Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

I just read a long and detailed article in the 10 Oct 92 issue of "America"
by Catherine Maury LaCagna entitled "Catholic Women as Ministers and
Theologians".  "America", available at many Town Libraries, is a rather
liberal Roman Catholic magazine.

It discusses the many roles that women are taking in ministry and teaching
in the Roman Catholic Church and also points out that one effect of the
fact that women are not admitted to the presbyterate and episcopate is
that there are more Roman Catholic women with advanced theological degrees
and more Roman Catholic feminist theologians than there are in Protestant
sects which ordain women.

It discusses the "Inter Insignores" argument (basically the one I presented
about how the priest acts as Christ at the Eucharist), which was issued by
the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith in 1976, and also the
argument that Tradition is Divine Law which was the only theologically valid
argument against ordination considered by the 1972 U.S. National Conference
of Catholic Bishops.

/john

    I have no problem with women in the clergy.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    I LOVE women (at least one!!!) in the clergy!
    
    	Ron
    

    I talked about this in another note.....woman should be equal in the
    church in all ways. The Congregational church that I belong to,
    has an interim woman pastor....after 42 years of Roman Catholic church
    life, I found her presence, at first, un-comfortable. Today, it seems
    as natural as breathing!
    
    When woman have a similar position in the various churches as men, then
    they truely have equal rights. There is *NO* reason for the current
    second class citizen status they have in other religions.
    
    Marc H.

    Quakerism makes no distinction between clergy and laity, so the issue
    of female clergy doesn't really apply for Friends.  Both men and
    women participate in the vocal ministry during Friends meetings for
    worship.  All other forms of ministry are also open to both men and
    women.  This has been the case ever since the denomination was founded
    in the 1600s.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .4

Indeed, there are reasons why women should not be in
the clergy.  Some are not considered valid by those who
believe as you do.

Re:  equality

Equality of personhood does not necessarily mean "equality"
in roles, whatever that is.  It is a very unfortunate
mistake that is commonly made today that argues that true
equality is when anyone can do anything.  I would argue
that true equality is when we all submit to Jesus and
do what He tells us.

Collis

    I don't think equality means that everyone can do anything.  It
    certainly accepts that each individual is different, that some are
    better at, or are called to do, certain things, and that what each of
    us is called to do is unique to what we are.  But the important point
    is that it is precisely those sorts of criteria--what we are good at, or
    what we are called to do--and not sex, that defines what people can do. 
    If someone is qualified in every way that counts--skill, dedication,
    and calling--then I believe it is wrong to deny that calling on the
    basis of an additional criterion, something that is unrelated to the
    prerequisite skill for exercising that role per se.

    -- Mike

    RE: .6
    
    What reasons can you give?
    
    Marc H.

I wish I had the time to re-discuss this.

I will quickly say that in my second year of
seminary (a seminary divided on the ordination of
women), I wrote two papers exegeting I Tim 2:9-15.

Going into writing the papers, I believed that
women should be ordained (but not a firmly held
belief - I was aware that I was Biblically uninformed).

After writing the papers, based solely on my
exegesis, I changed my mind.  (BTW, the exegesis
looked at all the relevant texts as good exegesis
does).  I think the teacher was a supported or
ordaining women, although I still can't say for sure.

Collis

	"While most Catholic churches still debate the ordination of women,
several Catholic churches in the Mount Banahaw area of the Phillipines allow
only women to be priests.  For one parish, the decision to have women as
priests was a pragmatic one (the community felt men could not be
celebate).  The custom is also influenced by an indigenous tradition of
female priests.

	These churches, with strong native roots, are committed to
liberating the country from foreign colonization and preserving the
natural environment.  At worship, God is typically referred to as both
father and mother, with the motherhood of God connected to the land,
water, mountains, and human life on the islands."

Source:  The Other Side magazine, November-December 1992 issue

Peace,
Richard

    When I started this note I had expected to see lots of people jump
    in and explain why there should not be a prohibition on women clergy.
    It hasn't happened. Yet there is discussion in an other topic that 
    relates to this. I guess the news makes it suddenly more relevant
    to some.

    Perhaps, to save the religion in the news topic, people would use this
    topic to make the case for and against women clergy?

    		Alfred

			Inter Insigniores


	Declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of
    the Faith on the question of admission of women to the ministerial
	priesthood, 1976.


	1. The Church's Constant Tradition

	The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal 
	ordination can be validly conferred on women. A few heretical sects
	in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise
	of the priestly ministry to women: This innovation was immediately
	noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unnacceptable
	in the Church. It is true that in the writings of the Fathers, one
	will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to
	woman, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices
	had hardly any influences on their pastoral activity, and still
	less on their spiritual direction. But over and above these
 	considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed
	- especially in the canonical documents of the Antiochan and Egyptian
	traditions- this essential reason, namely, that by calling only
	men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church
	intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed
	by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.
		The same conviction animates medieval theology, even if
	the Scholastic doctors, in their desire to clarify by reason the
	data of faith, often present argumentson this point that modern
	thought would have difficulty in admitting, or would even rightly
	reject. Since that period and up till our own time, it can be said
	that the question has not been raised again for the practice has
	enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance.
	   The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in
	the course of the centuries that the Magiterium has not felt the
	need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not
	attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged. But each
	time that this tradition had the occasion to manifest itself, it
	witnessed to the Church's desire to conform to the model left her
	by the Lord.
		The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the
	Churches of the East. Their unanimity on this point is all the more
	remarkable since in many other questions their discipline admits
	of a great diversity. At present time these same Churches refuse
	to associate themselves with requests directed towards securing
	the accession of women to priestly ordination.


	2. The Attitude of Christ.

	Jesus Christ did not call any women to become part of the Twelve.
	If he acted in this way, it was not in order to conform to the 	
	customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was quite different
	from that of his millieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke
	with it.
	  For example, to the great astonishment of his own disciples Jesus
	converses publicly with the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:27); he takes
	no notice of the state of legal impurity of the woman who had
	suffered from haemorrhages (Mt 9:20); he allows a sinful woman to
	approach him in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:37); and by
	pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he means to show that one
	must not be more severe towards the fault of a woman than towards
	that of a man (Jn 8:11). He does not hesitate to depart from the
	Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties
	of men and women with regard to the marriage bond (Mk 10:2; Mt 19:3).
		In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only
	by the Twelve but also by a group of women (Lk 8:2). Contrary to
	the Jewish mentality, which did not accord great value to the 
	testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was nevertheless women
	who were the fist to have the privilege of seeing the risen Lord,
	and it was they who were charged by Jesus to take the first paschal
	message to the Apostles themselves (Mt 28:7 ; Lk 24:9 ; Jn 20:11),
	in order to prepare the latter to becaome the official witnesses
	to the Resurrection.
		It is true that these facts do not make the matter immediately
	obvious. This is no surprise, for the questions that the Word of
	God brings before us go beyond the obvious. In order to reach the
	the ultimate meaning of the mission of Jesus and the ultimate meaning
	of Scripture, a purely historical exegesis of the texts cannot suffice.
	But it must be recognised that we have here a number of convergent
	indications that make all the more remarkable that Jesus did not
	entrust the apostolic charge to women. Even his Mother, who was
	so closely associated with the mystery of her Son, and whose
	incomparable role is emphasized by the Gospels of Luke and John,
	was not invested with the apostolic ministry. This fact was to lead
	the Fathers to present her as an example of Christ's will in this
	domain; as Pope Innocent III repeated later, at the beginning of
	the thirteenth century, 'Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed
	in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was
	not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom
	of Heaven.'


	3. The Practice of the Apostles.

	The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus
	towards women. Although Mary occupied a privileged place in the
	little circle of those gathered in the Upper Room after the Lord's
	Ascension (Acts 1:14), it was not she who was called to enter the
	College of the Twelve at the time of the election that resulted
	in the choice of Mathias: those who were put forward were two disciples
	whom the Gospels do not even mention.
		On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled them all,
	men and women (Acts 2:!, 1:14), yet the proclamation of the fulfilment
	of the prophecies in Jesu was made only by 'Peter and the Eleven'
	(Acts 2:14).
	  When they and Paul went beyond the confines of the Jewish world,
	the preaching of the Gospel and the Christian life in the Greco-Roman
	civilisation impelled them to break with Mosaic practices, sometimes
	regretfully. They could therefore have envisaged conferring ordination
	on women, if they had not been convinced of their duty of fidelity
	to the Lord on this point. In fact the Greeks did not share the
	ideas of the Jews: although thier philosophers taught the inferiority
	of women, historians nevertheless emphasize the existence of a certain
	movement for the advancement of women during the Imperial period.
	In fact we know from the book of Acts and from the letter of St.Paul,
	that certain women worked with the Apostle for the Gospel (Rm16:3-12;
	Phil 4:3). Saint Paul lists their names with gratitude in the final
	salutations of the Letters. Some of them often exercised an important
	influence on conversions: Priscilla,Lydia and others; especially
	Priscilla, who took it on herself to complete the instruction of
	Apollos (Acts 18:26); Phoebe, in the service of the Church of Cenchreae
	(Rm 16:1). All these facts manifest within the Apostolic Church
	a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism. Nevertheless
	at no time was there a question of conferring ordination on these
	women.
		In the Pauline letters, exegetes of authority have noted
	a difference between two formulas used by the Apostle: he writes
	indiscriminately 'My fellow workers' (Rom.16:3;Phil 4:2-3) when
	referring to men and women helping him in his apostolate in one
	way or another; but he reserves the title of 'God's fellow workers'
	(1Cor. 3-9; 1Thess 3:2) to Apollos, Timothy and himself, thus
	designated because they are directly set apart for the apostolic
	ministry and the preaching of the Word of God. In spite of the so
	important role played by women on the day of the Resurrection, their
	collaboration was not extended by St.Paul to the official and public
	proclamation of the message, since this proclamation belongs 
	exclusively to the apostolic mission.


	4. Permanent Value of the Attitude of Jesus
	   and the Apostles.


	Could the Church today depart from this attitude of Jesus and the
	Apostles, which has been considered as normative by the whole of
	tradition up to our own day ? Various arguments have been put forward
	in favour of a positive reply to this question, and these must now
	be examined.
	  It has been claimed in particular that the attitude of Jesus and
	the Apostles is explained by the influence of their milieu and their
	times. It is said that, if Jesus did not entrust to women and not
	even to hi Mother a ministry assimilating them to the Twelve, this
	was because historical circumstances did not permit him to do so.
	No one however has ever proved- and it is clearly impossible to
	prove- that this attitude is inspired only by social and cultural
	reasons. As we have seen, and examination of the Gospels shows on
	the contrary that Jesus broke with the prejudices of his time, by
	widely contravening the discriminations practiced with regard to
	women. One therefore cannot maintain that, by not calling women
	to enter the group of the Apostles, Jesus was simply letting himself
	be guided by reasons of expediency. For all the more reason, social
	and cultural conditioning did not hold back the Apostles working
	in the Greek milieu, where the same forms of discrimination did
	not exist.
	     Another objection is based upon the transitory character that
	one claims to see today in some of the presriptions of Saint Paul
	concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of
	his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these
	ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern
	scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such
	as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head
	(1 Cor11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.
	However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies
	(1 Cor 14:34-35; 1Ti, 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes
	define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right,
	which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy
	in the assembly (1 Cor11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the
	official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint
	Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation
	(1 Cor11:7; Gen2 18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the
	expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we
	owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament
	on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God
	in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing
	him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he
	shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in
	his apostolate.
		But over and above these objections taken from the history 
	of apostolic times, those who support the legitimacy of change in
	the matter turn to the Church's pratice in her sacramental discipline.
	It has been noted, inour day especially, to what extent the Church
	is conscious of possessing a certain power over the sacraments,
	even though they were instituted by Christ. She has used this power
	down the centuries in order to determine their signs and the conditions
	of their administration: recent decisions of Popes Pius XII and
	Paul IV are proof of this. However, it must be emphasized that this
	power, which is a real one, has definite limits. As Pope Pius XII
	recalled: 'The Church has no power over the substance of the
	sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the Lord, as the sources
	of Revelation bear witness, determined should be maintained in the
	sacramental sign.' This was already the teaching of the council
	of Trent , which declared: 'In the Church there has always existed
	this power, that in the administration of the sacraments, provided
	that their substance remains unaltered, she can lay down or modify
	what she considers more fitting either for the benefit of those
	who receive them or for respect towards those same sacraments,
	according to varying circumstances, times or places.
		Moreover, it must not be forgotten that the scramental signs
	are not conventional ones. Not only is it true that, in many respects,
	they are natural signs because they respond to the deep symbolism
	of actions and things, but they are more than this: they are
	principally meant to link the person of every period to the supreme
	Event of the history of salvation, in order to enable that person
	to understand, through all the Bible's wealth of pedagogy and
	symbolism, what grace they signify and produce. For example, the
	sacrament of the Eucharist is not only a fraternal meal, but at
	the same time a memorial which makes present and actual Christ's
	sacrifice and his offering by the Church. Again the priestly ministry
	is not just a pastoral service; it ensures the continuity of the
	functions entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and the continuity of
	the powers related to those functions. Adaptations to civilizations 
	and times therefore cannot abolish on essential points, the sacramental
	reference to constitutive events of Christianity and to Christ himself.
		In the final analysis it is the Church through the voice
	of the Magisterium, that, in these various domains, decides what
	can change and what must remain immutable. When she judges she cannot
	accept certain changes, it is because she knows she is bound by
	Christ's manner of acting. Her attitude, despite appearances, is
	therefore not one of archaism but of fidelity: it can be truly
	understood only in this light. The Church makes pronouncements in
	virtue of the Lord's promise and the presence of the Holy Spirit,
	in order to proclaim better the mystery of Christ and to safeguard
	and manifest the whole of its rich content.
		The practice of the Church therefore has a normative character:
	in the fact of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it is
	a question of unbroken tradition throughout the history of the Church,
	universal inteh East and in the West, and alert to repress abuses
	immediately. This norm, based on Christ's example, has been and
	is still observed because it is considered to conform to God's plan
	for his Church.

