the internet

Whoever you are, hi back to you!

:hi:

[knitter4democracy]

32. He's not Byzantine. He's definitely Roman.

I'm just sayin', we already have a patriarch with Byzantine views in Istanbul.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. LOL...

Very true.

[knitter4democracy]

31. They weren't in the Early Church.

At least, not until many of them went for Gnosticism. Since that's not as much of a problem anymore, let's let women back into the priesthood, the deaconate, and the biscopacy.