Argue 'by the rules'

I was looking at Father Gregory's blog today, and would encourage those who wish to see an Orthodox (capital O) viewpoint regarding the C of E decision to ordain female bishops to visit.

There are many reasons why one might support the ordination of women or not (and since priesthood is an extension of episcopate rather than vice versa, it follows logically that, if women can be priests, they can be bishops). The path of this argument, which position one chooses, is well worn, so I'll not explore it today. My 'topic' is two-fold. First, by all means argue any theological point in creation - but use the proper basis. Second, do not hide behind my 'old friend' Freud and decide that those with a point of view differing from one's own are using their contrary position as a 'subconscious' cloak for a defect on their part. (Positions on the order of 'Suchandsuch surely would agree with me were s/he not flawed' are odious.)

Individuals who support or oppose the ordination of women may have perfectly solid theological grounds (based in sacramental theology, ecclesiology, or both). I myself have never seen a reason that women could not be ordained, though priests, of either sex, need to be accepted as such by the Church - there is no 'right' to priesthood. (I mention this only because I read something by Andrew Greeley, an occasional bag of wind who is intelligent enough to know better than to make such statements, which pleaded that the reason US nuns cannot be priests is that they cannot violate the sacred 'separation of church and state' and sue their employer for discrimination...) Yet I find it highly irritating when anyone who opposes women's ordination is tarred with a brush of 'he uses theological grounds - but they are only rationalising - he subconsciously is a mysogynist.'

As I've treated of in other posts, I believe that self-deception is the key reason that any one of us falls short of virtue. Indeed, we do need to explore our personal motives for our actions. Yet deciding what is going on in another's 'subconscious' (is that possible? not that I really care) is nonsense.

I frankly am sick to death of quasi-theological arguments which fit everything into one mould. For example, the Roman Catholic positions on contraception, priestly celibacy (in the Latin Rite), the ordination of women, and divorce all have different reasons - they were not cooked up in a vicious kettle of 'let us see what we can do to oppress women today.' (I am a mediaevalist and have studied the patristic era in depth, so this must not be taken to mean I am ignorant of misogyny. But it must not be assumed that Rome opposes divorce because patristic hermits, who had complex ideas about our growing closer to God if we only could be like angels, saw women as a threat. You'll ask what the logic is in that... my point is that there is none.)

It is fine with me if the last sound on this earth before the last judgement is that of well-reasoned theological arguments. (At the general judgement itself, I suppose, the last words will be largely either "but the bugger had it coming to him," "I thought I was justified," or "but we didn't really do it.") Yet I wonder if my own purgatory would be to sit in the company of those who play to the popular 'market' - spouting political correctness, pious sentimentality, or clichés. Using the words of the Bible to justify what the Bible says - using 'fidelity to the magisterium' to justify the same - tucking controversial issues (and I mean 'issue' in the true sense, not as the current and annoying euphemism for 'problem') into a package of "oppression of women" or other politically correct jargon.

If one's actions indeed make one guilty of oppression, it does not matter whether the one oppressed is male or female. Cruelty is not less so because the target has light skin. The poor do not suffer less because of their race or sex. Critical (or fatal) diseases are not less important, or less the reason for compassion and service, if they do not happen to be breast cancer.

Hating or oppressing another for any reason is deplorable - please do not think that I am minimising the evils of true racism, sexism, and the like. But such hatred must not be assumed because one's views do not coincide with what is currently considered 'inclusive.'

...sigh... Had God not placed certain gifts in a flawed vessel (I'm referring to health, not sex!), I might have been a wonderful priest... :) .... but I would never be envious of anyone who had the peculiar burdens of being a bishop.