		Inter Insigniores...continued

           
	5. The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of
	   The Mystery of Christ.


	Having recalled the Church's norm and the basis thereof, it seems
	useful and opportune to illustrate this norm by showing the profound
	fittingness that theological reflection discovers between the proper
	nature of the sacrament of Order, with its specific reference to
	the mystery of Christ, and the fact that only men have been called
	to receive priestly ordination. It is not a question here of bringing
	forward a demonstrative argument, but of clarifying this teaching
	by the analogy of faith.
		The Church's constant teaching, repeated and clarified by
	the Second Vatican Council and again recalled by the 1971 Synod
	of Bishops and by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
	Faith in its Declaration of 24th. June 1973, declares that the bishop
	or the priest in the exercise of his ministry, does not act in his
	own name, in persona propria: he represents Christ, who acts through
	him: "the priest truly acts in the place of Christ', as St.Cyprian
	already wrote in the third century. It is this ability to represent
	Christ that St.Paul considered as characteristic of his apostolic
	function (2 Cor.5:20; Gal. 4:14). The supreme expression of this
	representation is found in the altogether special form it assumes
	in the celebration  of the Eucharist, which is the source and centre
	of the Church's unity, the sacrificial meal in which the People	of
	God are associated in the sacrifice of Christ: the priest, who alone
	has the power to perform it, then acts not only through the effective
	power conferred on him by Christ, but in persona Christi, taking
	the role of Christ, to the point of being his very image, when he
	pronounces the words of consecration.
		The Christian priesthood is therefore of a sacramental nature:
	the priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes
	from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible
	and which the faithful must be able to recognise with ease.
	The whole sacramental economy is in fact based upon natural signs,
	on symbols imprinted on the human psychology: 'Sacramental signs,'
	says St.Thomas,'represents what they signify by natural resemblance.'
	The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things:
	when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally,
	there would not be this 'natural resemblance' which must exist between
	Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by
	a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister
	the image of Christ. For Christ himself was and remains a man.
		Christ is of course the firstborn of all humanity, of women
	as well as men: the unity which he re-established after sin is such
	that there are no more disticntions between Jew and Greek, slave
	and free, male and female, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal.3:28).
	Nevetheless, the incarnation of the Word took place according to
	the male sex: this is indeef a question of fact, and this fact,
	while not implying and alleged natural superiority of man over woman,
	cannot be disassociated from the economy of salvation: it is indeed
	in harmony with the entirety of God's plan as God himself has revealed
	it, and of which the mystery of the Covenant is the nucleus.
		For the salvation offered by God to men and women, the union
	with him to which they are called - in short, the Covenant- took
	on, from the Old Testament Prophets onwards, the privileged form
	of a nuptual mystery: for God the Chosen People is seen as his ardently
	loved spouse. Both Jewish and Christian tradition has discovered
	the depth of this intimacy of love by reading and rereading the
	Song of Songs; the divine Bridegroom will remain faithful even when
	the Bride betrays his love, when Israel is unfaithful to God (Hos.1-3;
	Jer.2). When the 'fulness of time'(Gal.4:4) comes, the Word, the
	Son of God, takes on flesh in order to establish and seal the new
	and eternal Covenant in his blood, which will be shed for many so
	that sins may be forgiven. His death will gather together again
	the scattered children of God; from his pierced side will be born
	the Church, as Eve was born from Adam's side. At that time there
	is fully and eternally accomplished the nuptual mystery proclaimed
	and hymned in the Old Testament: Christ is the Bridegroom; the Church
	his Bride, whom he loves because he has gained her by his blood
 	and made her glorious, holy and without blemish, and henceforth
	he is inseparable from her. This nuptual theme, which is developed
	from the Letters of St.Paul onwards (2 Cor.11:2; Eph.5:22-23) to
	the writings of St.John (especially in Jn.3:29; Rev.19:7,9), is
	present also in the Synoptic Gospels: the Bridegroom's friends must
	not fast as long as he is with them (Mk.2:19); the Kingdom of Heaven
	is like a king who gave a feast for his son's weeding (Mt.22:1-14).
	It is through this Sciptural language, all interwoven with symbols,
	and which expresses and affects man and women in their profound
	identity, that there is revealed to us the mystery of God and Christ,
	a mystery which of itself is unfathomable.
		That is why we can never ignore the fact that Christ is
	a man. And therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance
	of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted
	that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in
	which Christ himself, the author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom,
	the Head of the Church, is represented, exercising his ministry
	of salvation- which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist-
	his role (this is the original sense of the word 'persona')must
	be taken by a man. This does not stem from any personal superiority
	of the latter in the order of values, but only from a difference
	of fact on the level of functions and service.
		Could one say that, since Christ is now in the heavenly
	condition, from now on it is a matter of indifference whether he
	be represented by a man or by a woman, since 'at the resurrection
	men and women do not marry' (Mat.22:30) ? But this text does not
 	mean that the distiction between man and women, insofar as it 
	determines the identity proper to the person, is supressed in the
	glorified state; what holds for us also holds for Christ. It is
	indeed evident that in human beings the difference of sex exercises
	an important influence, much deeper than, for example, ethnic
	differences: the latter do not affect the human person as inimately
	as the difference of sex, which is directly ordained both for the
	communion of persons and for the generation of human beings. In
	Biblical Revelation this difference is the effect of God's will
	from the beginning: 'male and female he created them' (Gen 1:27). 
			However, it will perhaps be further objected that
	the priest, especially when he presides at the liturgical and 
	sacramental functions, equally represents the Church: he acts in
	her name with 'the intention of doing what she does'. In this sense,
	the theologians of the Middle Ages said that the minister also acts
	in persona Ecclesiae, that is to say, in the name of the whole Church
	and in order to represent her. And in fact, leaving aside the question
	of the participation of the faithful in a liturgical action, it
	is indeed in the name of the whole Church that the action is celebrated
	by the priest: he prays in the name of all, and in the Mass he offers
	the sacrifice of the whole Church. In the new Passover, the Church,
	under visible signs, immolates Christ through the ministry of the
	priest. And so, it is asserted, since the priest also represents
	the Church, would it not be possible to think that this representation
	could be carried out by a woman, according to the symbolism already
	explained ? It is true that the priest represents the Church, which
	is the Body of Christ. But if he does so, it is precisely because
	he first represents Christ himself, who is the Head and the Shepherd
	of the Church. The Second Vatican Council used this phrase to make
	more precise and complete the expression 'in persona Christi'. It
	is in this quality that the priest presides over the Christian assembly
	and celebrates the Eucharistic sacrifice 'in which the whole Church
	offers and is herself wholly offered'.
		If one does justice to these reflections, one will better
	understand how well-founded is the basis of the Church's practice;
	and will conclude that the controveries raised in our days over
	the ordination of women are for all Christians a pressing invitation
	to meditate on the mystery of the Church, to study in greater detail
	the meaning of the episcopate and the priesthood, and to rediscover
	the real and pre-eminent place of the priest in the community of
	the baptized, of which he indeed forms part but from which he is
	distinguished because, in the actions that call for the character
	of ordination, for the community he is - with all the effectiveness
	proper to the sacraments- the image and symbol of Christ himself
	who calls, forgives, and accomplishes the sacrifice of the Covenant.



	6. The Ministerial Priesthood Illustrated by
	   The Mystery of the Church.

	
	It is opportune to recall that problems of sacramental theology,
	especially when they concern the ministerial priesthood, as is the
	case here, cannot be solved except in the light of Revelation. The
	human sciences, however valuable their contribution in their own
	domain, cannot suffice here, for they cannot grasp the realities
	of faith: the properly supernatural content of these realities is
	beyond their competence.
		Thus one must note the extent to which the Church is a society
	different from other societies, original in her nature and in her
	structures. The pastoral charge in the Church is normally linked
	to the sacrament of Order; it is not a simple government, comparable
	to the modes of authority found in the States. It is not granted
	by people's spontaneous choice: even when it involves designation
	through election, it is the laying on of hands and the prayer of
	the successors of the Apostles which guarantee God's choice; and
	it is the Holy Spirit, given by ordination, who grants participation
	in the ruling power of the Supreme Pastor, Christ (Acts 20:28).
	It is a charge of service and love: 'If you love me, feed my sheep'
	( Jn.21:15-17).
		For this reason one cannot see how it is possible to propose
	the admission of women to the priesthood in virtue of the equality
	of rights of the human person, an equality which holds good also
	for Christians. To this end, use is sometimes made of the text quoted
	above, from the Letter to the Galations (3:28), which says that
	in Christ there is no longer any distinction between men and women.
	But this passage does not concern ministries: it only affirms the
	universal calling to divine filiation, which is the same for all.
	Moreover, and above all, to consider the ministerial priesthood
	as a human right would be to misjudge it's nature completely:
	baptism does not confer any personal title to public ministry within
	the Church. The priesthood is not conferred for the honour or 	
	advantage of the recipient, but for the service of God and the Church;
	it is the object of a specific and totally gratuitous vocation:
	'You did not choose me, no, I chose you; and I commissioned you...'
	(Jn.15:16; Heb.5:4).
		It is sometimes said and written in books and periodicals
	that some women feel that they have a vocation to the priesthood.
	Such an attraction however noble and understandable, still does
	not suffice for a genuine vocation. In fact a vocation cannot be
	reduced to a mere personal attraction, which can remain purely 
	subjective. Since the priesthood is a particular ministry of which
	the Church has recieved the charge and the control, authentication
	by the Church is indispensible here and is a constitutive part of
	the vocation: Christ chose 'those he wanted' (Mk.3:13). On the other
	hand, there is a universal vocation of all the baptized to the exercise
	of the royal priesthood by offering their lives to God and by giving
	witness for his praise.
	   Women who express a desire for the ministerial priesthood are
	doubtless motivated by the desire to serve Christ and the Church.
	And it is not surprising that, at a time when they are becoming
	more aware of the discriminations to which they have been subjected, 
	they should desire the ministerial priesthood itself. But it must
	not be forgotten that the priesthood does not form part of the rights
	of the individual, but stems from the economy of the mystery of
	Christ and the Church. The priestly office cannot become the goal
	of social advancement: no merely human progress of society or of
	the individual can of itself give access to it: it is of another
	order.
		It therefore remains for us to meditate more deeply on the
	nature of the real equality of the baptized which is one of the
	great affirmations of Christianity; equality is in no way identity,
	for the Church is a differentiated body, in which each individual
	has his or her role. The roles are distinct, and must not be confused;
	they do not favour the superiority of some vis-a-vis the others,
	nor do they provide an excuse for jealousy; the only better gift,
	which can and must be desired, is love (1 Cor. 12-13). The greatest
	in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.
		The Church desires that Christian women should become more
	fully aware of the greatness of their mission; today their role
	is of capital importance, both for the renewal and humanization
	of society and for the rediscovery of believers of the true face
	of the Church.


		His Holiness Pope Paul VI, during the audience granted to
	the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation on 15 October
	1976, approved this Declaration, confirmed it and ordered its 
	publication.

	Given in Rome, at the SAcred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
	Faith, on 15 October 1976, the feast of Saint Theresa of Avila.

			
				Franjo Cardinal Seper
			
					Prefect.

re Note 41.283 by COVERT::COVERT:

> But until the whole Church agrees that Jesus meant for women to consecrate
> bread and wine into his Body and Blood and to confer Holy Orders upon future
> members of the priesthood and episcopate, women would do well to listen to
> our Lord, and not demand the seat of honor, but take the low place, and wait
> to be called forward.
  
        But we still have the "problem"� of women who are listening
        to the Lord and do hear the call to Holy Orders.  It is not
        their demand for "honor" (in the gospel, it is not described
        as an honor, but a position of servitude) -- it is the Lord's
        demand.  They are being called -- by the Lord.

        Must they sit still until enough of the members of the
        hierarchy also hear the Lord's call to them?  Perhaps that is
        what has happened this week!

        Bob
        -----

        � We call it a problem but it is really a wonderful
        opportunity and blessing to us all -- one that we humans are
        choosing to ignore at our great loss.

Following Alfred's request, I'll answer this here.

<<==============================================================================
Note 41.283                   Religion in the News                    283 of 283
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      18 lines  12-NOV-1992 12:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women are not excluded from the Church.

They are not excluded from leadership roles in the day-to-day life of parishes.

They are not excluded from teaching roles in universities and seminaries.

There are more Roman Catholic women holding advanced theological degrees than
anywhere else.

But until the whole Church agrees that Jesus meant for women to consecrate
bread and wine into his Body and Blood and to confer Holy Orders upon future
members of the priesthood and episcopate, women would do well to listen to
our Lord, and not demand the seat of honor, but take the low place, and wait
to be called forward.

The Church is not the World.
<<


Well /john perhaps these women have been 'called forward' by the Holy 
Spirit to take their rightful place as children of God in consecrating 
bread and wine because they believe Jesus meant for them to do so.  
Perhaps, they hear God clearly calling them to take action.  Who are 
you (and other men) to deny them that right?  Since you believe the 
bible to already state it is not their right, how do you expect them 
to be called?  For the Vatican to change their collective minds?  
Thankfully, all are not so limited in allowing God to work through 
them.

Ro

re Note 531.13 by COVERT::COVERT:

> 		For the salvation offered by God to men and women, the union
> 	with him to which they are called - in short, the Covenant- took
> 	on, from the Old Testament Prophets onwards, the privileged form
> 	of a nuptual mystery: for God the Chosen People is seen as his ardently
...
> 	and which expresses and affects man and women in their profound
> 	identity, that there is revealed to us the mystery of God and Christ,
> 	a mystery which of itself is unfathomable.

        By this logic, if only men can be priests then only women can
        be members of "the Church".

        (Actually, this entire exposition is a good example of how
        you can mix a lot of fact with some hand-waving and the
        result will be believable.)

        Bob

    Yes, women, don't you even dare answer "the call from God" until 
    the Vatican tells you you can.
    
    Karen

    
    
    But don't we here have again that the voice of the Holy Spirit differs
    from what the Bible says?  So that "the call from God" would not be
    looked at as being that at all?
    
    ?
    
    Carole

    The victims this kind of misogyny are not only women; it is really
    hurts all members of a faith community.  All members of a church suffer
    when they are prevented from benefiting from individuals who possess
    the calling, the skill, and the dedication to a given kind of service. 

    Obviously, women who are not so called, but who are nevertheless lay
    members of the church, are also hurt by institutional misogyny simply
    by seeing how their sex is viewed and treated by the all-male
    authorities who rule.  But I think it is important to remember that
    sexism, racism, and other similar evils of prejudice always hurt not
    just the oppressed group, but in effect everyone.

    -- Mike

	It is always hard for one to challange when someone says that God
	is calling them to someone. After all the call is a personal and
	private thing that God does one on one. However it is also hard to
	assume that everyone that enters the ministry does do because of a
	real calling. Thus I would not presume to comment on an individuals
	calling. So I feel that I have to deal in generalities.

	And in general I do not believe that God calls women to be "priests".
	I do believe that there are a great many roles that He does call
	woman to. Just that those things do not include pastoring a church.
	I also don't believe that He's called men to bear children. If God
	wanted me to get pregnent He would have made me a woman. If God had
	wanted a woman to be a priest He would have made her a man. Seems
	simple to me.

				Alfred

There is a large Episcopal parish in Rutland, Vermont, which uses two women
as leaders in a way which is not contrary to the tradition of the Catholic
priesthood.

One woman is a deacon, and can thus assist at Mass just as any male deacon
can.  She can also perform baptisms and can preside at weddings.

Another is a lay pastor, who can act as a counselor to people who would
prefer to discuss spiritual or personal problems with a trained Christian
advisor, but would rather talk to a woman than to a man.

The functions that the Catholic Church has historically reserved to men are
the functions of consecration, ordination, and absolution.

/john

    I read the long articles put in by /john.....can't agree though.
    The catholic church seems to be dancing around the subject. The main
    argument seems to be two fold. First, its tradition. Second, the
    original apostles were male, and since Jesus didn't pick any women for
    this role, then by default, this *must* have been the way God/Jesus
    meant it to be. I don't buy it.
    
    Tradition is nice....but...it shouldn't be used to stop people.
    "we haven't done it like that before, therefore we will not in the
    future"!!!!
    
    Second, why do we use faulty logic....just because there were not
    women amoung the original apostles doesn't mean that Jesus commanded
    us to not have women. If the original statement is true....males
    were choosen, the converse doesn't have to be true( the contrapositive
    does have to be true though).
    Frankly, I'm surprised the /john holds such a view.
    
    Marc H.

re: Note 531.19 by Karen "drumming is good medicine" 

>    Yes, women, don't you even dare answer "the call from God" until 
>    the Vatican tells you you can.
    
Is that what they mean by "call waiting"?

.-)

Jim

Guess this isn't so simple to me, Alfred?!?

<<	And in general I do not believe that God calls women to be "priests".
<<	I do believe that there are a great many roles that He does call
<<	woman to. Just that those things do not include pastoring a church.
<<	I also don't believe that He's called men to bear children. If God
<<	wanted me to get pregnent He would have made me a woman. If God had
<<	wanted a woman to be a priest He would have made her a man. Seems
<<	simple to me.

When you compare women being able to have children and men to being 
priests, I don't understand.  Are you saying biologically women 
weren't 'made' to pastor a church?  The two women priests at the 
Episcopal church I attend do a fine job, including consecrating the 
bread and wine.  I've noticed nothing physically (biologically) that 
prohibits them from doing so.

Gee, it almost sounds like if "we can't have babies, then you can't 
serve God, na na na na na nah!"  %^P   You're putting us on, right?

Ro

    I believe there *were* women apostles, (evidence of which is in the
    Bible) which I wrote up and referenced in recent notes.
    
    Karen

    re .27,
    
    Romans 16:7 is one of the references, I believe, showing Paul greeting
    a woman he refers to as another apostle of the movement who was in
    Christ before him.
    
    So I don't buy this "there weren't any women apostles" ....propaganda.
    
    Karen

>    Frankly, I'm surprised the /john holds such a view.

I thought I'd made my view clear enough.  I will not oppose women priests,
_if_the_whole_Church_ can come to some agreement.

Until then, I consider the issue divisive, and oppose change for that
reason, not for the reasons stated in the documents I've posted.

/john

    RE: .29
    
    Still not clear to me ( need more coffee, maybe).....Are you putting
    the Church above your beliefs in equality?
    
    Marc H.

>Are you putting the Church above your beliefs in equality?

Secular equality of women whether inside or outside the Church is not
an issue here.

The issue is only the priesthood and episcopate.  (Also, note that
the Church of England did not approve ordination of women to the
episcopate.)

The Church is a special institution, created not by man but by God.
At this point in time, we don't have enough evidence from God for a
change in the priesthood which he established thousands of years ago.

When that evidence is there, if ever, the change will be accepted.

/john

> Romans 16:7 is one of the references, I believe, showing Paul greeting
>    a woman he refers to as another apostle of the movement who was in
>    Christ before him.

	Which one is the woman? Andronicus or Junias?

		Alfred

	RE: .26 I refer to the fact that God has created men and women
	differently. That He has different roles for us both. 

			Alfred

Karen,

The supposition that "Junias" is a woman has little support except among
feminists.

For example, in Martin Luther's translation, Romans 16:7 is:

	Gr��et den Andronikum und den Juniam, ...

If Martin Luther had had reason to believe that Junias was a woman, he
would not have used the masculine accusative form "den Juniam".

/john

At Mass today at The Church of the Advent, Father Mead began the
intercessions by noting that the vote in England had certainly
brought great joy to some of the members of the congregation but
that many were deeply grieving over the outcome.  He asked that
the members of the parish continue as a community bound by Christian
love.  He then asked that every one spend a short period in silent
prayer, after which he would read a collect by Archbishop Laud.

	Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church.
	Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace.
	Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error,
	direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it.
	Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want,
	provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for
	the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Saviour.  Amen.

[Archbishop William Laud was the 76th Archbishop of Canterbury.  The
Collect above appears on page 816 of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.]

From the Melbourne "Herald-Sun" dated 20-MAR-1993...
    
                          "Heretic to fight on"
                           by Gerard Whateley
    
    A Presbyterian minister branded a heretic by a court of his church
    peers said last night he had been denied natural justice.
    
    The Rev. Dr. Peter Cameron said he believed the church had been made a
    "laughing stock" by Thursday night's marathon hearing which found him
    guilty of publicly questioning the Bible by saying women might make
    better ministers than men.
    
    Dr. Cameron, the principal of St. Andrews College at Sydney University,
    is the first Presbyterian minister this century to be convicted of
    heresy. The charge stemmed from a 1992 sermon to a women's group of the
    church, where Dr. Cameron discussed the role of women in the
    Presbyterian church and suggested they might make better ministers than
    men.
    
    He told the congregation of 300 men's vanity was behind the church's
    1991 decision to overturn its 1974 ruling allowing women's ordination,
    and said the ban was "a restriction of Christian liberty".
    
    Last night, Dr. Cameron was quietly defiant as he recalled the
    four-hour debate in the church court.  He said he would appeal to the
    church's general assembly and, if necessary, take his fight to the
    civil courts to "put things right".
    
    If the church appeal fails, the 47-year-old minister could be
    suspended, deposed or excommunicated.
    
    Dr. Cameron is only the second Presbyterian minister to face heresy
    charges this century. (Presumably this refers to Australia.)
    
    The first, Dr. Samuel Angus, was also a St. Andrews College principal,
    but he died before going to trial after being charged in 1934.
    
    Dr. Cameron said yesterday the ecclesiastical court had denied him
    natural justice and he blamed a "theological gulf" for his predicament.
    
    He declared the decision was a manifestation of a "new puritanism on
    the prowl in society" which had to be resisted.
    
    He said his views on the ordination of women did not fit the
    conservative line within the Sydney Presbytery "so what they're doing
    is accusing me of undermining the infallibility of the Bible".
    
    "It is possible that some good might come out of it now that (the
    parishioners) have been alerted to what's going on in the church ...
    that these fundamentalist ministers are trying to hijack it," Dr.
    Cameron said.
    
    "I think the general perception actually is that the church has been
    made a laughing stock because of this - that they're making fools of
    themselves."
    
    Some factions within the church said yesterday the minister had been
    "set up" but the church hierarchy said the decision was for the good of
    the church.
    
    Some church members said the processes used to try Dr. Cameron were a
    "flagrant misuse of ecclesiastical power".
    
    Uniting Church minister and author Dr. David Millikan said the
    Presbyterian Church was becoming conservative and isolated.
    
    "They're showing all the indications of becoming a sect, they're
    becoming hostile to creative thought," he said.
    
    A highly-placed church member, who did not wish to be named, said: "It
    is an attempt to stop all questioning, full stop."
    
    He said it was a widely held belief that the church had made an example
    of Dr. Cameron.
    
    But the acting principal of the Melbourne Presbyterian Theological
    College, the Rev. Professor Douglas Milne, said the case was not
    necessarily damaging.
    
                              *     *     *

    The article covered everything but the arguments for and against
    women clergy. Pity as that would have been the most interesting.

    				Alfred

    
.37

>    The article covered everything but the arguments for and against
>    women clergy. Pity as that would have been the most interesting.

...almost as interesting as the question why there should be such an 
argument at all...

;-)
    
Dorian 

>...almost as interesting as the question why there should be such an 
>argument at all...

    You are right of course, there should be no question, the Bible seems
    pretty clear that women should not be clergy. And there has been no
    Biblical evidence to support the idea that they should be presented in
    this topic. So I guess case closed?

    There have been arguments here that women should be clergy of course.
    But they are based on emotion or on some non Biblical notion of right
    and wrong. Applying secular principles to sacred issues doesn't always
    make sense. This is one such case.
    	
    		Alfred

    By the way, I pointed out in an earlier reply in this string that it is
    not just women who suffer from this kind of misogyny, but the entire
    faith community, because by instituting this kind of sexism it denies
    itself the services of women who have something to offer it.
    
    Alfred's reply, in response 22, was:
    
        "If God	wanted me to get pregnent He would have made me a woman. If
        God had	wanted a woman to be a priest He would have made her a
        man."
        
    Did you hear that, ladies?  I'm sure you all feel better now about your
    designated roles in life.  :-)
    
    Of course, the difference between pregnancy and ministry is that while
    men are physically incapable of being pregnant, women are not physically
    incapable of being ministers.  There are no rules handed down that
    prohibit men from getting pregnant.  It is not like men are fighting
    for the right to get pregnant, and have to overcome female
    intransigence on the subject.  So it is hard to tell exactly what this
    highly offensive analogy is getting at.  Perhaps it is claimed that
    women just aren't up to doing the role of priest, that they aren't good
    enough.  Perhpas, Alfred, you would like to explain why, for example,
    Dot Francey is not good enough to be a minister.  Which skill does she
    specifically lack as minister?
    
    Or has it nothing to do with lacking a skill?  Is it simply a matter of
    women having the skills, of having something to offer the community,
    but despite that the community must suffer without their services
    because that would violate a rule?  So which is it--are women good
    enough, do they have the capability of being priests?  Or do they lack
    the skills to do the job?
    
    -- Mike

    		            
    
    	This problem has to do with the polarity of the human body.
    	The male organism has a positive polarity, and the female
    	organism has a negative polarity.  The terms positive and
    	negative are just names used to describe 2 different kinds
    	of polarities and should *not* be interpreted to indicate
    	that one is better than the other.
    
    	The way I understand this, is that the ritual of the Sacraments
    	was designed in such a way that a male (positive) organism is
    	required in order to act as the intermediary between the outpouring
    	or the energies from above and the congregation.
    
	I didn't make this up, I read it in a book dealing with the Science
    	of the Sacraments where the ritual was examined in detail by those
    	who were clairvoyant.  As always, it is up to the individual to
    	accept or reject this idea as you see fit.
    
			
			Juan

    I never said that women were not good enough to be priests. It's not
    a matter of good or bad, of skilled or unskilled. Not everything in
    religion is a matter of physical things or obvious things. I believe 
    that the roles of men and women are different. I'm not one who has 
    suggested that women or their roles are inferior.

    			Alfred

    So you agree that women *do* have the skills to be priests?  And that
    therefore, when a faith community denies itself the ability to have
    women priests, it denies itself individuals who can do a good
    job--just as good as male priests can?  That individuals with something
    valuable to contribute to the faith community won't be allowed to do
    so?
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,

    Are you claiming to be a Christian or not?  Are you claiming to be a
    member of a Christian denomination with an ordained priesthood?  Are
    you claiming to be a member of Christian denomination with an ordained
    priesthood who restricts it to males?

    If not, why argue?

    To all,

    Two errors made by the advocates of imposing the eligibility of women
    to ordained priesthood are:

    (1) The assignment of evil motives to the the tradition which was
    initiated by Jesus in the selection of 12 men to be his apostles.

    (2) The idea women contribute contribute "something valuable to the
    faith community" without ordination.     

    An evil man did not pick 12 men to be Apostles.  Jesus did.

    Women throughout the history of Christianity have contributed
    "something valuable to the faith community" without ordination.
                  

    Pat,

    I belong to a denomination that has treated its male and female members
    as spiritual equals throughout its 350 years of existence, and that has
    given men and women the equal right to participate in the ministry. 
    That is something that I am proud of.

    You are correct that women have contributed "something valuable to the
    faith community" without ordination.  The question is whether or not
    they also have something valuable to contribute *with* ordination.  I
    often hear that not everyone has the same role, and this is certainly
    true--not everyone can serve as a priest in their church.  The question
    arises as to how we deal with those who *do* have the skills to be good
    at it.  The fact still remains that if a woman has the skills to be a
    good priest, then the faith community is denying itself a skilled and
    able person, one who has the skills and motivation to do the job, one
    with something to valuable contribute in that role.  Thus the community
    is only hurting itself by denying capable people from fulfilling a role
    that they can perform.

    -- Mike

Does God capriciously (at least apparently to us) assign roles 
to some people while denying others (who could perform the
role as well or better) the opportunity to serve in a role?

Let's look at the Levites.  How difficult is it to serve in
the temple?  Not particularly.  Yes, there are some formal
rites that need to be observed and a few laws that one should
know.  And if you want to serve God with your whole heart,
then indeed it is a challenge (but, then again, it's a challenge
to serve God with your whole heart no matter *what* job you
have).

So, who does God says may serve in the temple and offer
sacrifices?  The Levites.  Only the Levites.  Only *male*
Levites.  Those male children descended from Levi may
perform sacrifices in the temple.

Is this fair?  Is this right?  Is this EQUALITY???

Oh well.  I guess since it's God, we'll let Him do what He
thinks is best.  Actually, you and I know better; after all
Joe's a good cook and he can really cook up those sacrifices.
And Lisa is totally devoted to God and she would really set an
example in the temple.  But if God is going to be stubborn
and obstinate like this, we'll let Him do what He wants -
after all, He's bigger than we are.

Of course, your God may not be the God that's revealed via
the prophets in Scripture.

For those who want a New Testament reference, we can meditate
on what it means that some of us are ears, some eyes, some
feet, etc. in I Cor 12 and decide whether it is our *talents*
that define our roles or whether it is *God* who both gives us
our talents *and* defines our roles.

Collis

P.S.

When King Uzziah (of, "In the year that King Uzziah died"
fame), a faithful king of God for over 40 years, decided
to ignore his role as King and offer a sacrifice in the
temple, God struck him with leprosy which forced him to
spend the last 10 years of his life living alone.

FYI

Collis

re Note 531.47 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

        I agree, leave Jesus out of this.  He had nothing to do with
        restricting ordination to men.

>     An evil man did not pick 12 men to be Apostles.  Jesus did.
  
        And picking 12 men for that kind of life work 2000 years ago
        would have said nothing about whether having a particular sex
        was an absolute requirement for the position for all time.

        However, many men subsequently interpreted this non-evidence
        as if it were hard evidence against women's ordination.  THAT
        is the evil.

        Bob

re Note 531.49 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> So, who does God says may serve in the temple and offer
> sacrifices?  The Levites.  Only the Levites.  Only *male*
> Levites.  Those male children descended from Levi may
> perform sacrifices in the temple.
  
        Collis,

        You make the case so well.

        When God in Scripture intends an absolute requirement or
        restriction for a role, it is spelled out in clear and
        unambiguous terms.

        The Levitical priesthood is spelled out in great detail.

        Where is the corresponding clear, unambiguous directions in
        the new testament regarding the Christian priesthood?

        Bob

Re:  .53

If you will accept with me the main point that
God indeed is sovereign and can, if he chooses,
assign a role (or not assign a role) based on factors
which some of us consider rather arbitrary, then I
think we'll have made much progress.

Of course, others may choose to disagree with us
on this.  :-)

Collis

P.S.  By coming to this conclusion, we can void 90%
of the discussion which relates to a women's ability
to perform the functions of the ministry; a point I
acknowledge!

    I, for one, don't believe that God is arbitrary, irrational, or prone
    to make absurd decrees.  I have far too high an opinion of God for
    that.  God is just, fair, and loving, and is not a misogynist.
    
    -- Mike

    The answer I appear to be getting to my question is that everyone
    agrees that women can be just as good at being priests as men, and that
    therefore the faith community denies itself good priests by excluding
    them from that role.
    
    Thus we conclude that preventing women from ministerial roles hurts the
    faith community.
    
    -- Mike

    re .56
    
    Continuing the thought:
    
    > Thus we conclude that preventing women from ministerial roles hurts the
    > faith community.
    
    ... but that's what God wants.  
    
    (Or so seems to be the conventional wisdom)
    
    Eric

  >The answer I appear to be getting to my question is that everyone
  >agrees that women can be just as good at being priests as men, and that
  >therefore the faith community denies itself good priests by excluding
  >them from that role.

No, what you have heard (at least from me) is that women appear to be
qualified by human standards to fill these roles.  However,

 1)  we are not omniscient and may be wrong
 2)  if God has indeed reserved this role for men, then disobedience
     negates any possible positive contribution that may be made
     by women in this role
    
  >Thus we conclude that preventing women from ministerial roles hurts the
  >faith community.
    
and

 3)  If indeed God has this role reserved for men, that women are
     *not* serving their proper role and this hurts the faith
     community.
 4)  Likewise, men are not serving their proper role as this has been
     taken over by women and this hurts the faith community

It appears that you wish to make this judgment from a human perspective
rather than allow God to make the judgment and submit to it.

Indeed, I believe this is a common fault in the human race and one
of the main reasons there is so much disagreement in this file.

Collis  

Note 531.58

>Indeed, I believe this is a common fault in the human race and one
>of the main reasons there is so much disagreement in this file.

Collis,

	Yeah, if we who vary could only get it right.  ;-)

Richard

re Note 531.58 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> It appears that you wish to make this judgment from a human perspective
> rather than allow God to make the judgment and submit to it.

        Collis,

        As far as I know, Mike is a human being -- and therefore the
        only way he can come to any conclusion on this subject is
        from a "human perspective."  Perhaps he can be aided by
        non-human sources, but if he is to take any mental action on
        this at all ultimately it is his human mind that must decide
        from a position that a human mind is capable of taking.

        (This is probably true for you, too, Collis, assuming you are
        human. :-}  At a minimum, your "allowing God to make the
        judgment and submit to it" is *gasp* the action of a human
        mind and hence its perspective is fundamentally human.)

        Bob

    Mike,

    Your view of God is different from mine and this difference is at the
    root of the disagreement we have.

    Our (my, your, their) opinion of God doesn't matter.  God just is and
    he doesn't take opinion polls.

    God is perfect even if he seems to us to be arbitrary, irrational, or
    prone to make absurd decrees.  God loves us all.  Jesus loved women,
    especially his mother, yet he didn't appoint women as his successors
    but could have.  God's actions are not required to be understood by
    reason in order to be evidence of his love for us.

    The equivalence of "just, fair, and loving" with the eligibility of
    women for ordination to the priesthood isn't just, fair, or loving to
    the religions which maintain this rule following the tradition
    established by Christ.

>    Thus we conclude that preventing women from ministerial roles hurts the
>    faith community.

    Disobeying God's will hurts the Christian community. Is the hurt from
    preventing women priests greater than the hurt from disobeying God? I
    assume so or God would not have set things up the way He did.

    		Alfred

Re:  .60

Good point, Bob.

I guess what I was trying to say was that we need to
openly and freely recognize this as God's role and seek
to *accept and submit* to God's authority.

This is an area where we continually fall short, particularly
those who have little evidence to objectively claim what
God is like (and who reject the revelation of God made
through the prophets).

Collis

		I've tried to consider all the points and considerations 
that have thus far been presented here.  My conclusion is that women should
not be excluded from preaching and teaching God's word.  Part of my reasoning
is because of the use of "man" in the Bible to include all of mankind.  A
good example would be "Man does not live by bread alone.".  Now if this
statement is literal, then I would wonder what women live by.  In the section
which describes the qualifications for leadership, I believe that Paul was 
talking to a specific culture at a specific time.  If we were to participate
in a "Church service" at the time of Paul, I am sure that we would wonder
at its different forms and ceremonies.  The Church must and has evolved over
time.

		I doubt that its God's will to exclude anyone.  Sould a woman
come to me and share that she has recieved a call from God to teach and preach
God's word then I would have to honor that statement.


Dave

    .49
    >			-< the example of the Levites >-
    
    *I* am not bound by Levitical Law.
    
    Richard
    

    For that matter, neither are the Levites...no Temple, precious little
    to do you know....
    
    Daniel

Re:  .65

Aha!  So you admit then that God did assign this role
to the Levites...

Collis

    >Disobeying God's will hurts the Christian community. Is the hurt from
    >preventing women priests greater than the hurt from disobeying God? I
    >assume so or God would not have set things up the way He did.

    If there is a hurt from denying women the ability to be priests, then
    that is one reason why it would clearly not be God's will.  Since God
    wishes the best for his faith community, then it would be absurd for
    Her to wish for us to do something simply for the sake of obeying Her
    even though in every other sense to obey that edict would hurt us.  I
    contend that by giving full equality to women, we are obeying God, and
    that it is humans, not God, who set up the misogynistic system in the
    first place.
    
    The basic problem here is whether or not we humans are supposed to
    throw out our reason and our conscience as the price for our faith.  I
    would say that the answer is not, and that any god that expected that
    of us would not be worthy of our worship.
    
    -- Mike

>It appears that you wish to make this judgment from a human perspective
>rather than allow God to make the judgment and submit to it.
    
    Not to beat a dead horse, but since you brought it up again, that is
    simply not true--we all seek to obey God's will.  What we disagree on
    here is what constitutes God's will, and how we determine what God's
    will is. 
    
    -- Mike

Re: .69

My apologies; I recognized how what I said would sound after
it was entered.

I continue to talk from the truth even though that truth
is not accepted by the world at large or many in this
conference.  I know that this is rather presumptious of
me and will seek to phrase my thoughts my appropriately
in the future.  I have no apology, however, for actually
believing that God has revealed his truth and that the
primary problem with us is that we won't accept it (which
is also part of His revealed truth).

>I have no apology, however, for actually
>believing that God has revealed his truth and that the
>primary problem with us is that we won't accept it (which
>is also part of His revealed truth).
    
    Nor should you apologize for having that conviction.  I say this even
    though I disagree with you.
    
    -- Mike

My understanding of my "call" to serve God in no way provides a "right" for me
to serve God that way.  I may have a talent of a beautiful voice, and everyone
around me may say that my singing blesses them and that I should have a singing
ministry, and that the faith community will be hurt if I don't sing. All of that
is irrelevant as to whether or not I should sing.  The only relevant criteria is
whether or not God wants me to use my singing as a ministry.  In fact, I'll probably
learn more about God by not being able to sing than I will by singing because keeping
quiet and not singing will be much harder.

My basic take on this issue is that I don't see any natural reason why women
shouldn't be pastors.  On the otherhand, I haven't seen any explanations of
the relevant passages of Scripture dealing with women's roles in the church that
can completely sweep aside all apparent problems in interpretation.  When I
am uncertain of an interpretation, I typically take the more conservative approach
in order to err on the safe side. 

My bottom line is that I have no rights whatsoever that I can demand from God. I
live and breathe at his mercy and anytime I start focusing on my rights within the
body of faith, I find that my eyes are no longer on him but on myself.  Anytime I
hear anyone, male or female, focusing on their right to do this or that for God, I
get suspicious that their hearts aren't in the right place.  Given our sinful nature
that is true for most of us most of the time.  8-)

--
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

re Note 531.72 by QUABBI::"[email protected]":

> My understanding of my "call" to serve God in no way provides a "right" for me
> to serve God that way.  

        I would think that if you have a "call" from God then you
        have a duty -- much more than just a "right" -- to answer
        that call.  In fact, in some sense you have no right to
        ignore the call.

        Now, obviously, you must ensure that the call really is
        God-given and not just a personal interest.  You must also be
        honest in exploring the ways to answer the call -- the fact
        that some outlets appear unattainable does not mean that all
        outlets are unattainable.

        (I believe that the rest of the body of Christ also has a
        duty, an obligation, to provide the nurturing and
        opportunity for Christians to answer God's calling in their
        lives.  I suspect that it is serious sin to thwart another's
        attempt to answer God's call.)


> The only relevant criteria is
> whether or not God wants me to use my singing as a ministry.  

        But that is what we (or I, at least) mean by a "call to serve
        God."

> My bottom line is that I have no rights whatsoever that I can demand from God. 

        I would say that we have one right -- the "right" to fulfill
        the duty imposed upon us by the calling of God.  I do not
        believe that God imposes a duty for which God doesn't provide
        the means of fulfillment.

        Bob

re: .73 Bob

Which brings us back to who God is and his revelation to us. 8-)  I may
feel called but I am not in actuality called if that calling conflicts
with who God is and his revelation to me.  David Kourash certainly feels
called and feels a duty.

It is amazing how often we end up coming back to the level of assumptions,
which I suppose, is where we should focusing all along.  Someone's
view on the issue of women clergy is rooted in their assumptions about
who God is and how he has revealed himself to us. I'm betraying some of
my assummptions by just using the word "himself". 8-)

The broad range of assumptions in this notes conference is one of the
things that makes it so interesting.  Sometimes I think that given the
difference in assumptions we're doing pretty good to continue to dialog. I
suppose that reflects our basic optimism that we can convince others and
is a measure of the depth of our convinctions in our own assummptions.

--
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

This isn't quite about women clergy, but I thought it interesting...

I saw this on NBC's _Dateline_ news magazine show

The Israeli army, which is one of the best trained in the world, uses women as 
instructors (drill sargents).  They showed women teaching recruits (or the 
equivalent, I think military service is mandatory) how to shoot, drive a tank, 
use a cannon, etc.

They started the practice when male instructors became scarce.  They found 
that using women teachers got better results than men teachers.  Some of the 
soldiers said this was because (paraphrasing) "seeing that a woman can do it, 
I've got to be able to do it at least as well".  The women interviewed say 
it's because they are simply good teachers.

FWIW,

Jim

Chapter 16 of Romans provides some insight into Paul's openness toward
women in ministry.

Paul tells the church to provide Phoebe with whatever help she needs.
The Greek word Paul uses for Phoebe is diakonos, meaning helper, servant
or deacon.  This is the same office as that assigned to Stephen.

Paul lifts up Priscilla, the woman who instructed Apollos.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^
He greets Junias (or June or Julia), a Jewish woman who was jailed with Paul,
and who was a Christian before Paul.

Several other feminine names are cited, calling special attention to them.

Shalom,
Richard

      <<< LGP30::RJF$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
===============================================================================
Note 1339.74                     Heaven's Gate                         74 of 78
ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy"                   56 lines  09-Apr-97 09:33
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: .73 (Bob)
    
    
>        Well, perhaps.  But I'll take that "confused modern thinking"
>        any day over the confused traditional thought that says that
>        regardless of one's talents, regardless of one's interests
>        and enthusiasms, one's acceptable roles are determined by
>        which sex organs one possesses.

    Keep in mind that my stance is not that women should stay home and make
    babies.  I have no problem with women CEOs, women in certain leadership 
    areas of the church, etc.  All I am saying is that spiritual leadership has
    been given to the male, and it has nothing at all to do with sex
    organs, IMO (that's just our strange way of looking at it).  
    
    The male and female mind work differently, this is a scientifically
    valid concept.  This is by design, IMO, to be complimentary.  I believe 
    this difference to be the main reasoning behind the different roles - not 
    sex organs.  I also feel that we have equal, but different, roles, 
    but that mankind, in his selfish way of looking at things, equates 
    iniquity to "different".  We put what WE want above God's word.  Yes,
    the roles are different, but each are of equal importance... it is only
    mankind that sees some form of extra importance to leadership. 
    
    Keep in mind that "leadership", in the Biblical sense, equates to
    "servant".  Jesus, our master and high "leader", came to this earth to
    serve.  He was the example of a true leader.  If you see a pastor who
    does not serve his congregation, I'll show you a pastor who is not
    doing his job. 
    
    If you were to define selfishness Biblically, it would simply be
    putting self before God.  This is why I believe that the most basic 
    motivation for women being ordained is selfishness (and I'm not saying that
    this is the mindset of those women who seek ordination... I think they
    have been decieved by modern thinking and reinterpretations of the
    Bible), as it goes against God's design.  Putting self above God's
    design is selfish.
    
    Now, if you can prove to me that the Bible does not give spiritual
    leadership to the male, I will rethink my position.
    
>        Where they (and I) would disagree with you is in the
>        traditional picking-and-choosing of what Scripture to apply
>        literally and for all time vs. what Scripture is symbolic or
>        just for a particular time.  That traditional
>        picking-and-choosing has almost always been done by males.

    What picking and choosing?  Perhaps if you entered scripture that
    supports women being ordained, we could clarify this.  I've yet to see
    this, and have seen scripture that counters this claim quite directly.
        
    Our problem today is that we see iniquity where ultimately, none
    exists.
    
    
    -steve


      <<< LGP30::RJF$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
===============================================================================
Note 1339.75                     Heaven's Gate                         75 of 78
THOLIN::TBAKER "Flawed To Perfection"                 45 lines  09-Apr-97 10:02
                              -< Let her speak >-                              
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE: .74 Steve

    I don't see things quite like you do.

>    The male and female mind work differently, this is a scientifically
>    valid concept.  This is by design, IMO, to be complimentary.

    If it is significantly different I would think that women might 
    like to hear another woman's perspective from the pulpit.  At 
    least in our church, women make up a large proportion of the
    congregation.

>    If you see a pastor who
>    does not serve his congregation, I'll show you a pastor who is not
>    doing his job. 

    No argument there.
    
>    If you were to define selfishness Biblically, it would simply be
>    putting self before God.  This is why I believe that the most basic 
>    motivation for women being ordained is selfishness (and I'm not saying that
>    this is the mindset of those women who seek ordination... I think they
>    have been decieved by modern thinking and reinterpretations of the
>    Bible), as it goes against God's design.  Putting self above God's
>    design is selfish.

    Selfishness is (obviously) not just a female trait.  I know of
    a female minister who's there to push her agenda (I used to date
    her sister).  But there are plenty of men with equally shadey
    motivations.

    If a woman is called to the ministry and burns to spread God's
    word I think it would be a sin to get in her way.  Let her
    speak.  Not as just a woman, but as a child of God.

    I acknowledge there is a greater *tendency* for men to go into
    the clergy.  But to deny someone the pulpit because "her brain
    works differently" seems silly.  I dare say Jesus' thought 
    processes were not the same as most of us men.  Women are no
    more qualified than men, nor are they less qualified.
    
    The "separate but equal" argument has been shown to not work.
    If someone is called by the spirit, let him/her speak.
    
    Tom


      <<< LGP30::RJF$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
===============================================================================
Note 1339.76                     Heaven's Gate                         76 of 78
ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy"                   48 lines  09-Apr-97 11:12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .75 (Tom)
    
>    If it is significantly different I would think that women might 
>    like to hear another woman's perspective from the pulpit.  At 
>    least in our church, women make up a large proportion of the
>    congregation.

    There are women leaders in my church... they do share their perspective
    in their respective groups.  It is the same in most churches.
    
>    Selfishness is (obviously) not just a female trait.  
    
    No question about that
    
>    If a woman is called to the ministry and burns to spread God's
>    word I think it would be a sin to get in her way.  Let her
>    speak.  Not as just a woman, but as a child of God.

    No one is stopping her from speaking.  No one is getting in her way. 
    Pastoral leadership is not the only form of ministry, nor is it the
    only way one can fulfill their calling to spread God's word, should this be
    where the Holy Spirit leads.  I suggest that those women who "burn for
    the ministry" may be deceived into believing that their calling is one
    of pastoral leadership, rather than what God is really calling them to
    do.  No doubt that God calls women to ministry... but He would not call
    them to do something that goes against the roles He sets forth in the
    Bible.   
    
>    I acknowledge there is a greater *tendency* for men to go into
>    the clergy.  But to deny someone the pulpit because "her brain
>    works differently" seems silly.  
    
    That's not what I was saying. 
    
>    The "separate but equal" argument has been shown to not work.
>    If someone is called by the spirit, let him/her speak.
 
    In man's laws, no.  In God's laws, it does indeed work.  You can't
    compare early US law to God's plan, it is an apples to oranges
    comparison.
    
    As I said in my previous note, the modern mind-set on leadership is
    unbiblical.  If God ordained separate, but equally important, roles for
    men and women, who are we to say it is unfair?  We do not see the big
    picture.  The wisdom of man is foolishness to the Lord.  
    
    
    -steve


      <<< LGP30::RJF$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
===============================================================================
Note 1339.77                     Heaven's Gate                         77 of 78
LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN" lines  09-Apr-97 11:15
                 -< there is no need for separate scripture >-                 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re Note 1339.74 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     What picking and choosing?  Perhaps if you entered scripture that
>     supports women being ordained, we could clarify this.  

        The scripture that supports women being ordained is the same
        scripture that supports men being ordained.  The 2000 years
        of picking and choosing is the denying that this is so.

        Bob


      <<< LGP30::RJF$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
===============================================================================
Note 1339.78                     Heaven's Gate                         78 of 78
LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN" lines  09-Apr-97 11:28
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re Note 1339.74 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     The male and female mind work differently, this is a scientifically
>     valid concept.  This is by design, IMO, to be complimentary.  

        Since you are willing to invoke scientific evidence, if there
        were a way to demonstrate that a particular woman "thought
        like a man", a test of some sort, would that woman be
        qualified (in your opinion) for ordination?  Or would her
        genitals still disqualify her?

        Would a man whose thought patterns were shown to be typical
        for a woman nevertheless be qualified for ordination?

        Bob

        P.S.  Some food for thought -- about 1 in 2000 babies is born
        with ambiguous external genitalia.  There have undoubtedly
        been a good number of female priests in 2000 years.


    I don't think the brain process is the whole story, it was used as an
    example to highlight my train of thought on this matter.  I'm not going
    to start picking nits regarding this particular aspect, as it takes
    away from the main factor in this issue.
    
    The main consideration for me is what God's word says.  I may not
    understand all the reasoning behind it, but that does not make the
    roles established therein wrong.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .80 (Bob)
    
>        The scripture that supports women being ordained is the same
>        scripture that supports men being ordained.  The 2000 years
>        of picking and choosing is the denying that this is so.

    Which scriptures are you speaking of?  Perhaps if you posted them in
    context, we can discuss how they have been misinterpreted over the
    years.
    
    
    -steve

    Steve,
    
    And who chose to put into "god's Word" what was put into it?  Women at
    that time were notoriously low in status, one reason that you could
    rape a woman and then marry her, and have it be an acceptable marriage,
    see Leviticus again.  Women were mainly considered chattel in biblical
    Times, particularly by those who followed the religions of the first
    books of the bible.  It is only recently that women in most western
    "Civilizations" have not been considered chattel.  (see the Declaration
    of Sentiments from the late 1800's in this country for another example.)  
     
    The Bible was and still is used to keep women from full participation
    in, not only the churches, but the rest of the world.  It also is used
    to lock men into specific roles, regardless of how suited a person is
    for those roles, therby denying both genders of full participation in
    life, and spirituality.  To me this is not of God(dess) but of human
    origin.  She wouldn't create people of different interests other than
    their reproductive roles without a reason, and I don't believe
    god(dess) is a sadistic, petty, jealous person using people as pawns in
    her own chess game.  YMMV, but I believe we were all created in his/her
    image, not that men were a fough draft and perfection came with the
    second model, or that she neede a human scapegoat for the games that
    she began with the universe in the garden.  
    
    Now I know Patricia and a few other women were run out of this file for
    such attitudes, but such are mine and I am staying for a while, as this
    file doesn't say Christianity is a requirement for participating. 
    there is a file I don't note in where people can sit and
    debate who is the most filled with God(dess), Gospel, and has the right
    interpretation of the bible, as well as the correct translation.  I
    find it an unpleasant place to even read only most of the time.  
    
    meg
    
    

    I thought Patricia left DEC.

    Patricia did leave digital, however, she left this file sometime before
    she left, expressing her frustrations.  Reading her entries on Paul, I
    can definitely see why.
    
    meg

        
    > Patricia did leave digital, however, she left this file sometime before   
    > she left, expressing her frustrations.

    This is not the same as being "run out of this file." Patricia was
    supported by several noters and respected by many more. She, like *all
    of us*, had her detractors. She may have "shaken the dust from her
    sandals and moved on," but she was not driven out by the noters of
    the conference.
    
    Eric

 Z   Now I know Patricia and a few other women were run out of this file for
 Z   such attitudes, but such are mine and I am staying for a while, as
 Z   this file doesn't say Christianity is a requirement for participating.
    
    Meg, Patricia and I were at obvious ends of the pendulum...but I made
    it a point to communicate with her offline...frequently I might add.  I
    made an attempt to meet her at LKG but unfortunately she wasn't in, and
    I sent her Christmas Cards every year.  She pretty much responded in
    kind.  I also met...gosh...I already forgot her name...worked at LKG,
    lived in Nashua, blonde....boyfriend over seas...anyway, I can tell you
    she was not one to be reckoned with, and she wasn't easily brought
    down...she never was!  I admired her ability to let things go over her.
    
    Patricia became frustrated, understandably, because she came in here
    with expectations that weren't met.  That's the nature of dialog.  
    
    -Jack

    Cindy Painter?

    Thank you ...yes!

    .84 (Meg)
    
>    And who chose to put into "god's Word" what was put into it?  
    
    God did... which is why it is called "God's Word".  You can choose to
    believe that it is fiction if you like, but it is the foundation of the
    Christian faith.
    
>    Women at
>    that time were notoriously low in status, one reason that you could
>    rape a woman and then marry her, and have it be an acceptable marriage,
>    see Leviticus again. 
    
    They were not low in status because God demanded this in His word. 
    They were treated lowly because of man's misuse of scripture.  I've not
    read a thing in the Bible that states men are to "lord" over women, nor
    that they should treat them as second class citizens.
    
    In regards to the passage in question (in Leviticus), I read this a bit
    differently that you do, but I'm not willing to stray that far from the
    topic at hand.
     
>    The Bible was and still is used to keep women from full participation
>    in, not only the churches, but the rest of the world.  
    
    Such as... ? (besides not being ordained as ministers)  
    
    
    -steve

re Note 531.83 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     re: .80 (Bob)
>     
> >        The scripture that supports women being ordained is the same
> >        scripture that supports men being ordained.  The 2000 years
> >        of picking and choosing is the denying that this is so.
> 
>     Which scriptures are you speaking of?  Perhaps if you posted them in
>     context, we can discuss how they have been misinterpreted over the
>     years.
  
        All of them.  All the scriptures that support the ordination
        of anybody support not just the ordination of men but the
        ordination of women, too.

        As I said before, there are no scriptures specifically
        authorizing the ordination of women precisely because there
        are no scriptures authorizing only the ordination of men.

        You demand the former only because you misunderstand the
        latter.

        Bob

    Scripture was used in the church I was dragged to as a kid to keep
    women from teaching Sunday school classes to coed grops when the kids
    were older than 12.  something about women teaching men out of Paul's
    doctrine.  
    
    "Weeellllll little lady, you can clean up the coffee mess we made,
    teach in the elementary and nursery sunday classes, and have more sons
    to be improtant.  Just don't try to mess around on an equal footing
    with men, as god will get you for that."  Now maybe to some people
    (most notably men) that is an ok attitude.  I dont find it to be so.  I
    have met far to many talented priestesses and midwives, as well as
    clergy for some christian churches and even a few men called to these
    postitions to believe that She doesn't want full participation from
    each of her consdious creations.
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    Sorry you had such a bad experience with your local church.
    
    Now that you are into adulthood, are you ready to search and see that
    women teach Sunday School and take part in committees and board
    meetings and all other facets of operations.  In other words, expand
    your horizons and see not all churches are like the one you
    experienced...or is it that you just don't believe Jesus was the Son of
    God...which is the real crux of the issue here.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    You forget, I have found god(dess) and am quite happy with my spiritual
    path.  I found her as an adult, and will continue on my path with her. 
    I don't ask you to come to circle, don't ask me to go back to a place
    thaat has no respect for my path and little for my children (they are
    all girls)  
    
    meg

    I've had bad experiences with denominations too in the past.  I think
    it is important to not let people interfere with your relationship with
    Jesus Christ.  People will always let you down.  Jesus Christ won't.

    Rev. Bonnie Evans is the pastor at the UCC church in Mason, NH.

    Apparently the UUC doesn't think being female is a handicap.

    Tom

	I agree with you 100%, Mike!

    btw - my wife and I were married by a woman pastor at an Assembly of
    God church.  She and her husband co-pastored the church, but she spoke
    in most of the sermons.  Quite the fire and brimstone gal too ;-)

    A pastor is an undershepherd of a flock.  It is a picture of Christ's
    relationship with the church.  
    
    The Father is "supposed" to be the undershepherd of the family.  This
    includes meeting the spiritual needs of his spouse and children.  
    
    My wife is far more disciplined than I am in prayer.  This doesn't mean
    I am excused from needing to set an example...although she is more
    regulated than I am.  So ability is gender neutral...but a deviating
    from the role is a deviation from the picture.
    
    -Jack

re Note 531.100 by ASGMKA::MARTIN:

>     A pastor is an undershepherd of a flock.  It is a picture of Christ's
>     relationship with the church.  
>     
>     The Father is "supposed" to be the undershepherd of the family.  This
>     includes meeting the spiritual needs of his spouse and children.  
  
        You know Jack, I can accept this as perhaps a "norm" -- as a
        desirable state when certain qualifications are met.

        What I can't accept is "no women clergy" as an absolute
        principle, in which no woman, regardless of her
        qualifications, call, or demonstrated ability in any or all
        clerical roles, can participate -- and the presumption that
        any man, regardless of qualifications, is more qualified than
        any woman for any clerical position.  (You get livid when
        people talk in support of affirmative action -- why doesn't
        this get you livid!?)

        If God had intended such an absolute prohibition, I would
        imagine God is perfectly capable of commanding it, rather
        than simply suggesting it via such indirect (and ambiguous)
        evidence as the lack of a female in the twelve.

        Bob

    Just adding to the count of women clergy and their denominations.  I am
    a member, in fact I am senior warden, of an Episcopal parish in
    Merrimack, NH.  We have a woman priest who has been with us 8 1/2
    years.  I know exactly how long because my son was her first baptism in
    our parish and he will be 9 in September.  There are also women serving
    in Nashua, Mancester, Plymouth and other towns within this (NH)
    diocese.  There are two canons working for the bishop, one female and
    one male.  

    Bob:
    
    As far as the Affirmative Action thing, I'm inclined to get livid only
    because it is an example of government talking out of both ends of it's
    mouth...and besides it is funded publically and is inherently racist
    and sexist.  However, I do agree with you that God could very easily
    command it.  No doubt Deborah, a woman of the Old Testament, was a
    judge in Israel and a very good one at that.  It does happen and it can
    happen.  God can use anybody.
    
    If you go back to the curse in Genesis, it says that a woman's desire
    will be for her husband.  I take this to mean that the woman will want
    to be in the position of Spiritual leadership in the family unit...what
    other possible way could it make sense...especially since so many men
    are sleeping on the couch these days?  All this to say that sometimes,
    God gives a spouse a position they are less able to handle so they
    HAVE to rely on the other spouse.  
    
    -Jack

    Congratulations Jack,
    
    You have totally muddies the issue and written the most confusing note
    full of stereotypes and mythological justifications I have ever seen.
    
    You exemplary exemption has you on the couch these days?  Is it the job
    change or your comments like what was in that last note?
    
    meg

re Note 531.103 by ASGMKA::MARTIN:

>     If you go back to the curse in Genesis, it says that a woman's desire
>     will be for her husband.  

        It could simply mean what it says -- a wife will have a
        strong physical/emotional attachment to her husband.

        (I imagine if most of the theologians over time had been
        women, instead of men, much thought would have gone into the
        question "Why is this a curse, and what would it have been
        like without this curse?"  Instead, I can imagine many men
        thinking "Desiring her husband can't be the curse, therefore
        it must mean something entirely different.")

        Bob

    And if we didn't have a strong emotional/physical attachment to our
    spouses (regardless of gender) think of wht a state the world would be
    in today.
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    I fail to see why you are getting hot under the collar.  If anything I
    picked the safer of the two choices.  What possible motive could I have
    for stating part of the curse being a woman's desire would be for her
    husband?  This would sanctimoniously put men in a position of being
    craved after.  This simply would not do for the National Organization
    of Women!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    One day you may learn to think before you note, or at least not discuss
    things you obviously know NOTHING about!  When that day comes, look me
    up.  Until then, I am afraid that this latest bigotted statement from
    total ignorance around NOW (of which I and several family members,
    including two NEPHEWS are or have been members) has finally decided me
    that you will never value differences and will continue spouting the
    sort of thing you must have learned at your parents' knees.  Further
    noting from me to you would only get my notes deleted or worse. 
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    You're probably correct in that your perception of me will undoubtedly
    stay this way.  It is obviously no secret to you that there is
    certainly a perception of mistrust for groups like NOW and Planned
    Parenthood.  I have always, and still maintain the position that the
    valdiff groups you so admire cleave strongly to the mandate of
    conformity, not diversity.  
    
    May I remind the readers that this is all a matter of whose ox is being
    gored...a catchy statement Meg introduced me to.  See, I don't think
    like Meg so therefore, I must be wrong and she must be right.
    
    Meg, I calls em as I sees em.  Planned Parenthood and other groups you
    affiliate with over the years have done a remarkably poor PR job for
    themselves.  So don't be looking for demons behind every rock.  
    
    -Jack

>    valdiff groups you so admire cleave strongly to the mandate of
>    conformity, not diversity.  

    Are the groups you belong to less dedicated to conformity?

    Tom

 ZZ    Are the groups you belong to less dedicated to conformity?
    
    Well, the local church is the biggest organization we belong to.  We
    are both strong conformers and small conformers.  We are mandated by
    Pauls admonishment to the Church in Rome...that being...
    
    "...and be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the
    renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is holy and acceptable
    and perfect."  
    
    We as a church are supposed to be conformed to the image of Christ. 
    This doesn't always happen, but it is something that is aspired for.
    The local church, at least ours, does not force membership upon anybody.  
    It gives specific guidelines as to what is required for membership...so
    in that sense, yes, we voluntarily conform to what is beneficial to the
    local church.  
    
    We are mandated to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations.
    People need to understand, as I have, that not everybody is coming from
    the same vantage point.  I can certainly understand why that particular
    verse would annoy the socks off of anybody...but the verse is there and
    cannot be ignored! 
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 531.109 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| certainly a perception of mistrust for groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood.

	And it is that way because of people like you who will not listen to
what is being said, and then start talking out your butt. If you don't know
something, then state it. Don't talk like you do. So on topics of women,
elderly, gays, etc, don't talk until you learn how to listen.

>   and then start talking out your butt.

    Please, can we use terms that are a little less crude?

    Thank you,

    Tom

    Jack effortlessly represents the mindset of many, many people today.
    It would be less than honest to pretend that it is not pervasive.
    
    Richard
    

    .112
    
    Glen,
    
    I would ask the same as Tom.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    Eventually the most hard headed of us tire of confusing some people
    with the facts.
    
    meg

    I thought only Ace Ventura could do that!

.116
    
>    Eventually the most hard headed of us tire of confusing some people
>    with the facts.

Amen.  I'm not even sure that education is the solution, although I think
it is part of the solution.

Richard

Z    And it is that way because of people like you who will not listen to
Z    what is being said, and then start talking out your butt. If you don't
Z    know something, then state it. Don't talk like you do. So on topics of
Z   women, elderly, gays, etc, don't talk until you learn how to listen.
    
    People like me huh??!  Always somebody to point a finger at eh
    Glen...always somebody elses fault.  
    
    The categories you place people in so nice and conveniently...in the
    case of my supposed devaluing, we would have to touch on these
    individually.  I can unequivocally tell you this is of course a case of
    you seeking out a boogeyman behind every tree.  
    
    As far as I'm concerned, I see plenty of misrepresentations coming from
    all sides of the spectrum.  As far as learning how to listen, yes Glen,
    I do need to learn to listen better.  What I would really appreciate
    though is listening to cognitive ideas on life.  See Glen, this is ALL
    diversity is about...the diversity of ideas.  If I express a view and
    it is based on false presumptions, then the REAL diversity...not the
    garbage you tout so often, the truth of a matter is what brings
    diversified value.   Much of your diversity philosophy is of course
    based on the false supposition that if person A belongs to a category,
    then never mind the fact that person A is insightful, inventive,
    intelligent, and all the other attributes that make a well rounded
    individual...said person A in your book is a victim, and will always be
    one.  Unfortunately Glen you shall not see this for a long time because
    you have been programmed into thinking that achievement should be based
    on class and not on merit.
    
    -Jack
    
    

    RE: .116

>    Eventually the most hard headed of us tire of confusing some people
>    with the facts.

    Well, isn't that what this conference is all about?

    And our biggest question/debate is "What *are* the facts?"
    Are they perceived in scripture or with our own senses or both?

    You seem to echo the frustration voiced by Mike and Jeff.

    Tom

    Meg:
    
    Try to understand...if I went over to the secular humanism note, I
    wouldn't be on my turf.  The fact I originally brought up was about a
    part of the curse in Genesis...to which you have provided absolutely
    no substantive response...only an indictment through hissy fitting and
    accusation.  Your response on what the verse means is appreciated.
    
    -Jack

    I just hid my note in hopes that things cool down.

    Tom

    Jack,
    
    	I've got to admit, I found your exegesis of the Genesis story so
    ...well...remarkable that I still have no idea where to start.  And
    I really don't think it would do any good for me to start at all.
    
    	Sometimes, I deliberately wait for someone more articulate than
    myself to respond.
    
    Richard
    

    My exegesis was simply an interpretation that has been touted before. 
    It would seem those who reeeeaaaally value diversity would reject it
    but not ridicule it.  Problem is the interpretation doesn't fit at all
    into our politically correct paradigm...understandably so.
    
    Bob has given a good explanation of what the verse might mean.  Any
    other possibilities we can value here?
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 531.113 by THOLIN::TBAKER "Flawed To Perfection" >>>

| Please, can we use terms that are a little less crude?

	That was less cruder than what I was thinking.

| <<< Note 531.119 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| People like me huh??!  Always somebody to point a finger at eh
| Glen...always somebody elses fault.

	Jack, YOU don't listen to what others are saying as if you did, you
wouldn't say � of what you do. There are others that also fit the bill. But I
sometimes think you wrote it. 

| you seeking out a boogeyman behind every tree.

	Jack, the catagory is based on your own words, actions. So the catagory
is based on fact, not the boogyman. 

| As far as I'm concerned, I see plenty of misrepresentations coming from
| all sides of the spectrum.  

	And you would be correct. Myself included.

| it is based on false presumptions, then the REAL diversity...not the garbage 
| you tout so often, the truth of a matter is what brings diversified value.   

	Jack.... you say the same false presumptions over and over, even after
numerous people have corrected you. And when it reaches a point of saturation,
then yeah, you get the rough response. To not know something isn't bad. It's
when you have been corrected countless times and ignore everything that it gets 
bad.

| said person A in your book is a victim, and will always be one.  

	Here is a classic example. You always bring it up, I always correct
you, and you continue to spew the same thing. Thank you for making it so easy
to show.




Glen

    Well Glen, instead of saying your usual, "it's not a bad concept, it
    just needs to be fixed", which by the way is tiring, why don't you
    offer some good ways to fix it.  
    
    Don't worry Glen, I can answer it for you.  The fact is you can't fix
    that which is inherently racist and evil.  It simply exists and it
    feeds off of society.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, do you plan on answering -.2?

    Be glad to...which particular segment do you want me to answer?  Most
    of your prejudice toward me is carried over from Soapbox and I don't
    think it appropriate to carry it here.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, it doesn't matter where you say anything. You do it everywhere
and all the time. Most of the time it involves women. 

    Glen, examples please.  You obviously know the Mrs. Dougherty schtick
    is a cute way of cutting on Kennedy voters.  This isn't a gender thing. 
    Anybody can be a Mrs. Dougherty.
    
    Cite any example that is a seperate jab from an ensuing discussion.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, you demean women. Look at all the stuff you go into with
feminists. Not cool. You catagorize women all the time. You can't help it
because it is part of your make-up. It seems now your sister in-law is a hit.
Before that it was your mother inlaw. There is always Pat Schroeder, etc. You
blame them for all the womens problems. You even go as far and say women are
ruining the "fine institution" called the citidel, west point, etc. 



Glen

.125

>    My exegesis was simply an interpretation that has been touted before. 

I don't doubt it.  I can only imagine where.

>    It would seem those who reeeeaaaally value diversity would reject it
>    but not ridicule it.  Problem is the interpretation doesn't fit at all
>    into our politically correct paradigm...understandably so.

It fails to fit a bit more than what you snearingly label political correctness.

But perhaps you're right.  I value diversity.  And I do reject your
interpretation.
    
>    Bob has given a good explanation of what the verse might mean.  Any
>    other possibilities we can value here?
    
There are other possibilities.

Richard

    .133
    
    Jack doesn't demean women in general, he demeans the more extreme aspects 
    of the feminist movement.  
    
    
    -steve

    Richard:
    
    Consider it more AN interpretation rather than my interpretation.  The
    discussion is appropiate for this string.
    
    -Jack

Z    Jack, you demean women. Look at all the stuff you go into with
Z    feminists. Not cool. You catagorize women all the time. 
    
    Glen, as I said before, this goes on with just about everybody in
    notes.  If it isn't women, it's Falwell, Dobson, Reagan, Republicans,
    or whoever.  You try to make me the exception rather than the rule but
    as I've repeated before, this is a matter of one's ox being gored and
    suddenly they're shrieking from the rooftops.  Going on...
    
ZZ    You can't help it because it is part of your make-up. 
    
    Since it is not genetic, I will have to assume that your inference is
    that of upbringing.  You would have to know my parents to fully comment
    on such a matter.  
    
ZZ    It seems now your sister in-law is a hit.
    
    My SIL is a hit because she is and always has been the object of grief
    in my life.  Two days after the funeral of my MIL, Barbara asked
    Michele to meet her at Mom's to get some pictures and jewelry.  Michele
    went down there and the messages she got were, "I hate you" and "I'll
    never forgive you for not telling me about mom's ankle".  We noticed it
    was blue a few weeks ago and continually got on her to go to a doctor. 
    Mom would cancel the appointments when we would make them.  Suffice to
    say, SIL is and always has been useless in such matters, and I have
    typically been the bail out person.  She is dealing with divorce,
    troubled children, and frankly Glen, I believe she has unfinished
    business with her mother.  Hence forth the I hate you's are pouring
    out.  
    
ZZ    Before that it was your mother inlaw. 
    
    Glen, the only two outward frustrations I've expressed with my MIL were
    as follows.
    
    A. She supported Ted Kennedy who stood against just about every
       ideology she believed in.  This is not a gender issue.  This is an
       ignorance issue.  She shouldn't have voted in my opinion.
    
    B. As mentioned above, she was a tough person to take care of, and I 
       took care of her a whole year after hubby died.  She had a broken
       hip that year to boot and Michele's hereditary disease came to light.
       All this to say you have to understand there is alot more to the 
       equation.  Michele with three babies, two diseases to keep on top
       of, a vindictive sister, and her mother who is recently widowed and 
       confined for the most part to a chair.  This was 1994 for me, the 
       year from hell.
    
ZZ    There is always Pat Schroeder, etc. 
    
    My passion against her was more in the interest of a strong military,
    not her gender.  Don't worry Glen, I dislike many democrats equally. 
    She's the target because she was outspoken!  I think the likes of 
    Daschle and other politicians equally detestable.
    
ZZ    You blame them for all the womens problems. You even go as far and say
ZZ    women are ruining the "fine institution" called the citidel, west point, 
ZZ    etc. 
    
    This of course is loaded with ambiguities but I'll touch briefly.  As
    far as West Point, I believe it to be an exemplary institution for both
    men and women.  The Citadel will most likely maintain it's high
    standards.  As I repeated for your benefit Glen...over and over, I
    believe the idea of single gendered education should be
    maintained...especially for schools like Wellesley, Smith, Holyoke,
    Vassar, and other exemplary female schools.  I believe it is the
    honorable thing for men NOT to apply to these schools and likewise, I
    believe is the honorable thing for women NOT to apply to all male
    schools.  
    
    As far as blaming the feminists for all womens problems, this is an
    untruth.  I believe in any and every organization, including pro life
    groups you will have your fringe members.  When these members go to the
    extreme, they erode the integrity of the cause.  I believe the feminist
    movement (and I've mentioned this here on many occasion), has made
    tremendous strides for equal rights, which by the way I am all for. 
    What I do say however is that the women's movement needs to seek new
    and fresh leadership as the Gloria Steinams of the past need to go off
    into the sunset.  While the times have changed, their paradigms have
    remained the same.  Not just them...The Jesse Jacksons of the world are
    still living in the 60's.   
    
    Glen, everybody will have a Barbara (my SIL) in their lives...at one
    time or another.  I'm just trying to give you a better picture of why
    my SIL seems to be the target and why my MIL was in the past.  This is
    gender neutral.
    
    -Jack

   Don't get me wrong, Jack.  As fascinated as I am about your
   sister in law, I'm not  sure I understand what she has to
   do with this conference.

   Maybe I haven't been paying attention.
   
   Tom

    
    Where is the biblical reference for the probation of woman as
    ministers? And why is the reference seen as universal and for all time
    rather than specific to a given community?

    Eric

    Tom:
    
    My SIL has nothing to do with our discussion but since Glen handed a
    number of indictments on me in the conference, I felt it necessary to
    answer to each of them 1 by 1!!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 531.135 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>

| Jack doesn't demean women in general, he demeans the more extreme aspects
| of the feminist movement.

	His mother inlaw, sister inlaw, women in the citidel, any woman who
shows strength, are all of the extreme feminist movement? Be real. He devaules,
demeans women, period. Oh, I forgot about the elderly women as well.

| <<< Note 531.137 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| Glen, as I said before, this goes on with just about everybody in notes.  

	And it doesn't make it right. 

| Since it is not genetic, I will have to assume that your inference is
| that of upbringing.  

	Jack, I don't know where you learned it. But you certainly have it
wrong in most cases with women.

| My SIL is a hit because she is and always has been the object of grief
| in my life.  

	Is this where I can throw back at you, "It's always the other person's
fault" stuff you threw at me?

| men and women.  The Citadel will most likely maintain it's high
| standards.  

	And when did this view of yours change?

    You, my friend, read into Jack's notes that which your prejudice tells
    you is there.  I've read Jack's notes, and he uses his MIL, SIL and
    other individuals as examples of a certain mentality or problem.  He does 
    not demean women wholesale, specifically, as you suggest.

	Then why do I keep getting mail from women who think the same thing and
are happy that someone is finally saying something? 

    Because more than one individual (especially when they are apt to be of
    a different ideology than Jack) reads into Jack's notes, does not equate
    to you being correct in your conclusion.  
    
    Perhaps Jack needs to work on his approach, but his words, at face
    value, do not demean women wholesale.  

    what about retail?

    Well now, that's a different story, perhaps.  8^)

| <<< Note 531.145 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>

| Because more than one individual (especially when they are apt to be of
| a different ideology than Jack) reads into Jack's notes, does not equate
| to you being correct in your conclusion.

	Ahhhh..... so I guess it could also be said that if you agree that Jack
is not demeaning women, that you yourself do as well?

.148

>	Ahhhh..... so I guess it could also be said that if you agree that Jack
>is not demeaning women, that you yourself do as well?

Glen,

	While I understand your frustration, I have to tell you that this
approach will tend to alienate rather than to persuade or convince.

Richard

	Actually, there was supposed to be a smiley on it. 

    Hey...Glen and I have been down this path a million times!! :-)  
    
    I could sit here and tell you that Glen is certainly speaking from a
    prejudice...I could tell you that Glen's perpetual PC'ness has
    floundered his ability to be objective...I could, but I won't! :-)
    
    As I stated in detail a few replies back, single gendered school
    charters should be respected...both male and female, courses offered to
    "women only" at Wellesley should have their charter respected! 
    Amazing...I am promoting an Affirmative Action program here and Glen is
    giving me resistance...baffling!

    richard,
    
    I know Glen is frustrated.  When you have corrected someone on
    intentional misinformation regarding groups.  have ponted out the
    strawwoman, feminist, person-of-color, organization..... fallacies to a
    person and they ask not bto be confused with the facts, and continue to
    relay false information against neighbors even knowing it is false,
    sometimes frustration leads a person to be less than nice.  
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    Feel free to specify some examples.  Glen did such a lousy job that
    perhaps you can do better.  
    
    -Jack

|    I know Glen is frustrated.  When you have corrected someone on
|    intentional misinformation regarding groups.  have ponted out the
|    strawwoman, feminist, person-of-color, organization..... fallacies to a
|    person and they ask not bto be confused with the facts, and continue to
|    relay false information against neighbors even knowing it is false,
|    sometimes frustration leads a person to be less than nice.  
    
    Change 1 sentence in this (line 3) and you can apply this to the
    treatment of Christians in today's world as well.

    By the way Meg, "strawwoman" is a non word...in other words, it is cute
    but it is not based on any kind of root from German, latin, or greek.  
    
    -Jack

    That's why Judy Garland got the lead role.

    jack,
    
    If you can't remember the times you have been corrected regarding
    Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health clinics, NOW (and not
    just by me) , referring to what a better world this would be if some
    people would remember their "place" and not work to change their lot in
    life, education or jobs, people of different orientations, refering to
    renaming Pat Schroeder, Hillary clinton, and belittleing their
    successes, then I have no more to say at all to you.  
    
    Being the member of a minority religion, I am probably more fully aware
    of the discrimination against people of difference, christian or no.  I
    have also seen how people who claim christianity are perfectly willing
    to call others who claim christianity to be not so.  JW's, Quakers,
    UU's, mormons, catholics, anglicans, fundamentalists all seem to come
    under fire by other groups as being less than close to their god
    somehow.  Go figure.
    
    meg
    

    <--  Taking the easy way out, eh?  If you are going to cast
    accusations, then you should be able to back it up with more than
    heresay.  Your impression of what Jack writes rarely matches that of
    mine.
    
    Jack does need to work on his delivery when addressing those of
    different ideologies, though.  8^)  

    Steve,
    
    I prefer not to discuss other files in one file, unlike some other
    people.  Jack has been made fully aware of his voiced untruths about
    certain groups and has even admitted he didn't know certain things
    about them, but then justifies his untruths by saying that the group(s)
    have lousy PR.  Well, when the only things you read only cast things in
    a bad light, and you refuse to even listen to facts, it is your
    business.  When one continues to spout untruths after having had the
    full turths explained to them, then it is running up against some
    stones with writing on them hauled off a mountain side, and recorded in
    the history of the Jews.
    
    meg

Z    If you can't remember the times you have been corrected regarding
Z    Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health clinics, NOW (and not
Z    just by me) , referring to what a better world this would be if some
Z    people would remember their "place" and not work to change their lot in
Z    life, education or jobs, people of different orientations, refering to
Z    renaming Pat Schroeder, Hillary clinton, and belittleing their
Z    successes, then I have no more to say at all to you.  
 
Meg, deal with it.  Politicians are despised by a segment of the population
regardless of how well meaninged and honorable they are.  Reagan is still
despised to this day by the left wyng of society and Abraham Lincoln was 
referred to as a contemptable babboon.  You're a fool if you believe I am an 
isolated individual.  Hillary Clinton is not well liked by a large segment of
the voting population and neither is Patsy Schroeder.  Why??  Well Meg, people
don't like to be talked down to and condescended to.  It's human nature.

Yes, I've been corrected at times regarding things....so?  I've seen you also
corrected, and you still maintain the same paradigms for your passions as I
do for mine.  And yes, PP's public relations stinks.  From the founder to its
present existence.  

   
Z    Being the member of a minority religion, I am probably more fully aware
Z    of the discrimination against people of difference, christian or no.  I
Z    have also seen how people who claim christianity are perfectly willing
Z    to call others who claim christianity to be not so.  

And if you had any knowlege of New Testament, you would find that Jesus warned
us to detect wolves among the fold.  You will also find this exhotation coming
from Paul, John the Apostle, and Jude.  Testing the spirits is a part of 
the faith Meg.  Where did you ever come up with a silly notion that Christianity
was an all inclusive faith.  Many are called but few are chosen...Jesus said 
this, not me!

Z    JW's, Quakers, UU's, mormons, catholics, anglicans, fundamentalists all 
Z    seem to come under fire by other groups as being less than close to their 
Z    god somehow.  Go figure.
 
Under fire??  Meg, you make this sound like a sport of some kind...like I 
have nothing better to do with my time than to finally say, "Nyah Nyah...I'm
right you're wrong I win haaa ha.ha.ha.ha...(tongue stick out)!.  Of course
we're all under fire Meg...that's what dialog is all about!  Sorry, I don't
like the song Kumbayaa!

-Jack
    

    Jack,
    
    It is Pat, NOT Patsy Schroeder, as you know and have been corrected
    before.  
    
    Your statements on PP are perilously close to bearing false witness. 
    Especially since your ignorance has been corrected multiple times.  
    
    someday I do hope you find the love of your god, it will do your soul
    and mind some good.  Until then I wish you well, but feel I have
    exhausted any rationalization I could use for attempting to communicate
    with you.
    
    meg

.152

>    sometimes frustration leads a person to be less than nice.  

And I confess I am not free from having committed this sin at times myself.

Richard

.159

>    I prefer not to discuss other files in one file, unlike some other
>    people.

A commendable policy.

Richard

.162

>    It is Pat, NOT Patsy Schroeder, as you know and have been corrected
>    before.  

As you may know, we owe referring to her as "Patsy" to "Rush and the
Dittoheads."

These guys, of course, *never* talk down to anybody who's not like them.

Richard

 ZZ    Your statements on PP are perilously close to bearing false witness.
    
    Meg, I find this to be incredulous, considering the negative view much
    of society in general has regarding the integrity of Planned
    Parenthood.  They've done some stupid things in the past and are
    obviously using the schools to promote an agenda...not to mention other
    mediums like Public Television.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 531.155 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| By the way Meg, "strawwoman" is a non word...in other words, it is cute
| but it is not based on any kind of root from German, latin, or greek.

	Jack, you have an example that you yourself provided. 

| <<< Note 531.165 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>


| Meg, I find this to be incredulous, considering the negative view much
| of society in general has regarding the integrity of Planned Parenthood.  

	Meg said your statements, not societies. Now answer her with that in
mind, please. 



Glen

|>    It is Pat, NOT Patsy Schroeder, as you know and have been corrected
|>    before.  
|
|As you may know, we owe referring to her as "Patsy" to "Rush and the
|Dittoheads."
|
|These guys, of course, *never* talk down to anybody who's not like them.

    Is this the same Patsy Schroeder that called Christians the "flat-earth
    people"?

>    Is this the same Patsy Schroeder that called Christians the "flat-earth
>    people"?

    I'm sure she was only referring to those christians that give the
    rest of us a bad name.

    Tom

    Meg:
    
    You may be surprised to know that I didn't even connect Limbaugh with
    the name Patsy.  There are people out there who do use the name
    Patsy...Patsy Cline for example.  Also, you may want to consider there
    are alot of feminists out there who might consider Pat to be degrading. 
    There are three individuals I know in my work experiences who insisted
    on being called Susan, Sandra, and Deborah...as opposed to Deb, Sue,
    and Sandy.  I honestly thought Patsy was her nickname in congress and
    no...nobody here has corrected me on this.
    
    -Jack

    By the way, don't take my last note as an apology.  I still can't stand
    the woman.

    | By the way Meg, "strawwoman" is a non word...in other words, it is
    cute
    | but it is not based on any kind of root from German, latin, or greek.
    
    ZZ        Jack, you have an example that you yourself provided.
    
    You'll have to provide more information.  Insufficient data!

 Z   Meg said your statements, not societies. Now answer her with that in
 Z   mind, please. 
    
    Okay...Meg, I personally think Planned Parenthood is a Mass Marketing
    tool for the abortion industry.  And as an afterthought, there is a
    large segment of society that feels the same way.
    
    I'm quite aware of their other services.  Doesn't really matter though. 
    They got dirty hands Meg and that's all people really see.  If I killed
    my brother and donated the insurance money to feed the poor, would this
    make me honorable?  Think about it!
    
    -Jack

  Z  Alexander Sanger, president of Planned Parenthood of New York,
  Z  indicated he doesn't intend to
  Z  wait that long. On March 29, Sanger told the New York Daily News, that
  Z  the New York affiliate,
  Z  which already performs 8,000 surgical abortions a year, would develop a
  Z  methotrexate training program for doctors and begin offering methotrexate 
  Z  abortions by June.
    
    This is copied from a Planned Parenthood Web site.  It caught my eye
    because methotrexate is a drug my wife will be starting on in a few
    months.  
    
    I'm sure it is a coincidence that Alexander Sanger has the same last
    name as the founder...the one who believed minorities were human weeds
    and malcontents.  Is this the falsehood and hatred you claim I'm always
    spewing Meg?  Or don't you believe people should be informed.  Kind of
    amazing that if he were a son or a relative that PP would keep the
    relative of a Nazi sympathizer as part of their leadership.  Of course
    in this case the apple falls far from the tree and we all know that
    these people are looking out for the poor and impoverished.
    
    -Jack

>    I'm sure it is a coincidence that Alexander Sanger has the same last
>    name as the founder...the one who believed minorities were human weeds
>    and malcontents.  Is this the falsehood and hatred you claim I'm always
>    spewing Meg?  Or don't you believe people should be informed.  Kind of
>    amazing that if he were a son or a relative that PP would keep the
>    relative of a Nazi sympathizer as part of their leadership.  Of course
>    in this case the apple falls far from the tree and we all know that
>    these people are looking out for the poor and impoverished.

    This is no more than a rant.  It says conflicting things.
    
    Are you implying Mr. Sanger is guilty by association?

    Where is the wheat and where is the chaff in this message?

    Tom

       <<< LGP30::RJF$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 531.139                      Women Clergy                        139 of 175
APACHE::MYERS                                         6 lines  15-APR-1997 10:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Where is the biblical reference for the probation of woman as
    ministers? And why is the reference seen as universal and for all time
    rather than specific to a given community?

    Eric

    Eric...we'll get to you in a minute.  Keep your shirt on!
    
    Tom, it may be a rant and it may be an unfair one...unsubstantiated. 
    Mr. Sanger may be the total opposite of his mother who obviously was a
    bigoted racist to the core.  Maybe he's like Madelyn Murray O'Hare's
    son who is now a born again Christian.  I doubt it, considering his
    obvious proliferation of the abortion industry.
    
    Eric...please insert smiley face above! :-)  I won't discuss this under
    this string any further!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

.168

>    Is this the same Patsy Schroeder that called Christians the "flat-earth
>    people"?

I don't know.  But if she did, I know of what Christians she speaks.

Richard

    .177
    
    Psst...Jack, Eric's inquiry is more in keeping with the topic of this
    string than is the present drift.
    
    Richard
    

    Psst...Richard, I did that to bug him! :-)  

| <<< Note 531.173 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>


| I'm quite aware of their other services.  

	Please list them. I saying this because I think you will see that there
is much you don't know about the org. This is how I learned more about it, but
I'm sure I will learn more after Meg adds to your list. I really think it will
be enlightening for all of us and I think it will help show where sometimes
when we don't know something (which we are all guilty of and no one can know
everything) but talk like we do, why it upsets someone who knows what is going
on.



Glen

    Abortion Counseling
    Post Abortion Counseling
    Adoption Counseling
    Birth Control and Family Planning
    Prenatal and Post Natal Care
    Proper care and child care
    Resource counseling for private and state funded Child care
    Education on education your children
    Fertility drugs and medical information related to its usage
    Crisis Counseling and suicide prevention
    
    Glen, I'm guessing at these.  No doubt Planned Parenthood offers alot
    of quality services to both inner city poor and wealthy clients.  I'm
    not denying this at all.
    
    What I am suggesting is that Planned Parenthood doesn't get the press
    that is due them...and the reason they don't get the press is because
    they are still carrying the perception...real or unreal, that they are
    the abortion brokers of America...from today all the way back to their
    inception.  In other words Glen...their PR stinks!  What can I say!?
    
    -Jack